[House Hearing, 105 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1998 ========================================================================= HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ________ SUBCOMMITTEE ON VA, HUD, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES JERRY LEWIS, California, Chairman TOM DeLAY, Texas LOUIS STOKES, Ohio JAMES T. WALSH, New York ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina MARK W. NEUMANN, Wisconsin ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Livingston, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. Frank M. Cushing, Paul E. Thomson, Timothy L. Peterson, and Valerie L. Baldwin, Staff Assistants ________ PART 8 TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS ________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations ________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 41-002 O WASHINGTON : 1997 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana, Chairman JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois RALPH REGULA, Ohio LOUIS STOKES, Ohio JERRY LEWIS, California JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota JOE SKEEN, New Mexico JULIAN C. DIXON, California FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia VIC FAZIO, California TOM DeLAY, Texas W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carolina JIM KOLBE, Arizona STENY H. HOYER, Maryland RON PACKARD, California ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio JAMES T. WALSH, New York DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina NANCY PELOSI, California DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA, Pennsylvania HENRY BONILLA, Texas ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, California JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan NITA M. LOWEY, New York DAN MILLER, Florida JOSE E. SERRANO, New York JAY DICKEY, Arkansas ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut JACK KINGSTON, Georgia JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia MIKE PARKER, Mississippi JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey ED PASTOR, Arizona ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Washington CHET EDWARDS, Texas MARK W. NEUMANN, Wisconsin RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, California TODD TIAHRT, Kansas ZACH WAMP, Tennessee TOM LATHAM, Iowa ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1998 ---------- TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS \1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The remaining sections of some curriculum vitae will be kept on file with the Subcommittee. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, BROWNFIELDS, HOUSING OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS, AND CNCS WITNESS HON. JAMES H. MALONEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT Mr. Lewis. Will the meeting come to order. Mr. Maloney, we appreciate your being here at the scheduled hour and you may present your whole testimony or you can submit it for the record and give it to us off the top and you are really great off the top. Mr. Maloney. Well, Mr. Chairman, I can take a hint. Mr. Lewis. Generally speaking, members tend not, like our other witnesses, to give us advance copies of their written statements, that is largely because their staff is inefficient, not because the members do not like to do it. In the meantime, I know that you will submit yours for the record and both of you talk off the top straight. You may choose how you want to proceed. Mr. Maloney. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would like to submit testimony for the record and if I may summarize. Thank you. Mr. Stokes, members of the subcommittee thank you very much for the opportunity to be here this morning to support proposed enhancements to the Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative through the EPA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Brownfields program represents one of the most promising opportunities we have to put together projects that have been traditionally of disparate interest economic development and environmental protection. In the State of Connecticut I represent a community, including the Naugatuck River Watershed, once known as the ``Brass Valley'' for its formidable levels of metal fabrication work. It was a principal supplier for the United States Department of Defense, among other major customers. The Naugatuck Valley today is home to better than 20 percent of the Brownfields sites listed by the State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. It has an unemployment rate that hovers just below 10 percent. The Brownfields initiative will help formerly productive commission's, like those in the Naugatuck River Valley thrive again. Congressman Shays and I have introduced a bill which will increase the EPA's Brownfields' budget from $36.7 million to $87.4 million for each of the next four years to fund site assessments, provide remediation planning grants, and capitalize revolving loan funds at sites that are ready for cleanup. The bill also creates a HUD Brownfields budget of $25 million over the next four years to leverage State, local and private funds to foster new development and create jobs after the sites have been cleaned. Given the opportunity, our legislation affords Brownfields can be successfully returned to productive use. Let me offer, for the Subcommittee's consideration, a specific example. Following its closure after years of industrial activities, a brass manufacturer, an approximately 100-acre factory site fell into disuse in the city of Waterbury, Connecticut. As a State Senator I worked to secure funding for the environmental cleanup of the site. Once clean, this site was made available to the private sector. The private sector did all the actual investment. This fall the residents of Waterbury will see the opening of one of the largest shopping malls in all of New England. This new use, a successful Brownfields cleanup, will add hundreds of millions of dollars to the city of Waterbury's tax base. Mr. Lewis. It I could just interrupt you just for a moment, and maybe go off the record. [Recess.] Mr. Lewis. Back on the record. Mr. Maloney. Well, this mall adds hundreds of millions of dollars to the Waterbury tax base and 4,000 jobs to the State of Connecticut. Mr. Lewis. You know, Chris, once a State Senator always a State Senator, cannot get over it. Mr. Maloney. Chris and I feel that success in Waterbury, Bridgeport and other sites can be replicated across the country, provided we are willing to take the first steps represented by the Brownfields initiatives. [The statement of Mr. Maloney follows:] [Pages 3 - 4--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Wednesday, April 30, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, BROWNFIELDS, HOPWA AND CNCS WITNESS HON. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT Mr. Lewis. Okay, good. Mr. Shays. I will jump in right away, Mr. Chairman. You have my statement. We just know that the way to rebuild our urban areas is to bring businesses back in to pay taxes and create jobs. And they are just bypassing the urban areas because the land has negative value. You actually have to pay someone to take over that land. And what the Brownfields does is it does not pay for cleanup. It pays for really having a determination of what actually exists there. And with the $200,000 that Bridgeport got from EPA they brought that into $2 million of other funds coming in. It has been probably the most significant thing I have seen to help urban areas, the most significant thing and we are starting to rebuild Bridgeport, Democratic Mayor and Republican Member of Congress and it is a team and a Republican Congress and a Democratic President, we are all working together on this and would love you to give consideration. [The statement of Mr. Shays follows:] [Pages 6 - 11--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. I will yield to Mr. Stokes after I make this one comment that EPA has come to us in this year's budget and they are asking for $600 million of extra money for Superfund and I must say with the history of that program and what we have not done to fix it, I would urge them to have a bias that is even more strongly expressed than yours, that Brownfields is an avenue that really has produced results and is very significant. So, your testimony is welcome and your point is a very good one. Mr. Shays. And we will talk to EPA, as well. Mr. Lewis. Yes, good. Mr. Stokes. Mr. Stokes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to commend Mr. Maloney and Mr. Shays for their testimony here on Brownfield. This, of course, is an area, as you know, that is very, very important to me as a high priority and the President's budget has requested a substantial increase in this area. There is some concern, I think, on the part of members of this Committee that the Superfund, itself, ought to have a priority over Brownfields. I do not share that particular philosophy. And I think your testimony here helps very much to try and put this in perspective so that people understand that if we are talking about bringing our cities back that this is one of the most viable ways of doing it and I commend you for your testimony. Mr. Lewis. And we also commend you for your brevity. [Laughter.] Mrs. Meek. If I may comment on? Mr. Lewis. All you would like. Mrs. Meek. I think one of the most viable methodologies for bringing back these areas is the Brownfields. We have been trying since I have been here to get such an initiative done and I am so glad to see these two gentlemen have really come forth with something. I am hoping that it is fundable and will go through the process because it takes a very long time with EPA to do anything within the inner-city areas. And I do hope that we can cut some of the red tape when it comes to getting these kind of programs done, two to three years and all of that time and many times they just have grants that are hard to get and it is a difficult task. And I wish the Committee would look into that as well. Mr. Lewis. Good. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Chairman, I share the gentlelady's views. It is inexcusable that it takes so long to get these things done. In a bipartisan way we need to move this process along. Mr. Lewis. I would like the gentleman to know that you have the benefit of being the first public witnesses at the Committee. By the time we get to 5:45 on Friday, we will not have questions from every member, but in the meantime. [Laughter.] Mr. Shays. You got a great Committee, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.] I just have a thing on HOPWA? Mr. Lewis. Sure, absolutely. Mr. Shays. I would like to take the Committee's time now to request consideration of additional funds for HOPWA, Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS. We have gone in 1995 to 186, and down to 171 and then up in 1997 to 196, thank you for the Chairman for reviewing that and the Administration is asking for $404 million and we would like you to consider a request for 250. And I would just say that briefly approximately 70 new AIDS cases were reported in 1996 and one-third to one-half of the people with AIDS are actually homeless and think of the danger of them becoming so if they are not now and just comparing the acute care facility cost of $1,000 versus the HOPWA of $55 to $110. So, we hope that that does not get lost in the mix. Mr. Lewis. I hope the members will be patient with me, but let me mention, for the record, for the first time an item that occurred just recently. As a new member of this Committee in 1981, I was the sponsor of the initial funding--it was a very small amount--the initial funding for research relative to AIDS. In 1981, most of my members on both sides of the aisle did not know what it was. But, nonetheless, over the years we have done an awful lot. Recently, I had a gentleman come to my office who was lobbying me, of all things, regarding a special program that relates to prostate cancer. He lobbied me on this issue a year earlier. This year, when he came in though, the gentleman was wearing a baseball cap for he had lung cancer. And he brought with him a chart that showed the relative money made available for research for AIDS versus a combination of lung, prostate and breast cancer. The figures were astonishingly different. And priorities, as dollars get slim, are very difficult. My friends who have worked with me on the AIDS issue need to know that there is that reality out there and the numbers of people dying from breast cancer, for example, for which we are not getting nearly the numbers of answers we would like make it difficult, at the same time the challenges are very real. We know this is a worldwide problem and we have got to deal with it. Mr. Shays. The issue though as it relates to housing is a big problem. Mr. Lewis. I totally understand. Mr. Shays. And I do concur that we sometimes get out of balance in terms of it, we do not put enough, for instance, in prostate cancer and that is a disease that a number of us are trying to really pay attention to it. Mr. Lewis. In this Committee, we have been asking the head of Veterans Affairs, the Secretary, to help us really accelerate the coordination of Veterans-controlled pool groups of people who can help us with breast cancer, and with prostate et cetera but moving down that path is difficult. But, nonetheless, your testimony is welcome and we very much understand. Any other comments are welcome or lack of comments, just as well. Mr. Shays. Just a question, does Mrs. Meek try to sometimes take over the Committee and pretend that she is just a grandma and, you know, she is not. Mr. Lewis. When I wished her happy birthday yesterday she promised me she would be good today. [Laughter.] Mr. Shays. I consider her the most powerful member of all of Congress. She does it quietly. Mr. Stokes. All of us concur in that. [Laughter.] Mr. Shays. Mr. Chairman, if I could just take care of the third item, I do not appear before many appropriators but I do, evidently, have a special interest in your Committee. Mr. Lewis. Well, one more? Mr. Shays. I am willing to look for offsets. Mr. Lewis. Please note that this gentleman asked for three items. Mr. Shays. He can only ask for one, Mr. Chairman. I just happen to be a very strong supporter of national service and I do put my money where my mouth is. I did vote against giving it to the Department of Veterans Affairs as one of them. I believe in this program. I do not understand particularly why Republicans want to give away grants in education instead of having young kids earn it. And, frankly, in Bridgeport, Connecticut, we have gangs. We have gangs of AmeriCorps Volunteers that are in total opposition in a sense, a wonderful contrast to the other kinds of gangs we have. And these young people, for a minimum income, basically are rebuilding our city and, yet, they have one grant that is left to them and the only way they can spend it is on education. And it seems to me rather than having grants or loans, have young people work for them. And I just cannot tell you how strongly I believe in national service. And one last point, the Administration to its credit, made this a decentralized program. Two-thirds of the program is decentralized and we have to be careful, as Republicans, that when we see a bad program we just say, see, see it is a bad program. Well, a lot of times the bad programs are local and State, you know, you have more innovation. Mr. Lewis. I think that is a very important point and the Committee has noted that there are really excellent programs and there are questionable programs. I think evaluation is the key to all that and help the ones that are working. In the meantime, we have a new era of volunteerism across the country, you know, the big conference over the weekend where we were encouraging employers to pay people to take a week off to volunteer somewhere which is a very interesting form of volunteerism. Mr. Shays. Well, it is encouragement. The one thing I do know as a former Peace Corps volunteer, whatever you give you get back more and it makes you want to give more and you get back more. And it just, to me, it goes up in geometric proportions. Mr. Lewis. The gentleman notes for the record that the most sophisticated form of selflessness is giving. Mr. Shays. I concur. Thank you. Mr. Lewis. Thank you. Mrs. Meek. Thank you very much. Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lampson? Wednesday, April 30, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, GULF COAST HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE RESEARCH CENTER WITNESS HON. RICK LAMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Mr. Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I only have one request. Mr. Lewis. Thank you. As I said earlier, your entire statement will be in the record and if you present your interest with brevity, we would appreciate it. Mr. Lampson. I am here to talk to you about my support for the continued line-item funding in the amount of $2.5 million for the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research Center. It is a university-based consortium. This Center carries out a program of peer-reviewed research, evaluation, testing and development of a demonstration of alternative and innovative technologies that may be used in the minimization, destruction and handling of hazardous wastes associated with the petroleum, chemical and other Gulf Coast industries. Since the establishment of the center in 1988, it has sponsored 300 multi-year projects with 200 different principal investigators and approximately 400 graduate students at affiliated universities. The program has produced more than 600 publications, theses, technical presentations and has been extremely successful in leveraging additional outside research support for projects originally funded through the center through Federal, State and industrial-related research grants. The major focus is in the area of technology, invention and modification, emerging technologies and remediation in waste treatment. The center's technology transfer programs are designed to bring technologies for cleaner environment out of the laboratory and into the field, where we think that practical application is going to help. The center operates the Gulf Coast Environmental Library for both universities for academic and non-academic public. It provides a coordination of activities of the research consortium at six different universities--Texas A&M, University of Texas, Rice University, the University of Houston, Lamar University, Louisiana State University, Mississippi University, the University of Alabama, and the University of Central Florida. The center enters into research agreements with private research organizations and industry and if you do not mind, I would like to introduce the several representatives of some of those who are here. Dr. Bill Baxter of Texas A&M; Dr. Minosh Chopra from Central Florida; Dennis Clifford from the University of Houston; Dr. Jack Hopper, who is the current director of the center and David Koch, both of LaMar University; Dr. Danny Rable of Louisiana State University; and Dr. C. Herb Ward from Rice University and then the former director, Dr. Allen Ford is with us also. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling the hearing to order and I request the Subcommittee provide continued support for funding for the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research Center through the EPA Office of Research and Development in the amount of $2.5 million. [The statement of Mr. Lampson follows:] [Pages 17 - 22--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lampson, I might suggest to you but by way of you suggesting to your guests who are here, that it probably would not hurt at all if they were to discuss this matter personally with a member of this Committee, Mr. DeLay, and also the Chairman, I believe of the full Committee, I think he is from Louisiana, but I am not sure of that. Mr. Lampson. We will, indeed do that. Mr. Lewis. Any other comments or questions? Mr. Stokes. No, thank you, I appreciate your testimony very much. Mr. Lampson. Thank you very much, thanks a lot. Mr. Lewis. Thank you. ---------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY--CLEAN WATER ACT WITNESS HON. BARNEY FRANK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Mr. Lewis. Mr. McGovern and Mr. Frank are here, I believe. Barney Frank, my friend from the gym and he is not smiling this morning. You may both proceed as you wish, your statements will be included in their entirety in the record. Mr. Frank. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have been very understanding. I have been here previously with Mr. McGovern's predecessor and we managed to work on a bipartisan basis on this. We have several projects in Massachusetts which came later along, in a number of cases they were court-ordered, and Federal law changed as a result. There is a substantially lower level of Federal funding, in general, for clean water projects than would have been had we done them earlier, obviously. They are court-ordered, they are interstate in impact. They affect Rhode Island, they affect other New England States, they affect the Atlantic Ocean. And what we have is a set of requests. In the past the Subcommittee has graciously under both parties acknowledged the problem and made a move towards helping, obviously not overwhelming. I should say all of us, I think, yourself as well, would agree that overall legislation would be very good, it would be nice if they would reauthorize the Clean Water Act and clean this up---- Mr. Lewis. That is the problem. Mr. Frank [continuing]. And get you out of this. I appreciate that you are stuck with the cleanup. I know as a member of an authorizing committee, the authorizing committees, on the one hand they are criticizing the appropriations committee for interfering, and on the other hand, leaves you all the tough decisions and then not do them. And this is a clear case where if the authorizing committee was doing its job, you would not be in this bind and I appreciate your responding. In fact, let me just say one thing at the outset where I would hope we could get the authorizing committee to move. Even if they did not do--and I know you have some influence over this, I would hope--even if they do not do an overall clean water reauthorization because they are focused on Superfund and other things in that subcommittee, simply allowing municipalities and States the option of extending the bond term would have a great impact in alleviating the financial crunch. We have a situation now where municipalities have to finance projects or regions have to finance projects that cost $150 or $200 million with a 20-year bond term. Now, the life of the equipment here is 40, 50, 60 and 70 years. We are talking about equipment that lasts far beyond the 20 years. And the statute forces them to borrow and pay back in 20 years and it would be as if people were told their mortgage had to be paid off in half the time. Mr. Lewis. Barney, I think you are touching on a very important point. And I wonder if maybe you could have one of your staff people help develop that in a formal way and maybe you and I will communicate to the Committee. Mr. Frank. I would be glad to do that. Because I have talked to the Subcommittee Chairman and his general sense is, well, yes, that is something that is noncontroversial. The House has already passed it but it is sort of literally bogged down in the wetlands issue. And if we could find some way to break that out, Mr. Chairman, frankly we would get out of your hair. Mr. Lewis. Yes. I frankly think it is a very worthwhile effort. Mr. Frank. And it is a win-win situation. It is a way of spreading this out to max the benefits and, of course, the problem we face is that in a lot of cases people say, well, you are going to pay more over time. Sure, but what we face is the prospect that you will drive out a lot of business and industry in the short-term because of the high cost and then there will be nobody left to enjoy it when it is paid off. Mr. Lewis. It is a very good suggestion. Mr. Frank. All right, we will pursue it. Mr. Lewis. Please. Mr. Frank. Let me just say that we would hope to also renew our request pending that and, frankly, if we can get this through this would be the last time we would have to ask for this. We have gotten $1.5 million, I believe, for both Fall River/New Bedford and there is $50 million for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. We hoped we could continue that level. But I would stress again, if we could get to that 40-year bonding thing I think we could stop making those requests and save some money and it would be win-win. Thank you. ---------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY--CLEAN WATER ACT WITNESS HON. JAMES P. McGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Mr. Lewis. Mr. McGovern. Mr. McGovern. Yes, I just want to agree with everything that Barney Frank just said. I mean I wish we could extend the bond term. I think that would alleviate a lot of the problems but specifically we are here. There is $3 million in the Administration's budget earmarked for Bristol County which includes Fall River and New Bedford. Barney represents New Bedford and we both represent half of Fall River, apiece. And, specifically, we are hoping for $1.5 million for Fall River combined shore overflow project which is having a devastating impact on the city. And, as you know, a lot of communities are faced with these kinds of projects and are having a difficult time financing it without increasing taxes and discouraging economic growth. So, you know, that is what we are here for basically. One last thing as a final mention. You know, I do not know whether this Committee is going to do any earmarks for the safe drinking water projects. But if you do, I would simply point out that in the conference committee report last year a number of communities were singled out, 24 specific projects that were to get priority funding within the bill, Worcester and Attleboro, were both named. I represent both of those areas. And they are incurring right now major costs with regard to safe drinking water. And I hope you would consider those two communities if, in fact, you decide to do earmarking. But we are here basically together to talk about the money for Bristol County and Fall River and New Bedford. Mr. Lewis. Since this is the first time in the Committee, Mr. McGovern, let me mention that we do have some difficulty in this bill especially on the House side with earmarking in general. Because often there are people who are looking into this bill and they would love to have individual targets in it. If a person has a project and it loses on the floor then in conference it is hard to do things. So, sometimes there is special attention in conference but in clean drinking water, in that area, because most States have not passed the laws that are necessary to be able to accept the money, there has been very little action in the recent past. So, your helping us address that question as well would be appreciated. Mr. McGovern. I do not want this Committee to violate any of the precedents, but since these two communities were singled out last year for special consideration, you know, if you do anything I hope you will take that into consideration. ---------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY--CLEAN WATER ACT WITNESS HON. JOHN F. TIERNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Mr. Lewis. John, welcome. Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, my nephew, Jimmy, was a young guy when Jim Tierney was running for governor and something in the book was not going to hang in his room. [Laughter.] Mr. Frank. I used to have a brother-in-law named Jerry Lewis but they got divorced. [Laughter.] I just want to correct myself because on the NWRA I read that the President asked for $100 million and I know that $50 million was what they got last year to do it. But I would hope that they could get that but also I believe the 40-year bond term would alleviate them a lot as well. So, that one, I think, does a great deal to help everybody. Mr. Lewis. Okay. Mr. Frank. Thank you. Mrs. Meek. You used an acronym, what does it mean, the last one? Mr. Frank. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, I am sorry. I should not have assumed that. Mrs. Meek. Thank you. That is all right. Mr. Frank. That is Greater Boston, the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. Mrs. Meek. Thank you. Mr. Lewis. Thank you for asking. I did not know either but I was embarrassed to ask. Mr. Frank. I thought the Chairman had heard more about that than he wanted to hear. Mr. McGovern. Thank you. Mr. Lewis. You are welcome, thank you very much. Mr. Tierney. I just wanted to add something very briefly. Obviously, I support their efforts on that because it is in my State and the little bit that touches upon the bottom part of my district. The major part of my district, however, is the South Essex Sewer District. And in years past, we have not gotten the attention that the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority and others throughout the country have received, although we suffer the same exact effects and consequences of funding or no funding on that. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, because last year you did acknowledge and I understand all of the aspects that went into the consideration and I appreciate them very much but nothing has changed. We still need that kind of attention just as much as others throughout the country and the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority does. The impact on our communities is severe and probably more so than the homeowners of the NWRA region because we are a smaller base and the impact is greater and that project is probably going to level out at around $29 million for the South Essex Sewer District. That means a community like Salem, where I am from, and what houses the plant and the secondary treatment facility, is going to go from about $5 million up to almost $7 million; particularly for senior citizens, but for everybody that is a tremendous impact and they need that help. The money that you gave us last year will go toward that. We have got about $4 million that we have to spend just on bringing in a 20-year old primary plant up to snuff. So, we obviously need whatever help that you can give us in that regard. I would hope that you will continue on with the same philosophy that you did last year acknowledging that we have the same difficulties and even though you give us less than you give the others, it certainly is helpful. I mean we need every bit that we can get. Other towns in our district, the cities in our district like Gloucester--I think you heard from Mayor Tobey or are going to hear from him when he comes down--are suffering assessments up to $20,000 or $22,000 on a household to tie into sewer. Devastating to people, particularly seniors, but mostly young families too. It is just almost impossible for them to get that kind of funding and do that. And I appreciate and acknowledge all of that and, so, I just come simply to thank you for what you did last year and to ask you to, please, be consistent and try to do it again for us this year, because it is a serious, serious matter, as you know, and whatever you do would be seriously appreciated. Mr. Lewis. Mr. Tierney, I believe before you came in, Barney Frank recommended that extending the length of the bond time could be very helpful. If Massachusetts would take the initiative, kind of in a bipartisan way, to address that question to our Committees, Mr. Stokes and I are very interested it that, so, that could be helpful. Mr. Tierney. That would certainly be a tool I think our mayors would like to have the option for and some of them have reacted well and some of them have been a little skeptical whether they want to amortize over that period of time, but I think it is helpful to have that option in the arsenal and we can work on that. Mr. Lewis. Okay. Mr. Tierney. Thank you very much. Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much. ---------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. VIRGINIA'S MARINE RESEARCH AND STRANDING CENTER WITNESS HON. OWEN PICKETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA MAC RAWLS, DIRECTOR, THE VIRGINIA MARINE SCIENCE MUSEUM Mr. Pickett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased and honored to be here today to present Mr. Mac Rawls. We are here in support of an appropriation for a marine stranding program in Virginia Beach. Mac is the director of the Virginia Marine Science Museum, which is a fairly extensive museum complex in the city of Virginia Beach, adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean. And they have been conducting a marine stranding program on their own, mainly with volunteers. They have provided some of the funding themselves and I think they have got some funding from some private sources. Mr. Rawls. That is right. Mr. Pickett. But this has limited their ability to respond to requirements in the area for salvaging marine mammals that get stranded. He is the expert. Let me let him tell you about it. Thank you. Mr. Lewis. Mr. Rawls, if you have formal material you would like to present for the record, we will include it in the record and we would prefer that you talk to us off the top and not read the entire statement. Mr. Rawls. Okay, we will do that. Mr. Lewis. That way we have the opportunity to spend more time carefully evaluating your request. Mr. Rawls. Let me say, first of all, I appreciate the time that you are giving to hear this request and to let us come here and Congressman Pickett, I appreciate your kind words. Mr. Pickett. You had better use your time to tell him about this program. [Laughter.] Mr. Lewis. Mr. Rawls, you should know that I have a very serious personal interest in things that relate to marine life et cetera, so, I will pay attention to your formal statement myself. So, just tell me what you are doing. Mr. Rawls. All right. Let me read to you just three statements in here around which our whole request is based and then the rest of it I will summarize and hopefully I will get a question or two from you. Mr. Lewis. That will be fine. Mr. Rawls. Three strong points. Marine mammals, strictly coastal migratory, Atlantic bottle-nosed dolphins have great potential for serving as indicators of the water quality of the Mid-Atlantic States. I do not think this is currently being pursued to its great advantage. Number two, there is currently little systematic effort to collect baseline data for pollutants found to be present in stranded Mid-Atlantic marine mammals, most of which are bottle- nosed dolphins. Number three, because of its geographical location and the existing marine mammal stranding research resources, developed by the Virginia Marine Museum, Virginia Beach is a strongly logical location for establishing a research center for measuring pollutants found to be present in marine mammals. Now, let me add a little explanation that goes along with that. The Mid-Atlantic States, for purposes of this presentation, we are defining those primarily as they relate to the range of this particular animal, and those States would be bordered on the north by New Jersey and as far south as North Carolina. And they are fairly unique, as much as they have nice sloping sandy beaches, fairly shallow waters and they are inhabited by, primarily in terms of cetaceans, the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin, which is an interesting animal also. This animal is very gregarious in its habits. Interestingly enough they have developed three stocks and over time they have adapted to certain factors of the marine environment. There is one stock that lives offshore and migrates primarily in the deeper waters. There is a second stock that is a residential stock that lives around Florida and the Gulf States. Then there is this third stock, the one that we are concerned about, that migrates between North Carolina and as far north as New Jersey. They are great indicators, perhaps, of the water quality that exists in waters off those States. Much of their potential in terms of being used for that purpose has gone untapped, primarily because we have not established a systematic way of collecting the data from the tissue samples and other investigations that we do in the course of dealing with stranding marine animals. There is a great potential here, and it has not been realized. What we would like to do at the Virginia Marine Science Museum, which is an agency of the City of Virginia Beach, is to increase our capacity to do research and particularly the lab studies and control the lab processes so that we can begin to build a data base so that when pollutants are found in these animals that we will have something to compare that to, to tell us whether it is high, low, indifferent, toxic, whatever, and perhaps cause of death not only for these animals but perhaps dangerous to humans who also inhabit those same areas. Our stranding program, which was formed in 1987 in response to a massive die-off of dolphins in our area--in 1987 over 200 of these animals died and washed up upon our shoreline--it is primarily staffed by volunteers, although we have a permanent staff that oversees their work, we have about 150 people who are responsible for many of the things that we do in our stranding operation. I do not think there is any other agency that could possibly do what we do in such a cost-effective manner simply because we have so much volunteer help. [The statement of Mr. Rawls follows:] [Pages 30 - 35--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Mr. Rawls, if I could interrupt your commentary? Mr. Rawls. Sure. Mr. Lewis. Let me ask you this general question. While I am very empathetic to the potential value of what you are discussing here, in an environment where dollars are shrinking at the Federal level in many an account that we deal with ranging from VA medical care to housing, et cetera, we have to ask ourselves the question, be very careful the farmer says before you buy the cow that you know how you are going to feed it. Mr. Rawls. Right. Mr. Lewis. So, what do you anticipate, if you had the $600,000 here, would be your annual costs, your ongoing needs for food from that point forward, and where would you get it? Mr. Rawls. Well, I would think it would be considerably less than what we are asking for. Mr. Lewis. That was not my question, where do you think it will come from, here or? Mr. Rawls. Perhaps some and you might be eager to fund some of our future research based upon what we have found. Mr. Lewis. Well, it might be but in the meantime, I want to hear what you have to say. Mr. Rawls. But, primarily, we would continue to do what we have done which is to finance it from private contributions and grants from other agencies and so on. I do not think you would be the only governmental agency that would have an interest in this. Did I answer your question? Mr. Lewis. You answered my question. I believe my colleagues may want to ask further about that. But let me mention to you a session I had this morning in my office with a new president and former member of a State university location in California. I suggested to him, as he goes forward with his construction program where he is looking for Federal money, that he might consider consulting, a contractual consulting relationship with a guy who used to be the President of San Diego State, for that fellow use to raise private monies in numbers five times any other State college in our State. For, indeed, Federal dollars for education have never really been more than about 10 percent and, in the meantime, dollars are getting tougher here. So, I just really mention that for the long-term, not necessarily any judgment about establishing the center. Mr. Rawls. Well, most of the money we are asking for here is start-up money to be able to do the kind of research, equipment and provide for that. And, so, the operational part is not the biggest expense of this. So, I think later on that we would not be coming back each year asking for $600,000. Mr. Lewis. Okay. Well, I think you understand my point and I heard you clearly. So, Mr. Stokes? Mr. Stokes. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to Mr. Rawls and Mr. Pickett, I was interested in the questions being posed by the Chairman because I know that probably there is no one else in the House who has as much information, knowledge and expertise in marine water life than the Chairman of this Committee. And, so, that is sort of just personal involvement in that area for most of his life. And I was interested in what questions he would have to pose to you because he started out by saying to you that you had someone who shared with you your concerns about marine life and I know that to be a fact. So, I think if you can answer his questions in other regards, then I think you will be way ahead of the game. Mr. Rawls. Okay. Mr. Lewis. So, we ought to communicate with each other further and your testimony I will pay careful attention to and Mr. Pickett will make sure I am very well-informed, I am sure. Mr. Rawls. Well, I think this is indicative of the volunteer help that we have. We deal with all kinds of marine animals. This happens to be a sea turtle. And we have 150 people who staff this program. It is not unusual for them to stay up all night long doing these kinds of things. There they are tube-feeding a sea turtle. Here we are taking tissue samples from a pygmy sperm whale which we had for about three weeks. And often whales wash up on our shorelines. Here is a humped-back whale which we are doing a necropsy on which is where we collect these tissue samples. Mr. Lewis. Let us make sure that Mrs. Browner sees these photos, huh? [Laughter.] Mrs. Meek. I think the staff has tremendous opportunities in terms of education. The University of Miami has a similar project on that end. And it is funded by both public and private resources. So, I do think you are on the right track here. And I know what contributions it would make if you are able to get it going. Mr. Lewis. I guess that means Mr. Pickett would have to spend some time with my colleague from Florida, as well. [Laughter.] Mrs. Meek. You would be surprised at the kind of research that has come out of the center. Mr. Pickett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lewis. Thank you. Mr. Rawls. I have some information I would be glad to leave because you are interested in reading a little more about our stranding program and what we are up to. Mr. Lewis. I do not want to take all of your material but in the meantime I am very interested and I will make sure the members have it also. Thank you. Mr. Rawls. Thank you very much, thank you for your time. Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Rawls. ---------- -- -------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY WITNESS HON. EARL BLUMENAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON Mr. Lewis. Mr. Blumenauer. As you know, we will take your entire statement for the record and you can give it all or summarize, whatever you would like. Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have submitted something and I will be out of here in two minutes. But I---- Mr. Lewis. We are pleased to have you, but in the meantime. Mr. Blumenauer. I know you have a lot on the agenda. The issue that I guess I am concerned about when we are watching what is coming with the National Weather Service now, we are hearing potential additional problems with flooding around the country, I think it is appropriate to just stop by for two minutes to reinforce for FEMA's pre-disaster mitigation program. I know it is not in vogue to talk about government regulation, land use planning, all of that, but I do think we are in a situation now where the taxpayers are spending billions of dollars to try and bail out situations where people were building where God did not intend them to build according to standards that really are not quite as strong as we can and should do. I come from a community in Oregon where we have had some land-use standards that way people do not build in flood plains, where we are in the process of reinforcing buildings at great cost to the public and to the private but it is going to, in the long-term, it is going to reduce expenditures because we know the earthquake is coming. I would hope that two things could happen, Mr. Chairman. One is that the President's request for $50 million for pre- disaster mitigation programs for FEMA, really, I think deserves serious consideration, perhaps even beefing up because spending money early we know is going to save us money in the long term. And also, if in the wisdom of the Committee that we could think of some opportunities to provide some incentives for communities that are doing the right thing upfront, where they are doing the appropriate land-use planning, the retrofit, this stronger building standards, so, that there is an incentive for people to do something that is occasionally is unpopular to try and do things a little differently. You have got an opportunity with this program and with the signals that you send to make a big difference and it is going to pay dividends for years to come and it is going to help have livable communities, save tax dollars, and prevent loss of life and property. [The statement of Mr. Blumenauer follows:] [Page 39--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Mr. Blumenauer, for the Chairman--the members can speak for themselves--I could not agree with your point more. FEMA is a much different agency today than it was 10 years ago. They are doing a lot of good work in this subject area in this subject area. And while we have encouraged it, I think our encouraging it used to go further than that. So, we appreciate very much your testimony. Mr. Stokes. I just join with the Chairman, Mr. Blumenauer, in thanking you for your testimony. Just this past week, the Chairman and I visited some FEMA operations in the field just to get a better feel for ourselves in terms of the precise area that you are testifying on today. So, I appreciate it very much. Mr. Lewis. You may be interested in knowing that last year we put money in the bill for the very item you are discussing when it was not even requested. So, we feel the same way. Thank you very much. Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you very much. ---------- -- -------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WITNESS HON. PETE J. VISCLOSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA Mr. Lewis. I have heard you talk off the top, you are fabulous. Mr. Visclosky. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to be fabulous, short and get some money. My statement is entered in the record and I would simply encourage the Chair, the members of the Committee to consider special purpose grants. I understand the policy has been not to encourage those in the last couple of years, but just have some very basic needs in my Congressional district. I have three requests pending. Two for northwest Indiana. One is in the amount of $2.3 million to help to begin to provide sewer and water service to a community of Green Acres in Hobart, Indiana, that has a serious drainage and water quality problem. The other is a renewed request from the last year of $1 million for demolition monies for the City of Gary. We have just a horrific rebuilding program and while we want to build things in Gary, Indiana, part of our problem is we have over 3,000 abandoned sites as well that, in many cases, harbor those who are engaged in criminal activities that devalue property values in the neighborhood and no longer serves any useful purpose. The city, while it has experienced some new revenue during the last year, is just desperately strapped for funds. And I appreciate, as always, that both yourself and Mr. Stokes, Mrs. Meek and the members of the Committee will give me every serious consideration and I thank you for that. [The statement of Mr. Visclosky follows:] [Pages 41 - 42--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Let me ask about those abandoned sites just very briefly. Are those sites largely publicly owned or are they privately held? Mr. Blumenauer. Mr. Chairman, most of them are publicly held and most of those, also now, would revert to public authorities, the county, because of forfeiture on property tax payments and things such as that. Obviously, if some of these dwellings can be rehabilitated for lower-income, moderate-income housing, we would like to do that but many of these cases and most are residential structures, although many are also commercial structures. They have simply long-since been abandoned, taxes have not been paid and they simply have not reverted to the public list because the County, obviously, wants to avoid any liability to have attached to ownership. Mr. Lewis. Let me mention to you that I have been discussing this very subject with my colleague from California, George Brown who's district is adjacent to me. He has my hometown in my district and there are like 800 homes that are boarded up and vacant. Mr. Visclosky. How did they get away with that? Mr. Lewis. Well, you know, communities do change. But in the meantime, the problem that you are identifying by way of this request is a national problem and we need to have input regarding how we, long-range, go about handling these difficulties or helping communities turn themselves around. So, your testimony is welcome and I must say that we have been very cautious, as you know, this Committee about earmarking, in no small part, because people love to focus on our bill when they go to the floor. Mr. Visclosky. I understand. Mr. Lewis. So, sometimes this work finds its solution in conference and sometimes it does not. Would the State legislation apply to Indiana on the clean drinking water question? Mr. Visclosky. I think so. Mr. Lewis. Last year we did not earmark any clean drinking water projects because so many of the States have not passed the legislation that is necessary for them to receive those monies. I do not know the condition of Indiana, but in the meantime---- Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman, I assume Indiana is in good shape in that regard because three years ago the Subcommittee did earmark monies for another very similar project in another community. Mr. Lewis. Special purpose grants are items of interest to many people who address themselves to our Committee and we deal with that one step at a time. But I must say that with Mrs. Meek on the Committee I am not sure if it will be one step at a time, it may be---- Mrs. Meek. I did not hear that last statement, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.] Mr. Stokes. It was a compliment, Mrs. Meek. Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much. Mr. Visclosky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Stokes. Mr. Stokes. I would just like to thank Mr. Visclosky, also, Mr. Chairman, and his testimony is always very reasoned, very thoughtful and I appreciate very much his appearance here. Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Stokes, thank you very much and thank you, Mrs. Meek. Mrs. Meek. Thank you. ---------- -- -------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. ALVIN C. YORK VA HOSPITAL IN MY HOMETOWN OF MURFREESBORO, TENNESSEE WITNESS HON. BART GORDON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE Mr. Lewis. Mr. Gordon, we will take your statement for the record. We encourage your staff not to allow you to read it all. In the meantime, if you would give us an idea of what you want us to hear, we would be happy to have it. Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Former Chairman, and Mrs. Meek, I am glad to have a chance to be with you today. I will be brief. I want to talk to you about the Alvin C. York VA Hospital in my hometown of Murfreesboro. I can speak with some authority since my father worked there for 27 years, I was a volunteer there, my uncle worked there and I am very familiar with the facility. This is the only time in 12 years of being in Congress that I have really come to make a request for this facility. They are a psychiatric hospital basically and they have very antiquated facilities for their patients in terms of the physical plant. They still have baths and they are like on the floors, they are communal baths. They are not places for women Veterans to be able to have baths and things of this nature. And it simply needs to be renovated. That is why the VA, the Federal VA has put it on their deficiency list. Last year, this Committee voted $2.3 million for the design. They have full disclosure. They have only obligated 10 percent of that. But within 30 days they will obligate the remaining 90 percent of which then they will need $26 million to do the renovation. And, so, that is really where we are. [The statement of Mr. Gordon follows:] [Pages 45 - 47--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Mr. Gordon, as you know, within the authorizing swirl around here there is often discussion among authorizing chairmen and other members that the appropriations committee tries to do too much of their work. And, so, in connection with that, I would be interested in knowing whether the authorizing committee intends to authorize this construction process and have you discussed it with them? Mr. Gordon. We would hope so. We have made that request and they have not yet dealt with it. Mr. Lewis. Okay. I would appreciate it if you would help us pursue that matter, we will pursue it as well. Mr. Gordon. All right. Mr. Lewis. And in the meantime, I understand your situation. The committee is attempting to help walk through a policy relative to construction, reconstruction of old projects whether clinics, better service needs, et cetera because of the reality that veterans not only are not necessarily located in concentrations where big facilities are, and they move around a lot. So, as we do walk our way through that, every community that has an existing facility has a problem. We understand, but in the meantime we are very anxious to work with you on that. Mr. Gordon. And you have limited funds and I understand that. So, sort of the process here is again, the VA has identified it as a deficiency. Mr. Lewis. Correct. Mr. Gordon. You have provided funds for the design. Mr. Lewis. Correct. Mr. Gordon. Those funds will be 100 percent allocated within 30 days and then the construction will need to go forward. So, I think we are trying--and then the piece I left out is we need to be sure that we go to authorizing committee and hopefully we will do this in the responsible way. If I could make a quick report. Some years ago, this committee appropriated some funds for what is called Bradley Academy in my hometown of Murfreesboro. After the Civil War, well, actually James K. Polk went to school at this location. Then from 1860 to about 1960-something, from post-Civil War to post-integration it was the only one in the community for the African-American community. If you have parents in the African-American community from my community your mother, grandfather, great uncles, somebody has gone to that school. And it was in horrible disrepair. This committee had provided some funds that had been leveraged into additional funds for that very historic part of the community to be renovated. It is being used or just almost completed now, so that we can use it for meetings, also a museum. It is a place for African-Americans to bring their kids and grandkids and say this is where I went to school, this is where your grandfather went to school. And here is a photograph of somebody that went here that is a doctor, that is a lawyer, that is an athlete or whatever. And it is a great source of pride and help for our community and I thank you for this. And I hope to bring photographs back soon to show you---- Mr. Lewis. Well, Mr. Gordon, I was going to suggest that as you go about convincing Mr. Stokes that we ought to visit that academy we might just as well look at the hospital, too. Mr. Gordon. Well, it was the one appropriation from this Committee and I hope that you will feel that it was worthwhile and I want to bring you back that documentation very soon. Mr. Lewis. Thank you. Mr. Stokes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to see it. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gordon has shared with me on several occasions not only his great pleasure with what the Committee did at that time for Murfreesboro there, which is in his district, but he has also shared how much it has meant to that community and what they have really been able to do in the leveraging they did with the funding and so forth. And it is one of the reasons why we continue to feel that the special purpose grants really did what they were supposed to do and that was tend to some very special purposes. Mr. Gordon. And this would never have been saved--and it goes beyond, I mean it is just good for everybody. Thanks. Mr. Lewis. Thank you, it is good to be with you. Mr. Stokes. Thank you. Mr. Lewis. And we are in recess. ---------- -- -------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; THE NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR SEDIMENT DECONTAMINATION TECHNOLOGY STUDY WITNESS HON. FRANK PALLONE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Mr. Lewis. The Committee will come to order. Mr. Pallone, I notice you have got all kinds of underlined things, et cetera, et cetera. If you would make sure that you give the underlined copy to us for the record then you can off the top tell us what you want. Mr. Pallone. That is exactly what I will do, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee and thank you for the opportunity. I am here to talk about EPA, the appropriation request. And most of them are, well, some of them are specific to New Jersey, and others are of a more general nature. But I just wanted to highlight a few of them, if I could. I am not going to talk about all of them. Mr. Lewis. I hope not. Mr. Pallone. Okay. First of all, you have been very supportive, collectively, of this decontamination technology study. Just so you know, in my district, off of my district there is what they call the ``Mud Dump Site'' where contaminated dredge material from New York/New Jersey Harbor is disposed of. And pursuant to an agreement with all parties, most notably the Vice President, that site is going to close September 1st of this year. But we need alternatives. And decontamination is really the best alternative in the long run. And right now, our goal really is to have one or more full-scale dredge material processing facilities to decontaminate this toxic dredge material on board within the next year or two. And you basically have been providing money every year for this overall study project. What we are asking for is $5 million for the next fiscal year to continue it. It has been successful. These technologies exist. They are used in the Great Lakes. My colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Frelinghuysen, has been very supportive and he is aware of it. And, so, I hope that you would really consider continuing with that amount of money. The other thing is that New Jersey has, for a long time, had a very good beach-water quality monitoring program. And we have been trying to expand it nationally and get a federal program that was similar to that. And in his budget, the President included $2 million for what he calls the right-to- know initiative but there is $750,000 of that which is slated for a new beach-water quality initiative which is similar to what we do in New Jersey. I guess the idea is that if this pilot program works that they would expand it throughout the country. So, I am just asking that you support that because it is so important to the tourism industry which continues to grow not only in New Jersey but throughout the country. Clean lakes. What you have done in the past two years neither the Subcommittee nor the Administration has put in any money for the clean lakes program. And I think what you have said is that you have made lakes eligible for funding under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, the non-point source pollution program. But the problem with that is that because there is not that much money in that program either lakes really have not been able, I mean essentially there is no clean lakes program any more on the Federal level. And we really have not been able to channel much through the non-point source pollution program. And I guess I just wanted to stress that this is something that really is a small program that has been very effective in New Jersey and other parts of the country getting communities involved, getting matching State funds, getting local funds, and if there was just a small amount of money, like a few million dollars, in the clean lakes program, I think it would really make a difference in terms of, you know, basically acquiring money from various other sources to do more with clean lakes. So, I would ask you to consider that. The other thing is that the EPA has a number of laboratories around the country but one of the major ones is in my district in Edison, New Jersey. They do a lot, particularly with Superfund, and they are the home of the national emergency response team. But the facilities in Edison are very old and over-crowded, out-dated, it is really having an impact on the research that they can do. So, I was asked that the Committee would consider $3 million under your building and facilities account for EPA to basically prepare a formal construction design and consolidate these laboratories. Obviously, you do not have the time to go there but you may have actually been there or maybe I will take you there if you have not been just to see how bad it is. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Is that a request or a threat? Mr. Pallone. Let me just talk, I have a couple of more things, and then I will leave. The helicopter---- Mr. Lewis. You are very close to impinging upon Ms. Pelosi's time and that is a very dangerous thing to do. Mr. Pallone. Oh, she is over there, oh, I do not want to do that. Okay, very quickly. [Laughter.] The helicopter. We have an EPA helicopter that does water quality testing and monitoring for debris. Basically it was in the aftermath of the late 1980s when we had all these beach washups on the shore. And we need $500,000 to continue that helicopter program for New York and New Jersey in the next Fiscal Year. Mr. Lewis. Sounds like we bought another cow, Mr. Pallone. Mr. Pallone. Well, you have had it, Mr. Chairman. It has been operating but we need it and Rodney knows about it. He sees the helicopter when he is on the beach, I am sure, coming by, not that he is ever on the beach. The Brownfields, we are trying to move a Brownfields program under Superfund and EPA has requested $50 million as part of a program to basically do, I guess, 5,000 Brownfields sites by the year 2000. And I just would ask that you fully fund that pursuant to the Administration's request. Also, on Superfund, in general, I think you are aware that the Administration has this program where they want to basically begin construction of an additional 150 cleanups in 1998, and 900 cleanups by the year 2000. I am very supportive of that because I think that even though a lot of people criticize it, I think that Superfund has been pretty much a success and there has been a lot of sites cleaned up in my district, in particular, New Jersey, which has the most sites in the nation. So, we would very much like to see you go along with the Administration's request with regard to this. [The statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] [Pages 52 - 59--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. If I could comment just generally on your request. Mr. Pallone. Sure. Mr. Lewis. There are items within your request that very much do relate to the authorizing committee and I hope you will be communicating with them as well. Mr. Pallone. We will. Mr. Lewis. But we do need some help from the authorizers, especially with the Clean Water Act. And in the meantime, the agency has asked for a very sizable increase this year and most of it ends up going to Superfund. I mean if that money which is spent were spent as effectively as Brownfields has operated, I would be very encouraged. I would urge you to communicate with the agency as well about the success of Brownfields. Spend other new monies that might be available if they are eventually available in some of the other programs that you are talking about rather than throwing money in hopes that we can fix the parts of Superfund that have not functioned so well. Mr. Pallone. I appreciate that. And one of the things that I have been saying, I think Brownfields has a very bipartisan support at this point, at least that is my impression. Mr. Lewis. I did not know anything about it until Mr. Stokes started twisting my arm. [Laughter.] Mr. Pallone. Now, it is bipartisan. [Laughter.] But, you know, the---- Mr. Stokes. Thank you for letting me twist your arm, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lewis. Mr. Stokes, please? Mr. Pallone. But the problem I was going to say, you know, in the Commerce Committee we have been trying to push your Brownfields proposal with Mr. Dingell as well but so far what we are getting and I do not want to say just Republicans, but primarily from the Republican leadership in the Committee, is that they want to do the whole Superfund, you know, reauthorization and they do not want to separate out Brownfields. I mean that is fine if you can get the reauthorization but if you cannot, I do not want the Brownfields to be held hostage to the lack of a reauthorization bill, in general. Mr. Stokes. Well, that brings to mind that on our Subcommittee during the course of our hearings I sort of noted a philosophy with reference to putting more emphasis on Superfund than on the Brownfields. And so it sort of ties into the same thing that you are speaking of there. Hopefully we can get to the point where we realize that both areas are extremely important and we really ought not to hold one hostage to the other. On a bipartisan basis we need to look at the whole picture and approach it in that respect. Mr. Pallone. I agree. Mr. Lewis. And let me yield to our colleague from New Jersey for he might very well want to comment. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Chairman, briefly, I want to welcome my colleague, Mr. Pallone, to the Committee. Unfortunately New Jersey has only had nine Superfund cleanups. You may have had better luck in your district, than mine. We need to spend the money in actual cleanup and get away from litigation and overhead. Relative to clean lakes through the Chair's good work we actually have language in there directing. We did last year but the EPA has not followed up on that language. We find often times we direct the EPA to do things, to provide for clean lakes money through other accounts. They do not do it even though we requested it. Mr. Pallone. So, they just have not followed up on the non- point source. Mr. Lewis. Thereby, people like you begin to express concern separate from the Committee that can be very helpful. So, that is why I suggested that. Mr. Pallone. Maybe we can put some language in there somewhere. Mr. Frelinghuysen. We did last year and they did not follow the language. Mr. Lewis. But I am sure with your charm Mrs. Browner will be more responsive. Mr. Pallone. I will try, I will try. [Laughter.] Thank you. Mr. Lewis. Thank you. Ms. Pelosi. ---------- -- -------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. HOPWA AND UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS EDUCATION WITNESS HON. NANCY PELOSI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Ms. Pelosi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always a pleasure to follow, Mr. Pallone, our colleague. He covers so much territory in so short a time, so effectively. Being on the other side of the table in my other Committees I am always amazed at how much area he covers. Thank you so much for the opportunity to be here. I will try to confine my remarks to a few requests, although I respect the incredible, wonderful jurisdiction that this Committee has, it is so important to our country. I, particularly, want to commend you again for your support for FEMA striking the midwest. As you know we have had our bad days in California and still do with some of the flooding, but the contract that the American people with their government is honored by you and this Committee and bringing help to them in FEMA. But now, about my own and more specific, closer to home. Mr. Lewis. I am very much interested in the testimony. I know you have prepared for your interest in subject areas that we have shared mutual concern about and it is much appreciated. So, please proceed. Ms. Pelosi. Thank you. I will submit it for the record and just touch on a few points. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, Mr. Stokes, thank you. I appreciate your consideration of these requests and for your past generosity. And I want to start off by asking for funding for Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS, the HOWPA program, which you have been most generous to. This important program, as you know, has made a significant difference in the lives of many people with HIV/AIDS across the country and deserves continued Federal support. I want to point out this year that more cities and communities are qualifying for funds under the formula. So, with these new jurisdictions, five were added for Fiscal Year 1997, and 10 new jurisdictions will be added for Fiscal Year 1998. Unfortunately, the annual level of funding has not kept pace with the number of new eligible jurisdictions because so many of them have come on board. The nongovernmental organizations which provide AIDS housing and services believe that $250 million is the figure needed. I frankly, hesitated to mention that number here today serving on your side of the table because it is a large number, but it is a defensible number that is needed. I would hope that the Committee would fund the program though for the $204 million, a modest increase of $8 million over Fiscal Year 1997. The Administration's request is $204 million. It falls short of the basic need of $250 million but it is a number that I hope you will consider. If I may make available to our colleagues, this is ``Giving Life a Home,'' HOWPA at work in San Francisco now. In the back of the book you will see the chart that talks about the cases across the country. This is just a presentation of how it works in our community, if you would be interested in that. Mr. Lewis. Thank you. Ms. Pelosi. Section 8. I strongly support the Administration's request for renewal of project- and tenant- based Section 8 certificates we have talked about this in years gone by. It is an ongoing request. These certificates provided important stability in the lives of low-income people and you know that through Section 8 we can prevent homelessness, give working families an opportunity, they need to be self- sufficient. I also hope the Subcommittee will support initiatives to facilitate the transfer of developments receiving project-based Section 8 to non-profits and tenant organizations. I would like to note that the importance of sufficient funding for the HUD budget overall. In light of the welfare reform passed this year, so many families are dependent on that HUD budget. Mr. Lewis. Ms. Pelosi, if I could interrupt at that point. You are aware of the growing problem that we have with Section 8 certificate renewals. The added VA that we are going to need over time is huge and is really exploding on us down the line. There are programs around the country where housing efforts have worked very poorly and had problems and other cases there have been improvements and change, et cetera. As a result of that, I have begun to try to visit some urban centers where we see difficulties but also where we have seen change. Your community, San Francisco, is one of those that have gone through a good deal of change. And, frankly, I intend to talk with my Committee members sometime about going to have the mayor introduce us to your housing people and spend a little time there. Ms. Pelosi. That would be great. Mr. Lewis. Not too many weeks, but a little time. Ms. Pelosi. Well, we can stretch it out as long as you want. [Laughter.] It is such a big city. Mr. Lewis. I wanted to mention that to you because I know of your imagination and thought it would not be bad to let my colleagues know that I was thinking about that while you were present. Ms. Pelosi. I appreciate that and I would like to join our mayor in welcoming the Committee to a visit to our area, to San Francisco and the surrounding areas to see how the Section 8 works there. We have had this discussion before in the Committee. We are a high-cost area. And it presents special challenges. But in some of the low-cost areas we do not want the Section 8 certificates exploited and it is a big issue that we can talk about when you come out on your trip. But I know it is a big funding issue. I mean it would require a great deal of money to fully fund the Section 8 needs. So, we would like to show you some successful examples of how it works. Mr. Lewis. In terms of preservation, you should be aware that the Administration has made no request for preservation funds this year, last year, I think maybe even the year before. But in the meantime, your---- Ms. Pelosi. That is part of my statement and it is there for the record. Mr. Lewis. Right. Ms. Pelosi. I think preservation is very important and I am sorry that the Administration has not asked for the request. But I believe that a cost-effective preservation program could meet the needs out there for about $500 to $600 million. I would like to say estimates have been as high as $900 million but even half of that would go a very long way. And, then just in closing, the University of San Francisco, in the past, you have provided funding for a Center for Pacific Rim Studies. If you do fund economic development initiatives this year, I hope you will consider their request and I will not go into any more detail on that except to thank you again for your past leadership and generosity and your consideration. Now, once again, thank you for what you do for FEMA. [The statement of Ms. Pelosi follows:] [Pages 64 - 66--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Well, as you know, within this Committee we are, the full Committee, we are all in this together and, so, we are very pleased to try to work with you. Mr. Stokes. Mr. Stokes. Mr. Chairman, I would just note that Ms. Pelosi, I think is the only member of the Appropriations Full Committee who has appeared here this morning to testify before us. Mr. Lewis. And that will not hurt you very much. [Laughter.] Mr. Stokes. I just say that because I think she is an asset to the Committee. Mr. Lewis. Absolutely. Mr. Stokes. And she is one of the most effective advocates of the things that she came here to Congress to represent and I just have nothing but tremendous admiration for her. Ms. Pelosi. That is nice, thank you very much, Mr. Stokes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lewis. Thank you. ---------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY--TARP WITNESS HON. JERRY WELLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Mr. Lewis. The Committee will come to order. Mr. Weller, we will take your testimony for the record. If you would summarize very briefly, we are scheduled to leave the room at 12. Mr. Weller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Stokes, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify and submit my request. I do have some testimony I would like to submit for the record, as well as some statements from local officials back on the South Side of Chicago and the south suburbs, I would like to submit for the record, as well. Mr. Lewis. Good. I had the impression that you were going to have guests with you and that is why we were actually holding off a little to see if we could go two minutes after 12. But, since they are not here that is not a problem. Mr. Weller. They were unable to be here and that will shorten the amount of time I need. At the last minute, the gentleman who was going to be with me was unable to come. So, I have his statement and it will be included. I come before you with a project which this Committee has a long-time investment in and that is continued funding for the deep tunnel, the tunnel and reservoir project [TARP] which is of major interest to the entire Chicago region. The deep tunnel project is a project that provides flood control for half a million residents, particularly on the South Side of Chicago and the south suburbs, as well as the major anti-pollution control effort, particularly when there is heavy rains, of course, this prevents raw sewage from going into Lake Michigan. It is a major environmental initiative, as well. What I am asking for today is for $30 million in funding. Last year the Subcommittee provided $10 million for continued development. The majority of deep tunnel has been completed. There is 93 miles of deep tunnel that are completed, 16 miles of the tunnels remain to be completed. They primarily affect the South Side of Chicago and the south suburbs that I represent. And deep tunnel has been a success, I do want to point out. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency has pointed out that TARP or the deep tunnel has probably been the most cost-effective plan to meet the enforceable provisions of the Clean Water Act as they affect the Chicago area and actually we get a pretty good bang for the buck. If you look at the cost of this project for what we have been able to achieve, we are able to get twice the results for what the Boston project, for example, which I know you have been asked to support, as well. So, I do want to come before you and ask your Subcommittee's continued support. It is actually four times the result of what Boston is able to remove. Mr. Lewis. If I might interrupt the gentleman's testimony. I do know the Administration has asked for money for Boston and New Orleans. They have not included this within their request this year. I would think that the entire delegation from Illinois might want to focus upon that for I do not really understand the difference. This project we have made the investment in but it is hard in a very tight circumstance when they are asking for a lot of money for Superfund to fund items that they do not make requests for. So, in the meantime, I bring that to your attention and if I were you I would broaden the request beyond your district, which I know you are doing but I just want to make that point. Mr. Weller. Well, I believe the members of the Illinois delegation have indicated their support in the past, as well as for this particular request. Mr. Lewis. I know that they have. I would suggest that in this case the Administration needs to hear that initiative one more time from the entire delegation, I would guess. Do you agree with that, Mr. Stokes? Mr. Stokes. I certainly do, Mr. Chairman, and, of course, as Mr. Weller said this is a project that our Subcommittee has supported for quite a number of years now. But I think it would be very helpful if he were to follow your suggestion. Mr. Weller. I will. I will make the contact with the Administration and, of course, this does affect more districts than just mine. Mr. Lewis. Mr. Weller, that is precisely my suggestion, much broader letter than just a single shot. Mr. Weller. But I do ask for the full $30 million to continue this project, to continue the investment the Subcommittee has invested in the deep tunnel project. It is important to a lot of people and it is both a flood control project which affects a lot of homeowners and working people, and it is also a pollution control measure to protect the water quality of Lake Michigan and the Great Lakes. [The statement of Mr. Weller follows:] [Pages 69 - 71--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. If I could, Mr. Stokes, just to raise the level of urgency to my suggestion. It is not logical that government would invest a lot of money over time and not continue with that investment to completion. But you may remember the Superconductor and the Supercollider, it does happen from time to time. Mr. Weller. I appreciate that. Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Weller. Mr. Weller. Thank you very much for your time and thank you for your continued support, we appreciate it. Mr. Lewis. Ladies and gentlemen, our other witness for the morning has cancelled just this moment. So, we will recess until 1 o'clock. ---------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION WITNESS HON. MIKE DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Mr. Lewis. The meeting will come to order. Please know this, that you benefit much better with this committee if you submit your testimony for the record and briefly summarize. Expressions of desire end up having a negative effect rather than a positive effect. [Laughter.] Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be as brief as possible. I have submitted much lengthier comments for the record. Mr. Lewis. I see a lot of big type there, and we can read that, too. Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, if you were to do everything in this big type, I would just hand it to you right now and walk out the door. [Laughter.] I will try to be brief. Let me start by thanking you for the opportunity to come before you today. The first issue I do want to address is an EPA directive to over one-third of the 67 communities in my District, to eliminate their separate sanitary sewer overflows. My written remarks, in a letter to the committee dated April 14, signed by myself and Congressmen Coyne and Mascara, provided a detailed description of the situation, so I will be very brief. Given the unique structure of the sewer system in Allegheny County, the cost of eliminating the sanitary sewer overflows could well exceed $750 million. We would like to propose a solution to this sewer overflow problem which would develop innovative, cost-effective solutions to eliminate these overflows. Specifically, we are requesting, in EPA's fiscal year 1998 budget, $2.5 million for the Three Rivers Watershed Protection Demonstration Project. We are also requesting that language be included that instructs EPA to work in partnership with the impacted municipalities in solving this serious water quality problem. In the region I represent, the median income is around $23,000. We just don't have the tax base that can absorb the necessary cost. Thus, it makes sense to approach the problem collectively, utilizing locally-matched federal grant funds. The proposed project would develop a master plan to eliminate more than 40 separate sanitary sewer overflows in the three rivers area of the county. Any time we can solve a $750 million problem by providing $2.5 million up front, I think that's a good use of our money. Also, this project will not only address the problems in Allegheny County, but since it has never been done on this scale, it is my belief it would be a model for other regions. Another item in the EPA budget that I hope you would consider funding is the particulate matter research at $50 million, which is the amount approved by the Science Committee in H.R., 1276, the EPA R&D Authorization bill. I'm one of a growing number of Members who have publicly gone on record as saying that these new clear air standards are premature, at best, and we need to do a lot more research and want to give EPA the ability to do that, so that before we implement rules and regulations, we make sure they're based on sound science. Let me just say, very briefly, that in my testimony I make reference to the NSF's Partnerships for Advanced Computing Infrastructure. Since that decision has been made, we need to look at how we can protect the federal investment in the two centers that were not maintained--the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center and the Cornell Theory Center. I want to work with the Committee in identifying areas of high-end computational needs, federal and otherwise, that are in our national interest. I will skip down to the Department of Veterans Affairs. I would hope that the Committee could complete the funding for the environmental improvements required at the University Drive VA Medical Center, which were begun in the current year's appropriation. This center is vital to veterans living in the entire 65-county network as the medical/surgical tertiary care center, which includesPennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and Maryland. Finally, Mr. Chairman, there are some issues that I have made relative to HUD in my testimony, which I hope you will get a chance to look at, especially the issue of flexibility for local housing authorities in meeting consent decrees to disperse public housing within our communities. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my remarks and answer any questions you might have. [The statement of Mr. Doyle follows:] [Pages 74 - 77--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. I appreciate very much the brevity of your testimony, and also the subjects to which you expressed concern. Let me mention, Mr. Doyle, that there are many of us who share Senator Chafee's concern that EPA moves forward on the schedule they appear to be determined to move forward on. It could undermine long standing positive efforts involving clean air. I personally have been very much involved in clean air efforts and I have similar concerns. Each Member who is willing to independently work at communicating to EPA that moving precipitously could be disastrous will have a positive effect on where we might end up. So I encourage you to broaden your interest beyond just this testimony. I appreciate what you've already done at the authorizing level. Mr. Doyle. Right. And I've been party to every letter that I know of that's gone to the Administration, asking them to do exactly that, Mr. Chairman. Pittsburgh is an area that would be severely impacted by these new regs. We have made tremendous strides in cleaning up our air, and we just need to slow this process down a little bit. Mr. Lewis. Thank you for your testimony. We look forward to working with you. ---------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; NEBRASKA PROJECTS WITNESS HON. DOUG BEREUTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA Mr. Lewis. Mr. Bereuter, you're up. Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. How are you this morning? Mr. Lewis. We're doing just great, especially when the people seem to understand that, in this extensive series of meetings we have with people, that testimony submitted for the record is paid careful attention, and other testimony sometimes has an effect, sometimes not. [Laughter.] Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief. I have three points to bring up with you today, and I have made the usual comments about the difficulty that I know you face, serving on the authorizing committee and subcommittee. I want to talk to you first about the Indian Housing Loan Guarantee program. I request the Subcommittee continue to fund the Section 184 Indian Housing loan guarantee program. I think this is an excellent program. I say that immodestly, since I had something to do with creating the authorization. But it provides privately-financed homes for the first time on Indian reservations through the loan guarantee program for Indian families who would otherwise have to rely on public housing or simply do without it. HUD's Section 184 program was drafted in consultation with a broad range of Indian housing specialists, including the National American Indian Housing Council, HUD, Fannie Mae, the National Commission on American Indians, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing, and various tribes and Indian housing authorities. I have heard from a great many tribes--I'm a regular stop on their visitation to Washington--all of whom are quite enthusiastic about the program if they've looked at it. Their only complaint is that there is too little money available. The program is based upon the model of the USDA's program, the Section 502 program, for a Middle Income Loan Guarantee program, which I also initiated with a lot of help from colleagues. That's not in your jurisdiction. I request that the Subcommittee provide $5 million in loan subsidy to expand this very successful program. Although the program is in its infancy, HUD has reported that of the approximately 225 closed loans, none are in default. HUD further estimates there are approximately 600 loans pending in the pipeline, and expanding. Thus, this $5 million appropriation would facilitate, under a worst case scenario, about $65 million in guaranteed loans. So, Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, I think this kind of investment provides a real opportunity for Native Americans to own their homes for the first time on Indian reservations. As you know, in the past we've had the problem that this is trust territory land---- Mr. Lewis. Correct. Mr. Bereuter [continuing]. And bankers would not participate in providing loans. But we have solved that problem. I think it leverages our resources very well. Secondly---- Mr. Lewis. Before you move on, Mr. Bereuter, I wonder if I could just briefly make a comment for your consideration in that subject area. Mr. Bereuter. Yes. Mr. Lewis. There are Indian tribes and there are Indian tribes, and independent nations, indeed. Near my own district there is a very small, independent tribe, something less than a hundred members. Their income flows from gambling are about $100 million. In the United States, we have a long-established process in our country where poor states are sometimes helped by larger states, and poorer families are helped by family taxpayers at a different level. I just wonder if others are discussing that with their Indian friends, about where one reaches for assistance, when one wants independence otherwise. Mr. Bereuter. That's a logical question. I don't know the answer. As you know, Indian tribes are not permitted to participate in gambling operations unless state law provides that opportunity. Mr. Lewis. Correct. Mr. Bereuter. So from one state to another, you've got some states that can participate and have huge incomes, and others that have no income whatsoever. It doesn't matter whether they're recognized federal or recognized state tribes. If state law doesn't permit it, that's not a resource. Are you thinking that Indian tribes ought to be putting more of their own money in, if they have that authority? Mr. Lewis. It seems to me that at least there ought to be a discussion of this reality before we have sizeable lines around the country, for example, in the whole field of public housing, where the poorest of the poor are outside. Some are totally dependent upon public assistance, and the government is responsive, where they can, up to some limits. I'm just asking out loud these questions. We have three holes in our schedule this afternoon because Indian tribes have cancelled. I had planned to ask this question of individuals directly, and I intend to do that over time. I would urge you to help me with the discussion. Mr. Bereuter. We still do need the loan guarantee program-- -- Mr. Lewis. Absolutely. Mr. Bereuter [continuing]. Because it's for private housing. But I do think, where we're talking about the public housing authority on the reservation, you ought to expect that tribes that have big revenue flows would pick up a major part of that responsibility directly. Mr. Lewis. I would think so. Mr. Bereuter. I know they're doing some of the renovation in a couple of Indian reservations in my district. They're doing some of the renovation work out of tribal funds that ordinarily would have been under HUD funds. Mr. Lewis. I absolutely agree with the policy direction you're taking in terms of the loan guarantee opportunities. In the meantime, this broader question occurs to me, and I certainly wanted you to think about it. Mr. Bereuter. I do want to address two other subjects, if I may. Mr. Lewis. Certainly. Mr. Bereuter. The Rural Water Training and Technical Assistance program, I have given you some substantial detail on this in my written testimony. I will just tell you that the ``circuit rider'' program, which provides expertise to very small communities, I think is a big bargain. It is providing the kind of resources necessary to keep sewer and water systems up and running by having a team of experts that provide these services to a broad array of communities. So I think that, in every state, on-site technical assistance is the backbone of the small water system compliance programs. So I would urge you to continue to make this a priority under your EPA budget request. Mr. Lewis. I doubt that our priority will change in that connection, so I appreciate it very much. Mr. Bereuter. It is very important to about 100-plus municipalities in my district, for example. Finally, VERA. This is the new Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system. If it was fully implemented, it would have a very devastating effect on sparsely settled parts of the Nation. I think it is a ``meat axe'' approach to developing a formula for distributing funds. There has to be a basic level of infrastructure in services that are provided to veterans across the whole country. You simply cannot do it on a per capita basis. Otherwise, you penalize people living in North Dakota, Nebraska and other states. Now, it is true that you've got huge demands building up in sun belt states. As veterans migrate, as they go there for the winter, as more people retire in those regions, you need new facilities. Undoubtedly, that's the case in your state and in Texas and Florida. But you can't simply arbitrarily, with justice to veterans, say you're going to distribute this on a per capita basis. Yes, you can ask states like my own to consolidate two of its three veterans facilities, as they have just announced. But there is a commitment that we've made to veterans, and so you need to provide a basic level of infrastructure in services to every veteran across the country. It's like the U.S. Postal Service. The U.S. Postal Service is a service because it provides for the distribution of mail throughout our country, not just the communities that are large, not just for people who happen to live in large cities, and ignore those in rural areas. If you have a system, you have to at least provide a minimal acceptable level of service to everybody. The VERA program is a very bad idea in its current formula. So I ask you to do what you can to make the adjustments, using the power of the Appropriations Committee, to see some accommodation made, on some kind of de minimis level, for very low population, huge states. Delaware, a low population state, not a problem. But when you're stretching your veterans out over, like in my state, 580 miles from one end to the other, and the closest veterans services are now, despite some new veterans outpatient clinics, a long way away in other states, then something is wrong with the system. I brought this to the attention of the Deputy Secretary when he was in my state, but I think we need to have some changes in there. I would be happy to answer any questions. [The statement of Mr. Bereuter follows:] [Pages 82 - 84--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Mr. Bereuter, first, I am very interested in your testimony. I do come from California, but you can put four eastern states in my desert alone. It's a very similar problem. I hope you have provided this testimony to the authorizing committee as well. Mr. Bereuter. I will do that. In fact, I have provided it, on a direct basis, but not in oral testimony. Mr. Lewis. I'll make sure that my specialist in this field looks at this and we can ask you further questions, if there's a need to. In the meantime, your testimony is welcome. Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions on anything I have said. Mr. Lewis. Do members have any questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Bereuter. Thanks for your time. Mr. Lewis. That was very good. ---------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; BOSTON HARBOR CLEAN UP WITNESS HON. JOE MOAKLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Mr. Lewis. Welcome, Mr. Moakley. Mr. Moakley. I thank you for the opportunity to come before you. Mr. Lewis. As you have so gracefully done in the past in the Rules Committee, you suggest to people that testimony for the record has a very positive effect upon the Rules Committee, and a lot of conversation sometimes interferes with one's understanding. So proceed. Mr. Moakley. That's why I have kept mine down to half an hour. [Laughter.] Actually, I am here once again to ask the subcommittee to appropriate $100 million for the clean up of Boston Harbor. I appreciate the help the Federal Government has given us. So far, the Federal Government has contributed some 21 percent of the total clean-up costs. After a decade, and $3.5 billion later, we're almost finished. It wasn't too long ago, we all recall, when George Bush sailed into Boston Harbor and proclaimed it was the dirtiest harbor in America--and he was right. The harbor smelled like rotten eggs, sewage systems across the state overflowed, and debris was floating in the waterways. Residents of the coastal area were up in arms and afraid the economic and environmental damage to the region would be irreversible. But since that time, Mr. Chairman, we've made great progress. The project is more than 90 percent complete. A new treatment center has been operating for two years. The water is clean. Seals and porpoises have returned to the harbor, and people are returning to the beaches to swim, sail and fish. So this truly is an environmental success story. Boston Harbor has been transformed from one of the most polluted harbors in the Nation to a glistening body of water, abundant with marine life. As many of you know, this project is the result of a Federal court order. This was unfunded---- Mr. Lewis. Mr. Moakley, let me make a couple of suggestions or comments. First, your colleague, Mr. Frank, was here earlier, and he suggested that, in terms of some of our clean water problems, if we would in some way, within our total process here, allow for the extension of bond---- Mr. Moakley. Absolutely. Mr. Lewis. The suggestion is 40 years. That suggestion is really interesting to me, and have someone of your background and experience working on that, with maybe a cross-section of people that---- Mr. Moakley. Oh, I have already told Congressman Frank that it's a delightful idea. Mr. Lewis. The other thing I was going to mention is that this Subcommittee has many a problem, housing problems and otherwise, and among other things, the Chair is attempting to go to certain urban centers to take a look at some of those housing difficulties. It might be, if we were to have occasion to come to Boston, that incidentally you might show us some of the progress regarding this project that we haven't seen. Mr. Moakley. I would be glad to. The thing I want to point out is the harbor clean up was mandated by a Federal court. Forty-three cities and towns have to pick up the ball. That's why the Federal Government has acquiesced in helping us. As I said, they've only paid for like 21 percent of the entire cost of cleaning up the harbor. Those people who live in those 43 cities and towns had no more to do with polluting that harbor than anybody else. But the problem is the water bills have gone up. Even with this money the Federal Government has given, the water bills have increased to a degree that people have had to go out and get second jobs to help pay their water bill. And when people are buying property, one of the first things they ask isn't what's the assessment, what's the tax, but what is your water bill. I mean, industries are relocating to areas with cheaper water. So these are issues, too. As I said, when I travel through my district, when people talk about things, always the top three or four is the water rates, what are you doing about the water rates. It's just terrible because I don't have the answers. When you think that we've got the highest water rates in the Nation, in the Nation---- Mr. Lewis. It might be helpful, if you would--I have never thought to ask this question before--but it might be helpful in our record if you would trace for us kind of the pattern of what may have happened to three separate kinds of families relative to their water bills over time, or three separate businesses, just so we have it in the record and can see it, over the last five years or so? Mr. Moakley. Sure, to show where businesses have moved out because of water rates. Mr. Lewis. It would be very interesting. Mr. Moakley. So I said here, continued Federal funds are necessary, because it is going to be completed I think within two years. But it is so necessary that we get the final Federal money. President Clinton has put $100 million in the budget this year, and promised $100 million next year, and that should wrap it up. I know it's a lot of money, but when you think of why we are where we are--I mean, we're there because the Federal court says you've got to clean up the harbor. They didn't say ``here's the check''. They just said go out and do it. So we have done well. People in the cities and towns have picked up the tab. I mean, it isn't even the entire Commonwealth that's paying for it. It's just 43 cities and towns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The statement of Mr. Moakley follows:] [Pages 88 - 98--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Do my colleagues have any questions? You make your case very well, and as I suggest, we will work together on this as we go forward. Mr. Moakley. And this Committee has been very kind, very generous. I understand the entire Nation, the major cities, have the same problems and probably haven't been getting the help that we've gotten. But as I said, it was a very, very expensive thing to do, and it's working. Mr. Lewis. It was very clever of you to get the former President to take that trip. Mr. Moakley. Actually, he got off at the wrong stop. I really wanted him to go to Chelsea. [Laughter.] Thank you very much. Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Joe. We'll be in recess one more time. ---------- -- -------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY--ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCE PROJECTS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA WITNESS HON. KAREN L. THURMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. Lewis. Miss Thurman, we normally say that your testimony will be received in its entirety for the record, and you can present that which you wish. Then we suggest, if you don't present anything, that's terrific. But in your case, please, we want to hear what you have to say. Ms. Thurman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. As a matter of fact, we have written testimony that is much longer. We will have a very short oral presentation. Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for letting me do this. I certainly thank Mrs. Meek for her attention to this matter as well, and Mr. Davis, our new Member from Tampa, who has so kindly been involved with this issue. It is nice to have some other support up here, even though this year I believe we have really done a good job with our delegation. It seems that we've been able to get a lot of support. In fact, most of the delegation has signed a letter--I think all of them would had we had the time--and I would like to submit both the letter from the delegation, a personal letter from Mr. Young, and also Miss Fowler, before coming over here, contacted my office and asked that we read that into---- Mr. Lewis. For the record. Ms. Thurman. Yes. We won't read it. So we'll give it to you. I also want to reiterate that we are very grateful for this Committee's attention to this matter in the past. You have been very helpful with us in the dollars that we have asked for before. Just so you will know, this is an issue that I have not only worked on up here, but it's an issue that I have tried to solve a lot of the problems within Florida. So I have really been working on the water issues for Florida for a long time. As you know, we have experienced significant population growth, making us the fourth largest state in the country. As a result, our groundwater supply has become threatened. Florida's well field levels are being depleted, causing our wetlands and lakes to dry up. Also, we are experiencing salt water intrusion in the aquifer on the Gulf and Atlantic coasts. These events have caused the destruction of critical habitat, threatened endangered and rare species, and could seriously hinder Florida's future economic development. The maps I have provided with my written statement depict these water use caution areas across the state. Today I am joined by the Florida congressional delegation in requesting $50 million for alternative water source development in Florida. You have each received this delegation letter of support, and I am particularly pleased to be joined by Representatives Meek, Young and Miller of the Appropriations Committee in this request. My colleagues and I believe that Federal partnership on these projects is critical. The challenge of developing adequate water supply is nothing new for growing sectors of our country. The Federal Government has responded to this problem in some of our western states. In fact, in many ways, Florida's situation is similar to that of the West. The Federal role in bringing water to the West made a critical difference in developing the West into the rich economic powerhouse it is today. Florida only asks for that same consideration. Mr. Chairman, our local folks are ready to act. We simply need a helping hand. The Florida Water Management District has identified the needs, created solutions, and are willing to put up matching funds. For example, the Southwest Florida Water District has been at the forefront developing water conservation initiatives. They have been joined by other districts in the state, such as St. John's River and South Florida in developing conservation plans. However, water conservation is not enough. We must act to develop alternative water sources that will meet the water demands of the future, while protecting our environment. A phrase we have become familiar with in Florida is that ``there is no cheap water.'' The development of new water sources requires the use of technology that is more expensive and, therefore, the cost of water from the tap has increased somewhat. Because Florida's primary source of water, groundwater, is endangered, we cannot continue to build well fields. We must turn to technology. The technology used in these projects is a state-of-the-art. It is cutting edge, but it is not experimental. The Water Management Districts have done their homework. This technology is both transferrable to other states and exportable to other countries. We are getting a ``bang for the buck'' here. Together, the State of Florida and the Federal Government can bring the newest technology on line. We would appreciate your consideration and anything you might do in helping us with this. [The statement of Miss Thurman follows:] [Pages 101 - 111--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much for your abbreviated testimony. We do appreciate it. ---------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCE PROJECTS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA WITNESS HON. JIM DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. Lewis. Mr. Davis, I had suggested earlier to your associate that testimony for the record is very helpful to the Committee. Sometimes when you speak in the Committee it may hurt your cause. But since her mother is with her today, we made some exception. [Laughter.] In the meantime, I would be happy to hear whatever you might want to say. Mr. Davis. Perhaps I should defer to her mother. [Laughter.] I'm three minutes late, and if that held you all up, I've learned a valuable lesson on punctuality with the Subcommittee. You know from California the terrible problems that develop when the water supply gets separated from the demand. In Florida, 80 percent of our population lives within a few miles of the coast. We've got a terrible problem and we have the private sector and local governments and state government working together. On that predicate, we're here to ask for your continuing support. Karen has stated the case better than I could. Mr. Lewis. We have heard from virtually all of your members. Frankly, the input is both helpful and important to us. Mrs. Meek doesn't have any influence on what our attitude will be in the meantime. Mrs. Meek, do you have a question or a comment? Mrs. Meek. I said she explained the case very well, legitimately, and we thank you for being here. I would just say there's no problem. Let's do it. Mr. Lewis. We're sure going to try to help, no doubt about it. Ms. Thurman. She understands ``brief''. Mr. Lewis. She does. Miss Loveland, bless you. Thank you for being here. ---------- -- -------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. VETERANS' AFFAIRS WITNESS HON. JACK QUINN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. Lewis. Hello, Mr. Quinn. Mr. Quinn. Hello, Mr. Lewis. How are you? Mr. Lewis. You are not going to read all that, are you? Mr. Quinn. I certainly am not. Mr. Lewis. Okay. Since you are submitting your testimony for the record, we would be glad to hear what--and probably we can help you. Just be brief. Mr. Quinn. So the less I speak, the more you help me? Mr. Lewis. That is what we hear around here. [Laughter.] Mr. Quinn. Mr. Chairman, thanks for the minute or two to be here. We are in the middle of a vote. I will leave with you four pages of testimony. Simply put, I am here as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Benefits for the Veterans' Affairs Committee to ask for your support for the request that the National Cemetery System has made. One of the differences that I will point out to you in the Cemetery System, the NCS, is that as we try to cut costs with the rest of veterans' functions and some of those needs dwindle because our veterans are dying, the cemetery needs are increasing for exactly the same reason. [The statement of Mr. Quinn follows:] [Pages 114 - 117--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. That is a very legitimate area of discussion. We are sensitive to it. We are glad that a Member of the Committee is similarly concerned. So we are happy to receive your testimony. Mr. Quinn. Thank you very much. Mr. Lewis. We will try to be responsive. We appreciate it. Mr. Quinn. Thank you. Mr. Lewis. Thank you. That was great. ---------- -- -------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WITNESS HENRY CAGEY, CHAIRMAN, LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL Mr. Lewis. You would help us with our schedule by way of making sure that your testimony is submitted for the record. And if you can just speak off the top briefly, we would probably do everything if you needed it. Mr. Cagey. No problem, Mr. Chairman. I am looking for my-- do you have a copy right there? Mr. Lewis. We do. Mr. Cagey. I will summarize. Mr. Lewis. Please be seated, and welcome. Mr. Cagey, would you introduce yourself for the record and go from there? Mr. Cagey. Good afternoon, Chairman Lewis. My name is Henry Cagey, Chairman of the Lummi Nation, and our nation is located up in Washington State. We have a population of 3,800 members. Also, one of my duties I have been assigned serving on the negotiated rulemaking committee for HUD, and I am happy to say that the progress of the negotiations are complete. As of today, we expect to have the regulations done and finalized for the negotiations. Mr. Lewis. Good. Mr. Cagey. Hopefully you will be seeing that very soon in the future. One of the main points I guess we would like to make, Mr. Chairman, is the allocation I guess that was set aside for Indians, and right now we understand it is $450 million that is being appropriated for Indian housing block grants, and NHIC is requesting that it is going to be a minimum of $850 million that is going to be needed to really fulfill the real gap in the need for Indian housing. And we think that the committee should reconsider some of the appropriations for this historic initiative on the block grant. It is a good initiative. A lot of tribes are very supportive of this process and this new concept. But the lack of funding is something that we really need to reconsider when it comes to carrying out this program successfully. The other concern we have, Mr. Chairman, is the training and the implementation of the block grant. One thing that is going to be needed, there is going to be a lot of technical assistance, a lot of implementation costs that tribes are going to incur in implementing the block grant, start-up costs, updating some of their equipment, getting some of the ordinances in place so that the grant will be carried out successfully once the program takes effect. So we are requesting that $148 million is needed to really do a good job in implementing this block grant. Other things that we are concerned with is $32 million is needed for the loan guarantees, the 601 monies. As you know, with the Federal dollars declining and tribes need to maximize their dollars as much as they can, we need access to these loan guarantees. We think the administration needs to reconsider its zeroing out loan guarantees for this purpose. We request that $32 million be set aside for the loan guarantees. Mr. Lewis. I assume that these elements of your testimony have been heard or will be heard by the authorizing committee as well? Mr. Cagey. That is correct. Mr. Lewis. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Cagey. The other one is $3 million for the 184 program. It is not much, but it is a good program. It is working in Indian country today, and it does need to be increased. It is a program that is taking effect, and we are feeling the success in Indian tribes in implementing 184. So we are asking that $3 million be requested to do this. In addition, I guess one of the things we put in our testimony was Davis-Bacon. I understood that the Committee did support Davis-Bacon or some people did support Davis-Bacon, but once again, for the record, we wanted to request that Davis- Bacon be waived as it applies to housing dollars on reservations. Where the biggest effect is going to take place is the small tribes. Large tribes, we have been doing this already, working with Davis-Bacon, but the small tribes really need to have some flexibility in carrying out these wage scales. And if we can maximize our dollars as much as we can without Davis-Bacon, we should do this. I would like the Committee to maybe take a--consider taking a look at its effects on Davis-Bacon since it--as it is being applied. Mr. Lewis. Mr. Cagey, I might mention to you that while I may have a bias that would suggest that at least we ought to do some testing of that which you are discussing, it is a pretty fundamental policy matter, and I would urge you to discuss it in- depth with those policy people. Frankly, I think a number of private discussions with people on both sides of the aisle in terms of the Indian problem would be very helpful. Mr. Cagey. We are just laying the groundwork now, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lewis. I understand. Mr. Cagey. We want to make sure that it is understood by both sides and by all Committee Members. Okay. The last comment, Mr. Chairman, is welfare reform and the effect it is going to have on Indian housing. We understand and really know what is going to happen with welfare, and it is going to change in the States, in Indian country. But when welfare really kicks in to Indian country, it is going to affect Indian housing, and it is going to be a problem that the tribe is going to have to address, the States, and the Federal Government when it comes to dealing with Indian housing and where the income is going to come to cover some of those costs for maintenance and different other costs that the tribes are going to incur. I think that is the last point I had. [The statement of Mr. Cagey follows:] [Pages 121 - 125--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. If that is your last point, maybe I could make a point with you, Mr. Cagey, and submit it for your record rather than in any other fashion. Let's presume that we are in a diplomatic discussion between countries, your responsibilities as well as rights overlapping a couple more countries than mine. Nonetheless, within the United States, we have found that within several States ofttimes there are people who have very dire circumstances, and so we have created programs to provide them with assistance. Maybe it is public housing. Maybe it is social welfare programs, et cetera. Within the independent nations, there are some that are very wealthy and some not so wealthy. I can think of a small tribe in California, fewer than 100 people, who have flows of $100 million. I would think that maybe nations helping nations, even poor people within those nations, ought to be a discussion item at the table somewhere. And since I am far from being able to have such participation, I want to mention it just so that it is--for your own consideration. Mr. Cagey. I think one of--can I respond to that? Mr. Lewis. Of course. Mr. Cagey. One of the thoughts, I think, is really taking a look at creating different ways for financing in the area of housing, is that I understand there has been some initiatives or attempts to create an Indian Finance Division that will allow tribes to work together and finance some of their own costs, especially in housing. That is something that I think Indian country would support, our tribe would support. It is a big need. You know, as we look at going down into the future and balancing the budget with the United States, it is important that all entities work together. And tribes can help tribes. It has been done in the past, and our tribe has actually worked with another tribe in getting loans from another nation. It does help. But the pieces have to be put together. The government responsibilities have to be in place, and all parties have to be wanting to do this. I think it is something that I think Indian country would love to see this happen. Mr. Lewis. It is strictly a thought that has come to mind over time, and I appreciate your even being willing to discuss it. It is very helpful to have your kind of testimony in our Committee, so we appreciate your being here. Mr. Cagey. Thank you. Mr. Lewis. I have another meeting I am going to have to attend for a while, just for the record, and Mr. Frelinghuysen will take over the chair. ---------- -- -------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WITNESS MARTIN AVERY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NAVAJO NATION Mr. Frelinghuysen [presiding]. Mr. Martin Avery, Executive Director of the Navajo Nation. Good afternoon and welcome. Mr. Avery. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Nice to have you with us. Mr. Avery. Glad to be here. Mr. Frelinghuysen. As Chairman Lewis says, a copy of your formal remarks will be included in the record, but we would be very pleased to have you bring a few points to our attention and for our consideration. Mr. Avery. All right. Thank you. My name is Martin Avery, and I am the Executive Director of the Navajo Nation Washington Office. On behalf of the Navajo Nation and President Albert Hale, thank you for this opportunity to present our testimony. As you mentioned, our written statement outlines in real specific detail our request for the 1998 appropriations. I would like to open with some interesting and, I think you may find, distressing statistics. The Navajo Nation is the largest Indian Nation in America with a population of 250,000 people. Our reservation extends into the States of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah, with an area of 17.4 million acres, which makes us slightly larger than the State of West Virginia. We recognize that the enactment of welfare reform marks a significant reversal of Federal entitlement policy that will greatly affect Indian nations in the coming years. The rationale that ending welfare assistance will force people to work, however, simply ignores the limited economic development and resulting lack of employment opportunities on the Navajo Nation. And so in order to create a viable Navajo economy, we must build an adequate infrastructure, including housing, to support the livelihood of the Navajo people and to also attract and maintain a stable environment for economic development. Navajo traditions and customs teach self-sufficiency and self-reliance. We recognize that we must take responsibility to provide for our people essential governmental services. The enactment of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self- Determination Act of 1996 is certainly a step in that direction. The Navajo Nation supported this act because it would allow Indian housing programs to be operated in a manner consistent with our priorities and improve coordination of Federal housing programs on Indian reservations. We hope also that a reduction in the bureaucracy will also improve services and stretch valuable housing dollars. Which brings me to my next point. While we support the President's request of $467 million, this amount is much too low to even begin to adequately address the housing shortagein Indian country. The scarcity of adequate housing on the Navajo Nation is of a magnitude that can be characterized as a housing crisis. We estimate that 23,527 existing housing units, which is about 61 percent of the housing units, on the Navajo reservation are in substandard condition because they lack either running water, indoor plumbing, electricity and/or central heating. The Navajo Nation has also determined that we need 13,529 newly constructed homes immediately to alleviate severe overcrowding. Mr. Cagey previously mentioned that the real need for Indian country is closer to probably $850 million, and that is included in our written testimony. Concerned as we are with these needs, the Navajo Nation is also reminded of those who served the Navajo Nation and the United States for the everyday freedoms that we all enjoy. We are proud to state that Navajo warriors have a very distinguished service record, including the famed Navajo Codetalkers of World War II. Men and women from the Navajo Nation volunteered in large numbers to serve in the United States military, most recently in the Gulf War. As a matter of fact, American Indians on a per capita basis have volunteered in greater numbers than any other segment of American society. After many years of effort and with this committee's support, the Department of Veterans Affairs in July 1996 agreed to establish a veterans service center in Chinle, Arizona, so that they could provide greater access to services for our Navajo veterans. Previously, Navajo veterans had to travel over 300 miles to the nearest DVA center to obtain services, and this lack of access, coupled with language difficulties and the formidable bureaucracy, effectively denied services to Navajo veterans. This new center we hope will provide job training, readjustment counseling, referral services, outreach to veterans, community education, and employment assistance, among other services. On a related matter, even though this may not touch on appropriations, we would request the subcommittee's support to reauthorize the Native American Veterans' Direct Home Loan Program until at least fiscal year 2000. This program authorization will run out this year. This has been an excellent program that has been hampered by certain requirements which result in only four Navajo applications and two loans approved over the 5-year authorized period. It needs to be extended. While we must attend to the immediate needs of our people, we must also address the larger issue of providing and maintaining a safe environment for the Navajo people. The Navajo Nation, through our Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency, administers several programs regarding air and water quality, waste disposal and management, and hazardous waste treatment. Through these programs, the Navajo Nation has taken a number of steps to ensure that we are in compliance with the various environmental laws and regulations. However, without adequate resources, the Navajo Nation cannot fully implement these programs to meet these Federal mandates. For example, the Navajo Nation has a severe open dump problem. In June 1996, the Navajo Nation completed its own open dump site inventory, sites that are used by four or more families, and have estimated that there are at least 465 sites that need to be closed and covered by October 1997. In closing, on behalf of the Navajo Nation, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, for your leadership and support of Indian programs. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. [The statement of Mr. Avery follows:] [Pages 129 - 133--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Hobson [presiding]. I have one question, just sitting here listening. How many Navajo veterans are there? Mr. Avery. We have estimated about 16,000 Navajo veterans. Mr. Hobson. Sixteen thousand? Mr. Avery. Yes, about 9,600 of whom are currently unemployed. Mr. Hobson. And where are the majority of that 9,600? Mr. Avery. Most of them, the majority of them, probably live on the Navajo reservation. Mr. Hobson. Do you know how many housing units they are currently in? Mr. Avery. I do not have---- Mr. Hobson. There is a direct home loan program. Do you know how many--it would be interesting to know the number of people that are---- Mr. Avery. I do not have that figure. Mr. Hobson. Could you get it for us? Mr. Avery. I can get that figure for you. We have estimated, however, that--I think it is included in here. We have asked for $10 million, or we are going to suggest that--previously made a request to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to consider legislation to authorize up to $10 million for housing programs on the Navajo reservation in the form of grants because many--these are veterans, as we mentioned, 9,600 of the 16,000 who are unemployed. So they would not even be able to afford the veterans' direct home loan program. So their housing needs are very drastic as well. But we can get those figures for you. Mr. Hobson. Mr. Price. Mr. Price. No questions, Mr. Chairman. I do want to thank our witness for his testimony. Mr. Hobson. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Frelinghuysen. No questions. Thank you. Mr. Hobson. Mrs. Meek. Mrs. Meek. No, Mr. Hobson. Mr. Hobson. Thank you very much. Mr. Avery. Thank you, sir. ---------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WITNESS TOM MAULSON, CHAIRMAN, LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA LARRY WAWRONOWICZ, NATURAL RESOURCE DIRECTOR Mr. Hobson. We are a little bit ahead of time. Is there any other person in the room that is scheduled later that wants to take the time now? Mr. Maulson. We would, sir. Mr. Hobson. Go ahead. Mr. Maulson. I am Tom Maulson. I am the Tribal Chairman of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of northern Wisconsin. I brought Larry Wawronowicz. He is our Executive Director of our Natural Resource Program on the reservation. I want to just summarize this. It is lengthy. I would like to just identify from a cultural standpoint that our native people in Wisconsin, the Ojibway people, you know, have a very sacred meaning to this pure water. This is something that we have been--hopefully we can get some support from this Committee to support the dollars that were requested in reference to making sure that our quality of water is there, because if we do not have that, we do not have life. This is what our old people tell us. This is the direction that I am coming from in reference to my band in Wisconsin. I think it is important to also identify my people have told me that we have a government-to-government relationship here, a trust responsibility that you all have to us as Indian people based on what has gone on in the past with our forefathers and with your forefathers. So I am hoping that we can keep that in context, and maybe renew those old talks that took place in reference to protecting our people, our health and our education and our welfare for our people. I think it is important for you to take a look at our paperwork. It deals with water quality, EPA. We are involved with being treated as a State. I am going to turn this over to Larry so he can give you more of the technical details, as the Tribal Chairman, as you would know from other testimony, we are very busy people. I come from a reservation of well over 144 square miles and roughly about 1,500 of our people live on reservations and 1,500 non-Indian people live also on the reservation. So hopefully we can come to some meetings here. Mr. Wawronowicz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hobson. Would you identify yourself? Mr. Wawronowicz. My name is Larry Wawronowicz, Natural Resource Director for Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians. I want to thank you for having me here. The Lac du Flambeau Indian Reservation is 144 square miles. It is 12 miles by 12 miles. When reservations got into existence with the 1854 treaty, we were given a very diverse ecosystem. We have 20,000 surface acres of water, 34 miles of creeks, rivers, and streams, 14,500 acres of wetlands, and about 55,000 acres of forested lands. Like the Chairman says, the Lac du Flambeau Band has a cultural existence that is associated with that ecosystem, and that ecosystem is what the Ojibway people are. Through the Constitution and the by-laws of the Lac du Flambeau Band, we have the authority to protect, conserve, and enhance those resources for present and future generations of all people that live within the exterior boundaries of the reservation. We are strictly going to be dealing with the independent agency aspects of this thing rather than VA and HUD, and we have a big water base, as I said, 20,000 surface acres of water, 34 miles of creeks, rivers, and streams, and 14,500 acres of wetlands, which comprises about 37 percent of the total reservation. So we need to be able to utilize funding from the Environmental Protection Agency to make sure that the water quality and the wetland habitats and the natural resources in general are protected and conserved for the Seventh Generation of people. So, specifically, we have some funding requests and probably in terms of the dollars and cents you deal with on a daily basis, it is not a lot of dollars. But some small amounts sometimes go a long way in Indian country. We have one particular project. It is within the Clean Water Act programs. It is one of six water pollution control programs which we would like to have this committee look to put a little bit more money set aside for Indian programs. Under the 106 water pollution control programs, I think 3 percent of the national budget is given to set-asides for tribes, and we would like to see if there is a chance for you to reconsider that and increase that at least 10 percent so the funds can be used to help Lac du Flambeau Band protect and conserve those resources. We are requesting $100,000 in fiscal year 1998 for the Lac du Flambeau Band specifically. The other program that helps us, we usually call this program the GAP program, the General Assistance Program, and it is likely that the tribe's Environmental Protection Agency on the reservation--you know, we conduct things other than water, like we have to keep track of our underground storage tanks, for example, radon testing of tribal homes, tribal businesses, tribal community centers. We have to deal with solid waste. We have to do as a government all the things that you have to do. We got dollars from the General Assistance Program through the U.S. EPA, but we identified more needs. And we would like to have you take a look specifically at our request of $100,000 for fiscal year 1998. It is always interesting because you say, well, what are you going to utilize that money for? And we would like to be able to maintain two people on the reservation on staff to be able to carry on some of these things like emergency response to toxic spills and inventory and try to remove theunderground storage tanks that have an effect on the tribe's groundwater supply. Mr. Hobson. How many do you have, 200 underground storage tanks? Mr. Wawronowicz. Two hundred underground storage tanks, mostly on Native American land, within the exterior boundaries of the reservation. Mr. Hobson. Say that again? Mr. Wawronowicz. We have over 200 underground storage tanks, which are gas tanks, that are under the ground, that are probably under for a long time, which could be leaking and having an effect on our groundwater supply. Mr. Hobson. Are they on tribal ground? Mr. Wawronowicz. They are within the boundaries of the reservation, the majority of them being on non-Indian land. Mr. Maulson. Old resorts, old gas stations, years ago, things of that nature that were putting pressure on our cleanup---- Mr. Hobson. Are those your responsibility to clean up? Mr. Wawronowicz. Ultimately---- Mr. Hobson. Or is it the State? Mr. Wawronowicz. It will be our responsibility. Mr. Hobson. Is it Federal ground? Whose ground is it? Mr. Wawronowicz. It is Federal ground. In terms of the Clean Water Act program, we will use the $100,000 for implementing a drinking water protection plan, non-point source pollution inventory, public education for lakefront property owners, water quality standards revisions, and continued water quality monitoring to assure compliance with the Band's water quality standards, which currently the Lac du Flambeau Band, for example, has treatment in a State status under the Section 106 of the Clean Water Act in which we have the responsibility to set water quality standards for reservation waters within the boundaries of the reservation, which applies to both tribal and non-tribal lands. We have that authority under the Clean Water Act. We feel that the authority should stay with the tribe because like the State of Wisconsin, for example, we do not think they are doing a very good job of protecting our water supply. In the State, for example, we have 206 lakes that are on the fish consumption advisory. One lake in particular on the reservation, just based on State standards, we cannot even-- they are Group 4 fish for mercury. We cannot even eat those fish. We feel that we could do a much better job with our water quality standards in protecting our reservation resources. So, with that, I want to take the opportunity to thank the Committee for hearing me out, and we need the Committee's strong support to enable us to preserve and expand our environmental programs. From our perspective, this effort is vitally important to protect the future of Mother Earth, and we look to the United States to work with us to maintain our natural resources and the environment at a superior level. Thank you for your time. Mr. Maulson. We would entertain any questions. [The statement of Mr. Maulson follows:] [Pages 138 - 141--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Hobson. Any questions? Mr. Price. No, Mr. Chairman. I do thank you for your testimony, though, and we will look at it carefully. Mrs. Meek. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here. Ms. Kaptur. I just want to thank you for coming and traveling such a distance to be with us. Mr. Hobson. That is important. Thank you, and we will take a look at your request. Mr. Maulson. Thank you. Mr. Wawronowicz. Thank you. ---------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WITNESS LARRY SCHWARZKOPF, NATURAL RESOURCE PROGRAM MANAGER, FOND DU LAC BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA Mr. Hobson. Would you identify yourself, please? Mr. Schwarzkopf. Yes, my name is Larry Schwarzkopf. I am the Natural Resource Program Manager at the Fond du Lac Reservation. I am sorry the Chairman could not attend. He had other commitments. I would like to thank the Chairman and Members of the Committee for allowing us to provide this important testimony to your Committee. For fiscal year 1998, we are requesting funds primarily for housing and environmental issues, and basically the Fond du Lac Reservation is located approximately 20 miles west of Duluth, Minnesota. There are about 3,350 band members, and the reservation is about 100,000 acres. We also have important rights for the use of the resources within the 1854 ceded territory, basically the entire Arrowhead region of the State of Minnesota. Our primary concern in the housing area for the HUD budget is the--recently I have been very concerned about the organization of the funding program, and we originally requested that funding be maintained for the Indian housing program. These funds are needed to provide affordable housing for our band members, for families and for the elderly. The availability of affordable housing in our region for families and so on is very limited, and this program is very essential to the Band of Chippewa. Under the U.S. EPA items, environmental issues, werequest that we receive continued funding for our mercury mitigation and PCB mitigation research. At this time we are requesting $275,000 to expand our research with researchers at the University of Minnesota-Duluth and the University of Wisconsin-Superior. These funds that we are requesting would be a wise investment, protecting public health and preventing major economic impacts to the area's fisheries and resort industry in our region, as well as our subsistence fisheries. The amount of funds that are available from other sources such as the EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office are not adequate to fund this level of research. Their grants are usually smaller and they have to expend these grants throughout the Great Lakes region, and they cannot concentrate a great percentage of their funds in one State. We recommend that the budget for EPA Great Lakes National Program Office be maintained, and increased if at all possible. The research that we are proposing to continue is a method to find cost-effective, environmentally benign mitigation technology to reduce these contaminants in the Great Lakes region for subsistence and game fish. Mercury poses a very serious long-term threat to the safety of the sport fisheries throughout the Great Lake States and the Northern States. Our studies have produced positive results, and we are very confident that the expanded large-scale trials that we are proposing to continue will be presented in a means that are far more cost-effective than alternative approaches of dredging, land-filling or other methods that are currently cost- prohibitive and politically unacceptable. This technology would be applicable to many of the areas of concern around the Great Lakes. Mercury is a common contaminant in many of these areas of concern. These areas of concern are identified in many regions of States and the international joint commission. The PCB continues to be a problem in some sites. PCBs do over time degrade, but they continue to be a problem at some sites, and this technology would also benefit that problem. The mercury problem will continue to be a major environmental and public health problem for many years. As was noted, non-biodegradable heavy metals continue to be deposited on our watersheds from aerial sources until this pollutant is greatly reduced from aerial sources sometime in the future. In the interim, we need an effective means to reduce the level of mercury in gamefish. This is essential before the fish in the region become unsafe for consumption, especially by children and women of child-bearing age. Mercury presents very serious problems of nervous disorders, learning disabilities, and other health problems. It is not sort of a hit-and-miss situation. The more mercury, the more these problems are evident. It is not sort of like a carcinogen that some people get affected and others do not. We believe that if Congressmen and Congresswomen from the Great Lakes and Northeast States were to support our appropriation of this amount earmarked for the Fond du Lac for this research, the sport fisheries and recreational business relying on sport fish, sport fishing, needs fish which are safe to consume, and this will be severely impacted if something is not done in the near future. Fisheries in the region have become contaminated from ongoing release of organic compounds, mature compounds from contaminated sites and from sensitive lakes in areas of glacial geology. Our mitigation technology will use inexpensive minerals such as iron, limestone, in combination with synergistic agents which are environmentally benign to remediate these sites. Another benefit will be economic uses, additional economic uses of these minerals and the creation of remediation business opportunities throughout the region. Another request for funding that we have is that the Committee support the Administration budget request for $38.585 million for the Indian Environmental General Assistance Program. This program provides basic environmental staff to our programs for the reservation to deal with the most pressing environmental issues, and this means we can also deal effectively with EPA and other Federal agencies and State and local governments on environmental issues rather than having to rely on staff that do not have expertise in these issues. Our last request is that the Committee support the testimony of the Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College. This is a joint State and tribal college. About a quarter of their students are Native Americans from the region. It is a new campus, brand-new campus, but they have now instituted an environmental institute, and through their expanding environmental education opportunities, they have developed an environmental partnership with the Fond du Lac Band, and we are requesting $250,000 to more fully implement the institute, the laboratory equipment for the students, curriculum development and actual hands-on stuff for the students to do. They now have a 2,000-acre environmental study area that has been established on the St. Louis River, and they are also asking--the college is also asking for $25,000 for 1997 environmental practicum, summer practicum for the Native American students. That is my testimony. I would like to provide just a graph of--Graph 1 is labeled--and this is a projection of mercury levels in the lakes in our region, the northern pike with existing and projected 5 percent annual increase. If the annual increase of deposition of mercury were to go down, this rate would change, but it still is an increasing situation. Mercury does not biodegrade. And there is a recent article involving mercury pollution and another one on contaminants' effects to babies. Thank you. [The statement of Mr. Schwarzkopf follows:] [Pages 145 - 162--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Hobson. I have a couple questions I would like to ask you. Who introduced the Eurasian ruffe into the---- Mr. Schwarzkopf. Yes, I did not mention that because we are not asking for funds for that, but---- Mr. Hobson. I would just like to---- Mr. Schwarzkopf. The Eurasian ruffe was introduced most likely in international shipping traffic through bilge water. Duluth is an international port, of course, a lot of international trade now, the lake iron trade and so on. And that fish is now into Lake Huron. When it gets to Lake Michigan and through the Chicago barge, it will invade the Eastern part of the country's fisheries. It is a very serious problem. Mr. Hobson. I think Ms. Kaptur and I would have a problem with that fish possibly, if it gets into Lake Erie. Mr. Schwarzkopf. It will. It will be---- Mr. Hobson. Close to where we live, and it is going to go all through that area. Mr. Schwarzkopf. It is going to displace the yellow perch fish even more than the zebra mussel. A double punch, shall we say. We will very likely come back to you for funds on that in years to come. Right now we are looking for a post-doctorate to do the endocrinological research on the spawning pheromones. We need to locate somebody who is willing to commit 2 or 3 years to that research before we can continue. They are investigating the alarm response, and they found a very positive result there. We have to narrow down some more of the spawning pheromones before we can continue. Mr. Hobson. I would just suggest that you--if we could get at that early, I think there is a lot--there could be a lot of support in the Great Lakes to get at that early. Mr. Schwarzkopf. Oh, I agree. The sooner, the better. We need management tools. I am basically a fisheries and wildlife biologist, and we have been working with the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Biological Service, university researchers throughout the region. There are all kinds of efforts out there trying to find the control measures, but this is probably one of the best ones. Mr. Hobson. I would just like to suggest to the Chairman when he comes back that we look at that because I think if we get at these things early instead of waiting until they get really bad, and then everybody has got to try to clean it up everywhere, it is a real problem. Mr. Schwarzkopf. The researchers are pushing the Great Lakes Protection Fund and NSF for some ongoing dollars on that. Mr. Hobson. And where is the mercury in here? How did it get in there? Mr. Schwarzkopf. The areas of concern, a lot of that stuff has become a problem from like the paper industries and other industries that would use--similar product industries that would use mercury in fungicides. But not anymore. But, again, it builds up in high levels. The trouble is, again, it does not biodegrade. It keeps transporting down the stream. It is getting into the lower St. Louis River, into Lake Superior. Then, of course, where the site are contaminated, right on those sites the fish are very high in mercury. Regionally it is a concern with glacial geological areas because the geology is such that the chemistry of the water, it allows the mercury to become very biomagnified through the food chain, and what we are trying to do is to use readily available minerals and other agents to mediate highly valuable fishing areas and to make it cost-effective. It is going to be many years before aerial deposition comes down. It looks--there is some evidence that regional deposition may be coming down from EPA and the States taking mercury out of batteries and paint and so on. But then the worldwide mercury budget is quite high and growing. So it is still a question as to what the decrease in aerial deposition will be. Mr. Hobson. Any questions? Ms. Kaptur. No. Just I would be happy to work with you on all of the issues you have brought forward, including the condition of the lakes. Mr. Schwarzkopf. Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity. ---------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WITNESS HON. MAXINE WATERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Hobson. Ms. Waters of California. Ms. Waters. Thank you very much. I am sorry I was not here at the portion that you had set aside. Mr. Hobson. That is all right. I was late, too. Ms. Waters. Well, I appreciate the opportunity, and we have prepared testimony and we will submit it for your consideration. There are so many things I would like to talk about that you have oversight responsibility for. I cannot possibly do it all, but you do have some of the important programs that are communities of concern that the Congressional Black Caucus depend on. Let me just talk a little bit about Section 8, $1.8 billion project- and tenant-based Section 8 rental contracts will expire in fiscal year 1998 that assist over 4 million people. $9.2 billion in budget authority is needed to renew these expiring contracts. Of the 1.8 million contracts expiring, $1.2 million are Section 8 tenant-based contracts that provide certificates to families. These are increasingly the only available form of public assistance to our Nation's poor. Mr. Hobson. You mean $1.2 billion, don't you? Ms. Waters. What did I say? Mr. Hobson. I thought you said million. Ms. Waters. No, I said 1.8 million tenant-based. Mr. Hobson. Oh, okay. Ms. Waters. And then we have over a half million project- based certificates---- Mr. Hobson. Okay. You are not talking about---- Ms. Waters [continuing]. That are also expiring. Mr. Hobson. Okay. Ms. Waters. The authority for them, as I understand it, the 1.8 million would be $9.2 billion, and the over half a million project-based certificates are $2.5 billion needed to renew the contracts. Mr. Hobson. Okay. Ms. Waters. Also, I think, you know, we have to be concerned about our mortgage insurance responsibilities. If they expire, it would be prohibitive in cost. Let me also mention that last year I worked very hard on housing for people with AIDS. The funding is not keeping up with the need, especially in the areas with high HIV-infected populations, and Los Angeles is one of them. But, again, we are experiencing this in certain areas all over the country. As better treatments increase the life expectancy of those HIV-positive or living with AIDS, the demand for shelter, hospice care, like those assisted through this program, will increase dramatically. In 1996, this program received $104 million. Last year it got $196 million. This year's request is for $204 million, but the program needs a lot more. I worked last year to increase the authorization. The housing bill never became law. I worked to increase the authorization to $212 million for this year, and up again to $225 million for next year. And I think these funding levels really do closely reflect the needs that exist. This is very important. The last one that I would like to burden you with is my beloved Section 108 loan guarantee program. I think that this program is extremely important to cities. As you know, we can create economic development projects with Section 108 loan guarantee programs, and it really is just kind of guaranteed by the CDBG money that you get. And I happened to be at the Conference of Black Mayors this past weekend in St. Louis, Missouri, and they all, from all over the country, said to me we certainly hope that we can expect an increase in Section 108. It is a way by which we can create projects for communities. It creates jobs. It creates financial resources in the communities. So this is a program that I understand is being cut. I increased the loan limitation from $130 million up to $2 billion in 1992. That is before Section 108 was widely used. And when I was able to convince everybody that the way that this is scored it does not cost the budget any money--the scoring is such that it is not a cost to the budget, and it is a cost-effective way to have these low-cost loan programs in the cities that will help them with economic development and job creation, and I am told that it is going down from its high of $2.1 billion in 1994. It was only $1.5 billion in 1996 and now down again to $1.38 billion. I do not know why because if you check the scoring, it should not be scored against the budget at all. This year's request is for only $1.26 billion, and I really do believe we should be expanding this program. I wanted to talk a little bit about a program called Youth for Chance because it funds a number of projects for youth in this country. But as I understand it, my staff have not been able--it is in the Labor budget, is that right? Okay. Then I do not have to burden you with that. If you could pay some attention just to these three items, and particularly making sure that we do something about these expiring Section 108--not 108, but the expiring housing programs, I would be very---- Mr. Hobson. Section 8. Ms. Waters. Section 8. Thank you. [The statement of Ms. Waters follows:] [Pages 167 - 172--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Hobson. Thank you. Mrs. Meek. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I agree with my chairman, Ms. Waters, on the issues she has brought before you today, and several other members have come with this same problem, particularly ones from California. They are concerned about Section 108 and also the Section 8 for housing. So I cannot reiterate too much the need for these programs, particularly in helping the citizens. We are talking about job creation. We have the vehicle there if we just put the funds there. Mr. Hobson. Mr. Price. Mr. Price. Thank you. I do not have any questions, but I thank you for being here. We will attend to that testimony carefully. Ms. Waters. Thank you all for your hard work. Mr. Hobson. Let me ask a couple things here. I first of all share your concerns about persons with AIDS. I wrote the law in Ohio on that. And as I understand it, I think on Section 8 there is going to have to be some way to handle that problem. It is going to have to be worked out. We just cannot throw these people out on the street. We cannot let these contracts expire. I think everybody recognizes that somehow that is going to be done. The other thing is, in the area of--I think the President asked for, what, $1.4 billion on the 108? Ms. Waters. No, I see 1.26 billion, I believe. Mr. Hobson. Is that what it is? I thought it was closer to 1.4 billion. But that is all right. We will take a look at it, and we will make sure the Chairman looks at it. Ms. Waters. Well, listen, I did not know, Mr. Chairman, about your work with AIDS, and let me congratulate you because obviously you probably--it appears that you started a long time ago before many people got involved. Mr. Hobson. It was not a very popular bill to do in the State of Ohio when I wrote the law. Ms. Waters. I am sure it was not. Mrs. Meek. Chairman Hobson, this morning the Chairman mentioned--we were talking about Section 8 in terms of the budget and some finalization of it, and he said it looked to him that, you know, it was up in the air, and they were going to have to have offsets to do it. Could you speak to that? Mr. Hobson. Offsets in the supplemental or in the--I think in the supplemental--I am not--I think in the supplemental that is true. I am not sure that in the long-term budget situation that we are looking at that that will be true. There is a different--there is a short-term problem. There is a long-term problem. And the long-term problem that is being probably negotiated as we are sitting here now. That is the best I can-- I am not at the table to effect some of the things, but we are--it is going to be--I think that is going to be resolved. Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman, let me just say one other thing-- -- Mr. Hobson. I am not quite sure yet, so don't quote me---- Ms. Waters [continuing]. That may not fall within your jurisdiction--and I thank you for paying attention to this Section 8 problem because it is going to hit us very hard if we do not deal with it. Mr. Hobson. It is in everybody's district. Everybody has got a problem. It is more in some than others, but everyone--I don't think there is a member here who does not have a problem in the Section 8 housing. I hope in the housing bill--that we can get a housing bill that becomes law this year and authorize the bill. There are some differences on that, but---- Ms. Waters. I know. We did not get one before. Thank you very much. Mr. Hobson. Thank you. ---------- -- -------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WITNESS JAMES M. MULLEN, JR., VICE PRESIDENT FOR STUDENT AFFAIRS, TRINITY COLLEGE Mr. Hobson. Dr. Jim Mullen, Vice President of Student Affairs, Trinity College. Are you here, sir? Mr. Mullen. Yes, sir. Mr. Hobson. All right. Mr. Mullen. Thank you, and my thanks to the members of the Committee for providing the opportunity to join you today and be with you. I would like to request your permission, if I could, to have my statement included in the record. Mr. Hobson. Without objection. Mr. Mullen. Thank you very much. I am here to tell you a bit about an ambitious and, we believe, imaginative effort for urban renewal and community development that is happening in Hartford, Connecticut, and to ask for Federal support. Hartford is the fourth poorest city of its size in the country, and over the last decade it has confronted issues of crime, poverty, and people leaving the inner city. In Hartford South End, the neighborhood of which Trinity College is a part, over 13 percent of the housing is vacant. Many local businesses have been forced to close down or move away due to crime, lack of sales, and lack of credit. Trinity has not turned its back on the needs of our community. Instead, Trinity College is leading a $175 million community-based effort to revitalize the area, working in a spirit of partnership and cooperation to rebuild our neighborhood from within. Trinity College, along with four other Hartford-based institutions, businesses, and State and local government, have formed a unique alliance, we believe, to rebuild the infrastructure and economic stability of our community. Our four institutional partners are Hartford Hospital, Connecticut Children's Medical Center, the Institute of Living, and Connecticut Public Television and Radio. Working together, we have contributed millions to jump-start the renewal efforts and have created the Neighborhood Initiative and Learning Corridor. These two programs are cornerstones of the future revitalization of South Hartford. These projects are designed to provide the tools, resources, and skills needed by the community to move and develop from within. The Neighborhood Initiative covers a 15- block area in the heart of Frog Hollow and Barry Square neighborhoods between Trinity and its partner institutions. The initiative includes renewed housing, increased home ownership and employment opportunities, youth and family programs, retail and commercial development, as well as improved streetscapes, lighting, and security. This revitalization effort will create the underlying support and infrastructure necessary for residents to advance economically and educationally in our city. The Learning Corridor will offer specialized education, skills building, and support to the community. The corridor will be constructed over the next 4 years directly east of the college on a former bus garage site acquired from the State and will house the following educational and training projects: a regional Montessori-style public elementary school, which will open in the fall 1999; a public neighborhood middle school; a regional math, science, and technology high school resource center; a regional arts high school program; and a professional teacher training and development center. On behalf of its partners, Trinity College requests $4.3 million in Federal funding to support key elements of our plan to enable the redevelopment of an economically distressed community. Specifically, the requested funding would be used for planning and purchase of unused and undeveloped land and environmental cleanup of the site, purchasing and renovating abandoned buildings, building a family center and a Boys and Girls Club, demolishing unsafe and abandoned housing, and building new housing, schools, and professional training and development center. It is projected that the Neighborhood Initiative and Learning Corridor in South Hartford will generate well over $100 million in new construction for the area. Additionally, over 400 construction jobs will be created, with additional employment opportunities related to other industries as well. We know that this initiative can be successful with Federal support, and we have committed a substantial amount of our own resources in corporate funding to ensure its success. To date, Fannie Mae has committed $75 million in low-rate mortgage financing, and our partnership has successfully attracted over $13.5 million in private and corporate funding to invest in the neighborhood's infrastructure to help turn around and stop urban decay. The Neighborhood Initiative and Learning Corridor will establish the neighborhood surrounding Trinity as a hub of educational, health, and family support activities. Urban development and renewal, job creation and job training, home ownership and education are all elements of our collaboration. In summary, with $4.3 million in Federal support, our community development initiative will create jobs and provide for economic stability, both of which are critical to the future of the city of Hartford. I thank you for your consideration of this request, and I would be happy to answer any questions of the subcommittee. [The statement of Mr. Mullen follows:] [Pages 176 - 183--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Hobson. Mr. Price, do you have any questions? Mr. Price. I wonder if you could just summarize--I am not sure it is clear from the materials you submitted--what percentage of the total cost of this Federal contribution would be and what other sources of support this might leverage? What else is in the pipeline? Mr. Mullen. Absolutely, Congressman. It is a $175 million project, of which we are requesting $4.3 million from the Federal Government in this request. There is a significant State contribution, $18 million for a Montessori elementary school. Mr. Price. Is that already---- Mr. Mullen. That is funded, $18 million, Montessori elementary school, 500 students; and $27 million for a major middle school which is city-funded; and a high school resource center, which is State-funded, the first $7 million of which is in place, the rest is being funded by the State this session; a $900,000 Boys and Girls Club, which money has been raised privately, $900,000 has been raised privately for that. So there is a significant public-private partnership, corporate support, $1 million for a family resource center from Aetna; and the institutions themselves have committed significant dollars. Mr. Price. So how does the Federal money then fit into that? Mr. Mullen. The Federal money, the role the Federal money will play is it will allow us to do significant work doing planning in the four quadrants around the college, the neighborhood around the college. It will also allow us to assist in the housing initiative which involves about 75 properties, acquisition where necessary, remediation where necessary, demolition or rehab as well. So that is a major part of it. Mr. Price. Thank you. Mr. Mullen. Thank you. Mr. Hobson. It sounds like a very ambitious and neat project for the area. Certainly you are to be encouraged in that. The problem is I do not think that the Committee is doing any more of these--what do we call them?--special earmarks in these types of projects because everybody has got one somewhere. But there are ways, I think, that people should be looking at it that might help you, because we want to encourage this. This is the kind of thing that should be done, and it has certainly got what I would say is strong community support and State support for this program. But there are home and CDBG programs that I don't know if you applied for or that money can be used in this area to help you, but the special-purpose grants that we have, years ago that they did, we are just not able to do those anymore. But it is--at least that is my understanding of the Chairman's position. But this is certainly something that looks like it has strong support, and we wish you the best in the community and appreciate your coming in. Personally, I think we would like to know how you come along and how it works, and if you have any trouble in these areas, certainly I think the members from the State ought to be willing--whose district is this? Barbara Kennelly's. She is a very active member. I am sure she would be very helpful. She knows a lot of the approaches. So we wish you well. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hobson. Yes? Mr. Frelinghuysen. I went to school up there. That was a good article in the New York Times, just grabbing what you are doing up there. I really commend you for what you are doing. What has occurred in that neck of the woods over the last 15 years has been pretty horrendous, and it is good to know that you are out there pitching to revitalize that area. That city has undergone--and I am good friends with Barbara Kennelly. She is a great Member of Congress. It has really undergone some great economic troubles. But it is good to know that Trinity is one of those providing the leadership. Mr. Hobson. I am on the board of a couple small schools, and it is interesting to read you--are you pretty well endowed? Have you been able to raise endowment funds? Mr. Mullen. We have been very fortunate. We have a loyal alumni and---- Mr. Hobson. You are a fairly small school, 1,800 people, and 200 in the graduate school, which I think is remarkable considering the size school you have. Personally, I want to wish you well. Mr. Mullen. I appreciate that. Mr. Hobson. I graduated from a small college, Ohio Wesleyan. Mr. Mullen. Oh, sure. That is a good school. Mr. Hobson. And Wittenberg--I have a whole bunch of schools in my district. I guess I had better not mention one, or I am in trouble. I can mention my alma mater. So we want to wish you well. Mr. Mullen. You are very gracious. Thank you. Mr. Hobson. It is very important that you have taken the leadership. Thank you. ---------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WITNESS MICHAEL WEINSTEIN, PRESIDENT, AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION Mr. Hobson. Michael Weinstein, welcome to the Committee. Mr. Weinstein. Thank you. Members, good afternoon. My name is Michael Weinstein. I am president and founder of AIDS Healthcare Foundation. AHF is America's largest community-based provider of HIV medical and residential services. To date, we have served over 10,000 outpatient clients and 3,000 residents in a network of four clinics and three free-standing residential facilities. I am here to request your---- Mr. Hobson. Where are they? Mr. Weinstein. In Los Angeles. Mr. Hobson. Okay. Mr. Weinstein. I am here to request your help in funding a demonstration project of national significance, re-tooling our existing residential AIDS programs to maximize success of revolutionary new AIDS treatments. Tragically, too many Americans with HIV will fail on the celebrated new protease inhibitor combinations. They are being asked to instantly master something few of us will ever have to face. They are required to stay on top of drug regimens which typically include over 20 pills per day, staggered throughout the day, and which produce strong side effects. Many will experience nausea, kidney stones, dizziness, skin conditions, and often pain. Some of these drugs require refrigeration. Each drug demands its own timetable. Even the most disciplined amongus would find that a stiff challenge. But these drugs are saving lives in 80 percent of our patients when these regimens are adhered to. How can we improve their chances? The key to success is establishing a home environment that supports treatment. That is where our facilities can play a key role. You may have read recently about doctors denying new treatments for fear that patients will fail to comply with these complex regimens. They are forced to play God because they do not have the kind of residential option to initiate treatment we are describing. We are re-tooling our houses to give as many people as possible a solid start on treatment. We estimate that we could save 200 lives per year in Los Angeles County alone. As residential facilities tailored to AIDS treatment, our houses offer 24-hour nursing; our nurses monitor the side effects of treatment, which are typically most intense in the first month. They train residents how to keep their medication schedule. Our support staff and volunteers train family members on how to provide support. A 4- to 8-week in-house program gives residents the strong foundation they need to succeed and to return to work. Our houses provide a new direction for residential AIDS care which others can replicate. Instead of closing hospices for the dying, we are developing programs which support life. But we need to physically re-tool. Our hospices were designed to care for the dying. By definition, that restricted us to persons who were not very mobile and who demanded only relief from pain. We built these facilities around those needs, but we must now care for people who are recovering from hospitalization. That means installing back-up generators to meet Medicare codes, installing negative pressure rooms, piping in oxygen, purchasing physical therapy equipment. Our more mobile residents who are initiating new combination treatments will need enhancements like conference rooms and educational areas, occupational rehab facilities, kitchen upgrades, and interior stairwells, et cetera. As a HOPWA HUD-eligible project, we believe a Federal response at this critical moment is particularly appropriate. We are asking $1.5 million in one-time-only support from your Committee to help make these upgrades. That represents the bridge we need to demonstrate the program will work. We have secured and committed almost $18 million over the last 2 years for these residential treatment facilities from non-Federal sources. We have submitted a written articulation of the budget to your Committee. We are at a time of great hope, but that hope might easily be dashed. I thank you for considering a project that will keep doctors from having to play God, that will give patients a solid start on life-saving treatments instead of a rejection slip. And I am happy to answer any questions you may have. [The statement of Mr. Weinstein follows:] [Pages 188 - 192--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Hobson. Are there any questions? Mrs. Meek. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hobson. Mrs. Meek. Mrs. Meek. Thank you so much for appearing. I am very concerned and interested in this kind of project, particularly housing for AIDS patients. Representative--she is from California, and I am trying to search for the name. Mr. Hobson. Waters? Mrs. Meek. No, not Waters. She mentioned it also, but this morning, the Representative, remember she left us a booklet on---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Nancy Pelosi. Mrs. Meek. Nancy Pelosi was here this morning with a--it was not similar, but she did ask for increased funding in the area of housing money for--this is it. And it appears that she certainly would agree with what you said. You are asking for a model demonstration program. Mr. Weinstein. That is correct. Mrs. Meek. I think that you are combining, if I understand this, all of these modalities. That is, they will not be in a hospice; they will be in a regular home-like environment. But you will be doing the kind of care that they need wherever they are health-wise. Is that correct? Mr. Weinstein. Right, but particularly what we are focusing on is getting somebody started in treatment. So instead of a doctor saying you are not a good candidate because you have an unstable home situation, we are saying come in, spend a month here, get through the initial side effects, get used to the routine, and then you can go out in the world and you have had a chance; otherwise, we are just going to write these people off and say, you know, they are too unstable, we are not going to give them these drugs, and they are certainly going to progress and die if that is the case. Mr. Hobson. I, too, share the concern over this. I do not know if you were here earlier when I said I wrote the law in Ohio. The problem we have is we do not have demonstration projects right now, but I think in HOPWA there may be funds available for you to get the money to do this, Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, and I think that might be the place for you to get the money that you are looking for. Mr. Weinstein. Out of a national demonstration project or out of local funds? Mr. Hobson. It would be national funds. You might want to look at that as a way of getting your money. Can we do anything to help get him in the door? Or how would---- The Staff. I am sure we can probably find some way to help. I know that they even have an innovative demonstration program for things just like this. Mr. Weinstein. Would it be possible to write language to indicate the direction? Mr. Hobson. I doubt if we could do that. But I think that you are going to find that they are going to be interested in trying to do something, because it is a problem. Let us know how you come out. Mr. Weinstein. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Hobson. Thank you. With the indulgence of the committee, since we are running---- Mrs. Meek. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Hobson. Yes. Mrs. Meek. This project that the gentleman just mentioned would be ineligible for the housing funds for AIDS victims? Mr. Hobson. No. We think he can get some money. We were actually saying we think there is money already available that he can go and find, and he can go to the HOPWA funds, and they have a program, I think, that currently looks for innovative ways to deal with problems of housing with persons with AIDS. Mrs. Meek. That is what I was asking. He can---- Mr. Hobson. Yes, he can go there---- Mrs. Meek [continuing]. Utilize the HOPWA fund. Mr. Hobson. Yes, he can go and look at that, and if you have a problem, either come back to the committee or go to your member--whose district are you in? Whose district? Mrs. Meek. He is California. Mr. Weinstein. We are located in Congressman Waxman, Congressman Dixon, and---- Mr. Hobson. Well, I know Henry knows how to find these funds pretty well. Mrs. Meek. One other thing, Mr. Chairman. The other Representatives who came in were asking for increase in those funds to be sure to cover the need which has greatly increased. Mr. Hobson. We will certainly look at that. That may be another thing we have to do, too. Thank you very much for your testimony. Mr. Weinstein. Thank you very much. ---------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WITNESS THAN JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CHAMPAIGN RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC., URBANA, OHIO, AND VICE PRESIDENT FOR POLICY, AMERICAN NETWORK OF COMMUNITY OPTIONS AND RESOURCES Mr. Hobson. I am going to do one thing, since we are running about 15 minutes early. I am going to take the indulgence of the Chair and take a constituent of mine: Than Johnson, Vice President for Policy, American Network of Community Options and Resources. He will be short, but direct and to the point. Than, how are you? Mr. Johnson. Fine. Mr. Hobson. Welcome. Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Representative Hobson. Good seeing you. Mr. Hobson. Nice to see you. Mr. Johnson. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Committee Members. My name is Than Johnson. I am Executive Director of Champaign Residential Services, a non-profit corporation providing a variety of residential options for over 400 citizens with mental retardation in 11 counties in Ohio. I am also the Vice President of Policy for the American Network of Community Options and Resources, ANCOR, on whose behalf I am testifying today. ANCOR is a nationwide association of over 650 private, non- profit, for-profit, and family care agencies that together provide supports and services to more than 50,000 low-income people with mental retardation and developmental disabilities. Many of these individuals have very low incomes and rely upon housing opportunities that Congress has provided through various HUD programs. All too often, people with disabilities have been in the position of competing for scarce resources at national, State, and local levels--competing for housing assistance needed by other low-income households in general, and frequently in competition with other vulnerable groups, such as people who are elderly. The need for affordable, accessible housing in the community for people with disabilities is tremendous and is increasing each year as a result of the woefully inadequate supply of affordable housing and as a result of units lost because of designated ``elderly only'' housing. ANCOR believes it is critical that there is a Federal role in housing and that adequate funding for America's most vulnerable citizens--people with MRDD--must continue in order to open doors to affordable housing in the community. Unfortunately, over the past few years, HUD appears not only to have understated the housing needs of people with disabilities in this country, but has failed to lead the way in urging an appropriate Federal response. Due to this Subcommittee's sense of equality and commitment to protecting America's most vulnerable citizens, a first step was taken in restoring some of the housing lost to people with disabilities as a result of recent Federal housing designation policies. Although this issue appears to have escaped the attention of HUD, it did not escape the stewardship of Members of this Subcommittee when it proposed a $50 million appropriation for tenant-based assistance specifically for people with disabilities last year. Mr. Hobson. You can put your total statement in the record if you want, Than, and you can just tell us kind of what is in here, if you want to do that. Mr. Johnson. Okay. I have a brief caption. Do you want me to just---- Mr. Hobson. You can do whatever you want, but I would like to get your whole statement in the record. Mr. Johnson. Okay. We have that on file. Last year I spoke before this Subcommittee, and I tremendously appreciate the additional $50 million in appropriations that you were able to accomplish for us. I also want to thank you for correcting the mistaken message sent to people with disabilities that their housing needs were no longer important to elected officials in Washington. You certainly corrected that. And your leadership is again needed this year, as apparently the Administration did not hear the message sent by this panel and the voices of thousands of people with MRDD who face a critical shortage in housing. As you know, HUD's 1995 ``Report to the Congress on Worst Case Housing Needs'' and its report in 1996 stated that people with disabilities often have multiple housing needs and are the group most likely to live in severely inadequate housing. But in spite of this evidence, HUD has not included adequate funding in this budget proposal again this year to begin to address the known housing crisis. According to the CCD Task Force's 1996 ``Opening Doors'' report, there were 1,790,000 worst-case housing needs as compared to HUD's estimate of 170,000. On top of this critical shortage in housing, the CCD report also estimates a loss of more than 270,000 federally subsidized housing units for people with disabilities over a 5- year period. This is due to the impact of recent Federal designated housing policy. ANCOR believes that this loss of units to people with disabilities represents the largest single shift in housing in our Nation's history. ANCOR's written testimony includes information from a recent survey of members regarding statewide waiting lists for residential and support services. I would like to share a little bit of the data from the State of Ohio and the depth of its acute housing needs with you. In 1995, the Ohio Department of Mental Retardation estimated we have nearly 8,000 people on a residential waiting list; we have another 8,500 individuals residing in large congregate settings, most of whom could be provided alternatives if funding was available for housing and individual supports. We have an additional 28,000 individuals residing with their families, most of whose parents are above the age of 50, all of whom potentially need housing and support services if their family or foster-care arrangements do not continue. The average per resident daily expenditure in Ohio's State- operated developmental centers is $260 a day, or almost $95,000 annually. In our community-based ICFs/MR, it is approximately $150 a day. Clearly, these housing subsidies are much more cost-effective than those in these type of residential options. I personally--the agency that I work for, we have approximately 100 ICF/MR settings, of which our costs are about $100 a day. But we also have settings for nearly 250 people that are averaging probably a fourth of that because it does not have all the regulations that you have within the ICF/MR program. It truly lets people choose where they would like to live. However, the public housing authority tells me that there is up to a 3-year wait for federally subsidized housing in Clark and Champaign counties. According to our affiliate in New York, there are 5,500 people with mental retardation on their waiting list. It is estimated that at the current rate of development, the parent of a child in New York with developmental disabilities must wait until the year 2027 forcommunity residential opportunities. Clearly, the need for housing in the community for people with MRDD outstrips current Federal and State resources. Waiting is not uncommon for people with disabilities and their families. Unfortunately, all too often it becomes a way of life. Their only alternatives are to continue to live inappropriately in large institutions, with their aging families, or in substandard housing, or to spend 50 to 70 percent of their limited income on rent or go homeless. They and their families wait and hope that they win the Section 8 lottery. This data does not reflect the number of people with other disabilities who are in need of affordable housing. I would like to--if I had time, I would like to tell you a little bit about Clyde and Scott. Representative Hobson certainly knows Scott, where he is living now and how his life has dramatically changed. Clyde is a gentleman who has been a friend of mine for 20 to 25 years, who for 40 of his 60 years lived in a large State institution. At this time, we would be spending close to $260 a day for him. Clyde lived, while I was building a house, about two apartments down from me for about a year-and-a-half-- it took that long to get the house built--where now Clyde receives from our agency an average of an hour to two hours to support a day in subsidized housing at a total cost of maybe $20 to $30 so he could be independent. And he is just an example of where assistance in housing tremendously helps individuals who do not need all the wrap-around supports that we would have to give them in an institutional setting. ANCOR recommends that Congress request a report by the U.S. General Accounting Office on housing needs for people with disabilities. It is imperative that HUD and Congress have reliable data on which to assess the housing needs of people with disabilities to determine allocation of scarce resources. It is important that the study also include the use of mainstream housing resources such as HOME and CDBG, which are grossly underutilized by communities to assist people with disabilities with affordable rent and home ownership opportunities. ANCOR also recommends that Congress be consistent in its policy by appropriating adequate funding for HUD programs, those specifically designed to address the housing needs of individuals with disabilities, and to direct HUD to promote the utilization of mainstream housing programs, such as HOME and CDBG, to increase housing options in the community for people with disabilities. Tenant-based rental assistance is one of your most effective ways to provide housing for people with disabilities, and it provides an opportunity for people to exercise choice in obtaining housing in the private market. ANCOR recommends a separate appropriation of $50 million for the new Section 8 tenant-based rental assistance designed specifically for people with disabilities for fiscal year 1998 to address the growing housing gap and replace lost housing as a result of federally designated housing policy. Some people with disabilities of all ages require supports, beyond merely rental assistance, to live in the community. The Section 811 program has proven to be one of the most successful, investing Federal funds to increase housing stock available to people with disabilities who also need some array of other supports. However, it should not be relied upon solely as the only mechanism for addressing the broad range and growing housing needs of people with disabilities. ANCOR does applaud HUD's efforts to ``avert the Section 8 contract renewal crisis''; however, it is misleading to say that this was done without harming other programs. HUD is proposing only $174 million in Section 811 programs, a $193 million funding cut over 1995 and 1996 levels. It is shocking that faced with an acute housing shortage and evidence of a growing gap that such a cut is proposed. ANCOR recommends restoration of the 811 program to the 1996 funding level, plus inflation. The Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities Program, like its sister program, Section 202, was designed to be administered solely by non-profit organizations, respecting the strong belief in the innovation of the public- private partnership. Section 811 funding should be made available to non-profit organizations only. ANCOR recommends that Congress provide HUD's Secretary with the waiver authority to permit private non-profit organizations to administer 811 tenant-based assistance. Currently, only public housing authorities can administer the 25 percent authorization for tenant-based assistance under 811. I want to thank you for, one, having me come a little bit early and speaking. I also, again, appreciate what you did last year for us. Certainly that was something that gave a strong message to HUD. I do not know if they necessarily followed it, but they at least heard that message, and we would certainly hope that you could look at doing something along that same line again this year. [The statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] [Pages 199 - 204--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Hobson. Any questions, Mr. Walsh? Mr. Walsh. I have no questions. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Hobson. Mrs. Meek. Mrs. Meek. No questions. Mr. Hobson. I know Than does a good job. We go all the way back to when I did some hearings on MRDD when I was in the State legislature. So this has been an interesting area for me for a long time. I think the Chairman has in the past tried to support. If we can get everybody on board, we will be a lot better off. Mr. Johnson. And I certainly appreciate your support over the years, Representative Hobson. Mr. Hobson. Thank you. I will turn the chair over to Mr. Walsh now. ---------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WITNESS ANN O'HARA, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF HOUSING, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COLLABORATIVE, INC., CONSORTIUM FOR CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES Mr. Walsh [presiding]. All right. Now we will hear testimony from Ms. Ann O'Hara, Associate Director of Housing, Technical Assistance Collaborative, Inc., Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities. Watch your step. Ms. O'Hara. Thank you. Mr. Walsh. Welcome. Ms. O'Hara. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Housing Task Force is really grateful for the opportunity to provide testimony to you this afternoon on the housing needs of people with disabilities, and we are also extremely grateful and want to thank you for the leadership that Representative Frelinghuysen and the Chairman and other Members of the Committee showed last year in terms of the leadership that you provided on new resources, desperately needed by people with disabilities, to ensure that they can find affordable housing in their community. I am a housing professional. I have been in the housing business for 22 years. I have served as a public housing authority director. I have served as a senior housing official in Massachusetts, and now I work for a nonprofit agency, and we at the nonprofit, the Technical Assistance Collaborative, work very closely with the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Housing Task Force on two issues. One is to document the housing prices that people with disabilities currently face, which we believe is not being done by agencies within the Government, and number two, to advocate for resources that we know are desperately needed by people with disabilities due to the dramatic shift that has occurred in the supply of housing that is available for them due to the implementation of elderly-only housing designation. The previous witness just mentioned that we did a study last year and published a report that said that 273,000 units of housing would be lost for people with disabilities by the year 2000 in the public housing program and in the HUD-assisted housing programs. We now believe that that number is much too low. Studies that we have done since that time indicate that the loss may be, in fact, twice as high. We just finished a study of one county in Michigan where we looked at all of the HUD-assisted housing and surveyed the management companies to determine whether they had converted their housing to elderly only, and out of the 5,000 units that were available prior to elderly- only designation, 3,000 of those 5,000 units are now off the market for people with disabilities. That is a loss of 60 percent, and it is more than double what we had predicted in our 1996 report. On the public housing side, we are also very concerned because the notice that was recently issued by HUD which provides for an expedited process for housing authorities to designate, it is predicted by HUD in that notice that 174 new plans for elderly-only housing will be filed in the next 12 months. Currently, HUD has approved 50 plans. Those 50 plans have taken 22,000 units off the market for people with disabilities. If another 174 plans are filed in the next 12 months, that amount, the amount of units taken off the market, we predict, will go over 90,000. So the numbers continue to rise as the implementation of elderly-only housing moves, marches forward. It calls the basic question which is where are people going to live. People who are currently living with parents, parents are aging, there is no extra income to help somebody provide a rent subsidy, people who are living in congregate housing who would like an opportunity to live on their own. The number of people who are homeless and have a disability is a disgrace in this country. Over 30 percent of the homeless single adults have a disability of some kind. That number is going to go up if we don't do something about this problem. Until a year ago, there really were no answers to the question of where would people go, what resources would be available since the pot of units is shrinking so dramatically, but thanks to the actions of this Subcommittee, there is a $50 million appropriation. The money is out in the form of a notice of fund availability. The telephones are ringing off the hook at my office at the Arc, at ANCHOR, people desperate for information on how to get a hold of these Section 8's, where do I go, how do I get the housing authority to apply, what are the rules, how many are there, how many years are they funded for, and so we urge you to continue to support that appropriation and for an additional $50 million for new Section 8's, which is frankly a drop in the bucket compared to the loss of housing that we are dealing with. If you look, again, at this county in Michigan where we have done our work, there is no public housing there, maybe a couple of hundred units. All of the housing was assisted housing, and it's all converting to elderly only. So people with disabilities in that county in the absence of Section 8 have no options at all. There is also a notice of fund availability out at the moment for the 811 program, for tenant-based rental assistance, and while we applaud the availability of that money as well, we are very concerned that that money was carved out of a shrinking appropriation, and at a time when we are going to need to create more housing, we are trying to do it all with 811 program or much of it with the 811 program. At HUD, the 811 program is still seen as the program for people with disabilities, to the exclusion of what I believe are the mainstream housing opportunities that every citizen in this country who has low income has a right to access. So we urge you to fund the 811 program, and adequately, so that tenant-based rental assistance can be funded in addition to the projected activities that have historically been done with the program. We also urge you to look at mainstream resources, and we keep coming back to that theme because we are aware that there is a limit to the amount of money around, but it is true that people with disabilities--and I find this constantly in my work. People with disabilities get little or no share of the mainstream housing opportunities that are out there. For example, housing authorities that are designated elderly housing very rarely adopt a preference in their Section 8 programs, so that people who were on public housing lists can be given preference on their existing Section 8 program because Section 8 does turn over every year. There are certificates that become available, and it would be fairly easy to redirect some of those resources. We are concerned about the HOME and CDBG programs. Webelieve that those production programs are important, but we are very concerned that those resources don't go to people with disabilities in a way that is equitable based on their housing needs. So that, really, in conclusion, we believe that new resources have to be put on the table, but we also want to see real policy direction from HUD and from communities that will help people with disabilities have what every citizen who has low income wants, which is just a fair shake, a fair chance to participate in the limited Federal resources that are available in local governments and in State governments. So I thank you for the opportunity. I thank you very much for your work last year, and we look forward to working with you again in the future. [The statement of Ms. O'Hara follows:] [Pages 208 - 219--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Walsh. Thank you very much for your testimony. It is very compelling. Are there any questions? Mrs. Meek. Thank you. She really knows housing, Mr. Chairman, and it is a joy listening to you. Ms. O'Hara. Well, thank you for listening. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you for articulating so many issues so well. Our support for the initiatives last year was bipartisan. I particularly want to thank Chairman Lewis for his aid and assistance, and many of us have been working with Chairman Lazio on the authorizing side to make sure that we protect what is there as well as obviously find new funding wherever possible, but thank you for educating me in the process. Mrs. Meek. If I may add one more caveat here, in a lot of these counties and cities and municipalities, you have trouble tapping CDBG funds, even when the Government provides it, and I am sorry to hear how negatively this has impacted people with disabilities. They don't want to give it up for 108 or any of the things, any of the initiatives. So it is hard to get around that. Ms. O'Hara. It is. Mrs. Meek. Yes. Ms. O'Hara. It is. There is a limit to the amount of money, just the traditional ways of spending it, and so, when you try to suggest that that be broadened without more money, it is very hard to change local behavior, if you will. Mr. Frelinghuysen. We can try to change departmental behavior, too. Mrs. Meek. Right. Mr. Frelinghuysen. That is the main problem is that you have got some sort of mind-set over there that needs to be shaken. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walsh. Not at all. Your points are well taken, both of them. Thank you very much. Ms. O'Hara. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ---------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WITNESS AIMEE R. BERENSON, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, AIDS ACTION COUNCIL Mr. Walsh. Our next presenter, we will go back to earlier in the order to Aimee Berenson, Director of Government Affairs, AIDS Action. If you would like, you can submit your entire statement or the record, and feel free to summarize your statement and make the pertinent points. Mr. Berenson. Thank you very much. I understand. Good afternoon. I am Aimee Berenson. I am Director of Government Affairs for AIDS Action Council. The Council represents over 1,400 organizations across the country, people living with HIV and AIDS that they serve. This is a time of great hope in the AIDS epidemic. As a result of advances in care and treatment for people with AIDS, deaths from AIDS have dropped significantly in the last year by 13 percent, but the epidemic is far from over. The number of people who died from AIDS declined last year, but the number of people living with AIDS did not, and AIDS continues to be the leading cause of death among American men and women between the ages of 25 and 44. Worse still, every year, 40,000 to 80,000 more Americans become infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Stable housing helps prevent the early onset of illness and maintains the quality of life for HIV-infected individuals and their families. Without stable housing, many people with HIV disease die prematurely because it was impossible to link them to care services and life-sustaining treatments. Today, with the new advances in the care and treatment of HIV disease, stable housing and the access to care that housing provides for people may do more than prevent premature death. It may make the difference between life and death altogether. It is challenging enough for people living with HIV to find the health care they need and the services they need. Imagine having to choose between paying your doctor's bill and paying your rent, paying for your prescriptions or paying your mortgage. For too many people living with AIDS, this is not just an imagination exercise. At any given time, one-third to one-half of all Americans with AIDS are homeless or in imminent danger of losing their homes. Sixty percent will need housing assistance at some point, and in some urban areas, as many as 50 percent of the local homeless population are infected with HIV. The housing opportunities for people with AIDS program is the heart of the Federal response for people living with HIV and AIDS. By increasing fiscal year 1998 funding for HOPWA, Congress can help us ensure that no American living with HIV disease is denied care, treatment, even life itself just because they don't have a stable place to live. As I know you are aware, 90 percent of HOPWA funds aredistributed by formula grants to States and localities hardest hit by the epidemic. HOPWA dollars are providing everything from rental assistance to rehab of existing units to building new residences and coordinating home care services in communities ranging from New York, New Jersey, Florida, Mississippi, Ohio, and Wisconsin. In fiscal year 1997, 80 jurisdictions, 53 metropolitan areas, and 27 States qualify for HOPWA formula grants, and HUD estimates that 10 more jurisdictions will qualify for fiscal year 1998. The President's fiscal year 1998 budget request for HOPWA seeks an 8.1-percent increase, for a total of $204 million. This increase, while below the $250 million that we estimate is needed, will at least ensure that your community and communities across the Nation have a fighting chance to address the increasingly important housing needs of their citizens with HIV needs. HUD has estimated that the funding increase requested by the President's fiscal year 1998 budget would provide housing and related services to an additional 2,836 individuals and families. This Nation's investments in AIDS research and care have reaped enormous benefits, but if Congress does not make a similar investment in HOPWA funding for fiscal year 1998, people with AIDS will not have the most basic thing they need to realize the benefits from those other investments, namely a roof over their head. We know there are enormous budgetary challenges facing us on a Federal level, particularly with regard to the HUD budget. HOPWA is a program that works, and it works well. It is community-controlled. It is community-driven, and it is essential because without stable housing, people with AIDS will continue to die prematurely and perhaps unnecessarily in emergency rooms, shelters, on the streets of our cities. Homelessness really does kill people with AIDS, and on behalf of the many Americans living with AIDS and their families, I ask you to remember that HOPWA dollars really do represent life or death for too many people. We urge you to provide at least the President's fiscal year 1998 budget request for HOPWA and help us make sure that all Americans living with HIV disease and their families can share in the hope of new treatments. I thank you for allowing me to testify before you today. [The statement of Mr. Berenson follows:] [Pages 223 - 230--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Walsh. Thank you very much. Good testimony. Mr. Berenson. Thanks. Mrs. Meek. Mr. Chairman, I understand she is the authority on HOPWA and how it can be utilized most efficiently within the communities, the two who just testified. Mr. Walsh. We do have some real experts. Mrs. Meek. Yes. Mr. Berenson. Thank you. Mr. Walsh. Thank you very much for your testimony. ---------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WITNESS ROLAND TURPIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF DAYTON, OHIO METROPOLITAN HOUSING AUTHORITY, PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITIES DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION Mr. Walsh. Our next presenter is Mr. Roland Turpin, the Executive Director of Dayton, Ohio Metropolitan Housing Authority, Public Housing Authorities Directors Association. Welcome, sir. Mr. Turpin. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walsh. As I mentioned to the other witnesses, if you would like to present your total statement for the record and summarize, that will be fine. Mr. Turpin. Yes, sir. I hope to shorten very much the formal paper that we have presented. Mr. Walsh. Very good. Mr. Turpin. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Roland L. Turpin, Executive Director of the Dayton Metropolitan Housing Authority in Ohio. I am also representing today and specifically representing today the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association. I am a Member of its Board of Trustees. The Association represents some 1,650 CEOs of housing authorities around the country, and on behalf of that entire membership, we want to thank you for the opportunity to present our testimony. You see our colleagues are all here to present testimony today on behalf of public housing. This hearing is particularly important because it is, indeed, a watershed year for HUD and the public housing programs. More so now than any other time in recent memory, Congress faces a truly monumental dilemma in that it needs to find more than $5 billion in new budget authority simply to renew expiring Section 8 contracts. At the same time, over the course of the last few years, public housing authorities have absorbed some of the largest spending reductions in the program's history. Funding for operating subsidies, modernization, and Section 8 assistance have all been dramatically reduced. Indeed, combined over the last 2 years, the shortfall and PFS, the performance funding system, has exceeded more than half-a-billion dollars. Funding for modernization, meanwhile, has fallen from a pre-recision national basis of $3.7 billion to now just $2.5 billion. It has represented in our case, in Dayton, a 34-percent reduction in capital funds available to keep our property up to date. Housing authorities have been able to absorb these cuts, partly because of some of the temporary administrative reforms Congress enacted in the previous legislative session through this Committee. Housing professionals appreciate that your Committee has given us more latitude to run our programs based on local needs and priorities. Nonetheless, even with some of the additional flexibility, we simply cannot withstand any further spending reductions. To continue current policies at insufficient funding levels is to invite disaster. If funding for operating andmodernization expenses are not adequately augmented and expiring such needed contracts are not renewed, some high-profile and, frankly, some low-profile housing authorities will eventually go bankrupt, and Congress could face a situation where countless thousands of deserving residents are literally left on the street. With all this in mind, I will now proceed to outline PHADA's fiscal year 1998 budgetary recommendations. First, Mr. Chairman, the Association strongly recommends that Congress allocate the additional budget authority that is needed through a new $1.8-million aspiring such-needed contracts in the coming fiscal year. As the Subcommittee knows, these units provide shelter for some 4.4 million low-income families who could be put at serious risk if Congress fails to act. In a related matter, we urge the Subcommittee to rethink its recent decision to transfer certain Section 8 funding to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA. Under the terms of a supplemental appropriations bill you recently approved, $3.5 billion in Section 8 contract reserves would be transferred from HUD to FEMA. PHADA recognizes the importance of FEMA to the Nation in cases of emergency. However, we do not think you should use Section 8 reserves to fulfill the Agency's needs. In fact, it is our understanding that because FEMA services emergency needs, the law does not require Congress to offset any new FEMA expenses with reductions in other lives. For a more thorough presentation of our position on this point, we have attached a copy of a letter we sent to the Subcommittee and other Members of Congress. Before moving on to some other specific budgetary suggestions, we want to thank Members of this Committee for addressing many of our programmatic concerns during the previous congressional session. Over the last few years, this panel has taken a lead role in addressing some of the longstanding problems that until recently plagued the public housing program. Among other things, you have repealed the Federal preferences, the one-for-one replacement. You have adopted minimum rents and removed several impediments to the Section 8 program, including the take-one-and-take-all and endless lease statutes. You have also given housing authorities more flexibility to design their own ceiling rents and earn income deductions. PHADA supported all of these initiatives, believing that it will go a long way toward improving the program from both a societal and fiscal standpoint. Because these reforms were included in one-year appropriation bills, most of them are temporary in nature. We hope Congress will agree this year on an authorizing bill that will permanently authorize these reforms into law. While we are hopeful about the prospects for a bill, we hope this subcommittee will extend the revisions for, yet, another fiscal year if Congress fails to enact an authorizing package before adjournment. Another major area of PHADA's concern is the significance of the operating subsidy. As we noted a few moments ago, funding for the performing funding system has dramatically reduced over the last several years. In fiscal 1995, for example, the PFS was only funded at 89 to 90 percent of its total capacity. This fiscal year, housing authorities are still being shortchanged at approximately 94 to 95 percent of our needs. When composing its fiscal 1998 appropriations bill, the Subcommittee must consider the strain that will remain for housing authorities to control their operating costs. Unless there is an agreement on a far-reaching authorization bill that truly transforms the way public housing assistance is delivered, or both of the pending authorization bills, H.R. 2 and Senate bill 462, contain some beneficial provisions such as the permanent repeal for Federal preferences and minimum grants, they will not in and of themselves generate cost savings housing authorities need to sustain their operations. One must keep in mind that housing authorities have some built-in cost to maintain. Housing authorities must continue paying insurance premiums, local contract obligations, and utility expenses. We cannot ask for increased rental payments from our residents. They have few options when the need to deal with a budget shortfall arises. Unless adequate funding is received, housing authorities have little choice but to restrict services to our residents, the Nation's $3-millon-plus public housing residents. It must be remembered that more than 500,000 of these individuals are elderly or disabled. With this in mind, the PHADA recommends that the subcommittee appropriate $3.2 billion for operating subsidies in fiscal 1998. This is about $300 million more than the current year's appropriation and $300 million more than what HUD proposed. Another very high-priority item for PHADA is the public housing modernization account. Funds in this program are used for major work items, such as replacing boilers and roofs, removing dangerous lead-based paint, and further upgrading properties, many of which are over half-a-century old. The dollars that are used by housing authorities under the modernization program go to the very heart of the quality-of- life issues for the residents we serve. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Turpin. Mr. Turpin. Yes. Mr. Walsh. I am going to ask you if you could wrap it up fairly quickly. We have been allocating about 7 minutes per person. You are a little bit over that. Mr. Turpin. Okay. I am sorry about that. Mr. Walsh. That is all right. Mr. Turpin. I will just mention that we want you to continue the public housing drug elimination program. It is very vital. The Administration fee structure needs to be looked at again. It needs to be at the original proposal of 7.65 percent. That completes our presentation. [The statement of Mr. Turpin follows:] [Pages 235 - 245--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Walsh. Thank you. We will make sure that all of your comments and statements are in the record. Mr. Turpin. I thought I was cutting out a lot, as much as I could. Mr. Walsh. It is a lot to cover. Mr. Turpin. I know. Mr. Walsh. We just have so many witnesses today. Mr. Turpin. I apologize to the Committee. Mr. Walsh. That is no problem. Mr. Turpin. I apologize to you. Mr. Walsh. Are there any questions? Mrs. Meek. No. Thank you very much. Mr. Turpin. Thank you. Mr. Walsh. Thank you, sir. ---------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WITNESS RICARDO DIAZ, PRESIDENT OF CLPHA AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE MILWAUKEE HOUSING AUTHORITY, COUNCIL OF LARGE PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITIES Mr. Walsh. The next presenter is Mr. Ricardo Diaz, president of CLPHA--I am not sure what that is yet, but I am sure he can tell us--and Executive Director of Milwaukee Housing Authority. Welcome, sir. Mr. Diaz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Ricardo Diaz. I am the Executive Director of the Milwaukee Housing Authority and the President of the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify here in front of you today. Mr. Chairman, as was said by the previous speaker, public housing has some of the deepest cuts in Federal funding. Since 1995, there has been no funding for development, and modernization funds have been slashed by one-third of the original appropriation. Operating shortfalls have been just as severe. If the HUD request is adopted, there will be a combined loss of $1 billion for 1997 and 1998. These cuts could result in a drop of $5.3 billion between 1993 and the year 2002. Welfare and SSI reforms will compound these reductions. We estimate at CLPHA a rent loss of $500 million annually. In Wisconsin, a leading State on welfare reform, we have estimated a loss of $300,000 in rental income in 1996. The reduced rents, impact of SSI changes on legal immigrants and disabled children will be even greater. We estimate a loss of $100,000 this year alone. In one of our elderly hi-rises, we could lose 25 percent of our rental income if legal immigrants lose SSI. This would bankrupt this building. Despite these huge deficits, we are still expected to run the same program serving the same extremely poor households. We have become a massive unfunded mandate. Mr. Chairman, we greatly appreciate your response to the failure of the Authorizing Committees to change the rules of the game last year. We hope that the desperately needed changes are enacted permanently this year. For years, Congress has dictated who should be housed in public housing, namely the poorest of the poor. The average annual income of our resident is only $5,850. Their rents cover only 40 percent of our operating cost. The Federal promise is to provide an operating subsidy to cover the gap between the low rents and the operating cost of a well-run public housing authority. HUD's request of $2.9 billion does not come close to keeping that promise. It is short a record $500 million. The impact of that shortfall is absorbed by the public housing authority's budget used for maintaining the properties and the grounds, collecting the rents, providing security, and re- renting vacant units. The utilities must still be paid. The Committee should disregard HUD's proposal to cut Section 8 administrative fees further. We have already suffered a two-step cut of reduced percentage and a reduced base. In Milwaukee last year, Mr. Chairman, I had to dip into a reserve, $121,000, in order to balance the budget for 1996. If this continues, our program will be bankrupt in 5 years. Aside from the HOPE VI program, HUD is proposing only a $2.5 billion for public housing capital, basically the modernization program. Its request is misleading because $100 million is set aside for non-capital, non-rehabilitation items, leaving only $2.4 billion, the lowest level since fiscal year 1989. In Milwaukee, our 1997 funding is the lowest level that it has been for 9 years the time that I have been there. Just last week, I had to lay off 10 people in our security staff. In Milwaukee, we need at least $70 million, and we can contract whatever we receive within 14 months after receiving those funds. HUD is requesting HOPE VI funds for demolition only. I am connected to revitalization and for Section 8 tenant-based assistance for relocation, an activity traditionally carried out under the Section 8 account. There is a bait-and-switch aspect to this. Congress appropriates funds narrowly focused on the capital needs of major reconstruction, and then HUD adds other activities under the popular HOPE VI account. CLPHA request that $500 million be designated specifically for the capital in supportive services. Supportive services should be funded from the community development block grant program. Supportive service grants are not confined to public housing, nor public housing residents. CLPHA urges the Committee to make clear that funding to a nonprofit public housing for work done with our residents should be done in collaboration with the public housing authority in order to avoid duplication and misuse of funds. Please clarify the purpose for which these funds can be used. CLPHA in partnership with disability groups recommends statutory earmarks for these funds for service coordinators for elderly and disabled residents. HUD should be instructed to drop its unauthorized requirements, as supportive services can only be used, and I quote, ``if new or significant expanded services.'' These penalizes housing authorities like ours which use other grants to develop an award-winning model for service coordinators in a hi-rise. Prior to receiving HUD funding, Milwaukee received a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to demonstrate the effectiveness of service coordinators in our hi-rises. Milwaukee has over 1,400 residents who are over 61 years ofage. Approximately 71 of these elderly have had problems of mental and physical disabilities. An additional 4 percent require 24-hour care or monitoring. We have regained the confidence of the elderly and their supporters. We appreciate the Chairman's efforts to help us provide affordable housing for our senior citizens. The Public Housing Drug Elimination Program, PHDEP, has been one of the most useful additions to public housing in a decade. Milwaukee has been able to leverage over $2.5 million worth of services using our $400,000 grant of drug elimination. Our public safety staff and service coordinators, funded through PHDEP and supportive services, have tremendously improved the quality of life for 2,000 elderly disabled families receiving them. Please, we urge you to increase these worthy programs from the $290 million to $350 million, and from $50 million to $75 million in supportive services. We also ask you that 75 percent of the PHDEP funds go to public housings with 500 or more units. Although this would reduce current per-unit funding for large public housing like ours to the benefit of smaller agencies, we would rather have a predictable funding which provides continuity and makes it easier to plan and recruit capable staff. Please don't allow HUD to dictate the percentage of drug elimination grant funds that can be used for law enforcement and work-related efforts. PHDEP funds are effectively used now for the purpose Congress intended it to defeat drug and alcohol abuse. Sometimes HUD should learn to leave well enough alone. We request report language on this point. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, we urge the Committee to recognize that no system of serving $3.4 million persons, all poor, many frail elderly, many mentally and physically disabled, many children, housing over 13,000 individuals at the developments, with 1.4 million apartments, often in difficult locations can survive the cuts imposed on public housing. We continue to live in an overly regulated industry where housing authorities are expected not only to be providers of housing of last resorts, but also to be social workers, employment counselors, law enforcement officials, health care providers, and educators. We need a bill that provides adequate resources for these increased responsibilities and the flexibility to develop programs and procedures that are responsive to the local conditions. In an environment with fewer resources, I hope that we can work with you and HUD to obtain the flexibility that we need at the local level to most effectively use our resources. Thank you very much for your past support. [The statement of Mr. Diaz follows:] [Pages 249 - 258--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Walsh. Thank you for your testimony. Questions? Mrs. Meek. No. Mr. Frelinghuysen. I want to commend you. You didn't read it, but let me read it in your statement. ``We regret that HUD's budget doesn't request Section 8 units, as in the past, to enable non-elderly disabled persons to move from elderly buildings or to be able to avoid moving into them in the first place. Certificate/vouchers give the non-elderly disabled an opportunity to live in the broader community; please continue this setaside.'' I am pleased that you are very much in accord with Ms. O'Hara's comments. What was particularly appalling is that HUD didn't put the $50 million back in that we put in last year. You would think after last year's experience, they might learn. So we will help them relearn it. Thank you very much for your testimony. Mr. Diaz. Thank you very much. Mr. Walsh. If I could explore this just for a second, this issue of disabled versus senior housing and the number of spots that will be lost, what is going on in public housing that is causing the disabled community to lose units? Maybe you could help out, if Mr. Diaz can't. Just, if you could, explain that. Mr. Diaz. Mr. Chairman, we were the first city in the country to have an allocation plan approved by HUD. We have 7 of our 14 hi-rises designated for elderly. The other seven are a mixed situation. I can tell you that the service coordinator dollars, and this is why I emphasized that in my testimony, that service coordinators be a priority. We believe that 40 percent of those dollars should be designated for service coordinators. It has been a God-send in the City of Milwaukee. Seniors are now living a quality of life they were not able to do before. They were afraid. We would not get an applicant to public housing. We have attempted many things for a long time, advertising, going to many service club churches to try to recruit, and we are unable to find elderly residents. We have, for example, right now, Section 8 certificates available for disabled population. We have not had to use any of them. We will take any disabled person in Milwaukee. We are able to accommodate them. We welcome them. What you would need to provide is a service coordinator along side in those buildings so there is a provider of services, a nurse, a social worker, someone to be able to be there to provide that quality of service, whether we are talking about elderly or we are talking about disabled. That is the difference. I think what we are talking about is behavior, Mr. Chairman. We should not be tolerating behavior that is bad, whether a person is older or not. That is what we should be talking about. One of the things, we have seen the quality of life increase. It is because there is a relationship and rapport established between these providers of services and the individual residents. We have been able to turn that situation in Milwaukee around. We have been working with the disable group. They know they can refer their people to our buildings, and they would be more than welcome, but we do ask you---- Mrs. Meek. Mr. Chairman, I think I heard Ms. O'Hara mention the paucity of space. Mr. Walsh. Right. Mrs. Meek. It doesn't appear that you are having that problem with your housing authority. Mr. Diaz. No, we are not. No, we are not. As a matter of fact, we would welcome because we do have vacancies in our building that is designated for disabled, and we are prepared to house many of them. Mrs. Meek. Then, there appears to be some need for having some overall kind of application that will be sure to ensure that disabled get housing, as Ms. O'Hara was speaking to. Mr. Frelinghuysen. I am not sure of the Chair'squestion. What is this behavior aspect thing? I mean, we are not talking about disabled people having a behavior problem, are you? I am a little bit confused how it is all weaved in here. Mr. Diaz. You are talking about---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. In other words, I think we need to answer the question, and I am not sure whether you are prepared to do that or whether we, Mr. Chairman, ought to call upon-- maybe our next witness may be able to shed some light on that. You are not suggesting these coordinators are in there to manage people's behavior problems. Mr. Diaz. Sometimes they don't follow through with medication. There are behaviors in the evenings when security is not there, and what you have is someone that works with them, gets them involved, gets them engaged in a number of activities that improves their quality of life, gets them involved in counseling sessions, making sure that they are going to their doctor regularly. It is that kind of support individual that we have been able to introduce in our building for both populations that have really improved the quality. If it had not been for that, we would not have had elderly applicants in our buildings nor disabled applicants in our building. That is what I am talking about what those individuals have done. Mr. Walsh. It wounds like this issue of behavior certainly would be an issue for a group of seniors at a tenant organization who would say we want ours, we want it peaceful, and having experience in being in city government myself and developing group homes in communities, there is always some people who are going to be opposed to group people who are as a group different or perceived to be different, and I would suspect that that is a similar situation in public housing. Mr. Diaz. It is. I mean, many of the local officials will come and complain about one of the residents calling them. So that is the intervention that we had to do in order to ensure the local officials that, in fact, there is tranquility in that building. Mr. Walsh. Because of these service coordinators. Mr. Diaz. Yes, sir. Mrs. Meek. Right. Mr. Walsh. Thank you very much. Mr. Diaz. Thank you. Mr. Walsh. It has been very helpful. Mrs. Meek. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Walsh. Yes, you may. Mrs. Meek. Mr. Diaz, how did you pay for the service coordinator salary? Mr. Diaz. We were able to secure a grant of $500,000 from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and match with local foundations. Mrs. Meek. That is not a continuous source of revenue, is it? Mr. Diaz. Right. That is why we are concerned about the HUD language in there about expanding the service. We want you to serve the groups that now have these services, not to add more, because over time we know you are not going to be able to sustain it. Mrs. Meek. So volunteerism may not be the answer to yours because it may not be consistent enough? Mr. Diaz. I think you do need people who are professional. You need professional social workers, professional nurses who are trained to deal with the individuals in these buildings. Mrs. Meek. Thank you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. What do you mean by tranquility? Robert Wood Johnson comes out of New Jersey. They are promoting tranquility by the use of these individuals? ``Tranquility'' is the term you used. Mr. Diaz. They provided the dollars to be able to hire the staff, these service coordinators that we can put in our buildings. In other words, those dollars that would---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. I was just questioning your terminology. I think it is rather---- Mr. Walsh. I think the issue is individuals acting out in the public housing or neighborhoods and how they express themselves as differently, and people are going to get concerned about that. So he has, true to Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, found some money to help him to hire these people who can help to provide tranquility. Mr. Frelinghuysen. I am not sure I am happy with that terminology, but thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walsh. Thank you. ---------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WITNESS WILLIAM R. TESTA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE ARC MORRIS CHAPTER, ARC OF THE UNITED STATES Mr. Walsh. The next presenter is Mr. William Testa, Arc Morris Chapter, Arc of the United States. Welcome. Mr. Testa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is William Testa, Executive Director of the Arc Chapter of New Jersey. I am very proud to be here today representing more than 1,100 State and local chapters of the Arc across the country. The Arc is the largest voluntary organization in the United States, devoted solely to the welfare of the more than 7 million people with mental retardation and their families. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Chairman, this gentleman is from my home county, Morris County, representing the national---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. This is constituency work. Mr. Walsh. You are welcome to take the Chair and I will slide over. Mr. Lewis. I will be glad to do that. Mr. Walsh. Excuse us for interrupting. Mr. Testa. Not a problem. Mr. Lewis. Sorry about not being here, but all of us have constituency problems. Mr. Testa. Speaking of constituencies, over 17 years ago when Congressman Frelinghuysen was a Morris Countyfreeholder, our Association was faced with a major financial crisis. With his help, the organization averted bankruptcy, rebuilt a community to be a provider of services and supports to over 850 individuals each month. In 1983, when housing for people with mental retardation was extremely scarce, the Arc Morris Chapter began an intensive effort to develop community-based housing. Today, our agencies supports 125 individuals living in a variety of housing across Morris County. Very early on, Rodney Frelinghuysen, who moved into the State Assembly in the early 1980's, became a staunch supporter of the movement to develop community-based residential services for people with mental retardation. His sponsorship of bond issues and strong support of special needs housing was instrumental in New Jersey's development of community-based residences for people with disabilities. For over a decade, a top priority of the Arc has been to make available community-based services and supports, including an appropriate variety of housing options. The Arc also seeks the deinstitutionalization of people with mental retardation residing in large, inappropriate, and extremely expensive institutions. The people whom we represent, most of whom have very low incomes, may already be consumers of HUD programs or on waiting lists for a variety of HUD programs both generic and disability-specific. Housing is often the cornerstone of independence. If a person with or without a disability has access to decent, safe, affordable housing, then he or she can concentrate on getting an education on job training and on receiving a job and becoming a viable and productive part of the community. Thanks to the Medicaid Home and Community-Based Care waiver, New Jersey has developed a community-based residential service system that it can be proud of. In less than 15 years, it has cut its institutional population from approximately 8,000 people to 4,000 and is presently serving more people in community-based residential services than in its institutional system. Despite this incredible progress, New Jersey maintains a waiting list of over 4,500 individuals in need of community residential services. In addition to this crisis within the community, people living in State institutions are also waiting for appropriate community-based residential services. The designation of elderly-only subsidized housing is just the most recent factor which has contributed to the critical housing shortage for people with disabilities. In 1992 and 1996, Congress passed legislation which permitted both public housing authorities and HUD-assisted housing providers to limit or exclude people with disabilities from living in certain subsidized housing developments by designating this housing elderly-only. Despite this dramatic decrease in the supply of subsidized housing available for people with disabilities, until Congress acted last year, no new resources for people with disabilities were authorized, and until this Subcommittee took bold action, no new funds were appropriated to address this loss. Even after Congress added $50 million for Section 8 tenant- based rental assistance for people with disabilities and more funds for the Section 811 program for FY 1997, HUD did not request the $50 million for FY 1998, and once again proposed, yet, another cut to the 811 program. We, again, are dependent on the understanding and wisdom of this Subcommittee to champion what is necessary and what is right for people. The Arc strongly believes that Section 8 tenant-based rental assistance is one of the most effective tools for helping people with mental retardation live integrated lives in their home communities. Unfortunately, most people with mental retardation have low-paying jobs and would not be able to live on their own without a rent subsidy. While Medicaid can help people get the services and supports they need, people still need a rental subsidy to allow them to be able to afford a place to live. Access to tenant- based assistance is even more critical now when so many other options have been closed to people with mental retardation. The Arc seeks your support for continuation funding for the $50 million in Section 8 tenant-based rental assistance specifically for people with disabilities. The housing crisis faced by many people with mental retardation and other disabilities is getting worse, not better. A one-time infusion of 8,400 Section 8's does very little to offset the estimated loss of over 273,000 units. The FY 1998 HUD budget proposes $174 million for the Section 811 program. This is the same level of funding that HUD requested last year. Fortunately, Congress ignored HUD's recommendation and added $20 million back to the program for a total 1997 appropriation of $194 million. Unfortunately, even that level represents a cut of $193 million from the appropriations for the Section 811 program in each of the fiscal years of 1994, 1995, and 1996. HUD justifies cuts to the Section 811 by stating that all programs need to take a cut. Why, then, are programs like the home and CDBG held sacred and funded at current levels? In addition, why are neither of these programs held more accountable for contributing to the availability of decent, safe, affordable, and accessible housing for people with disabilities. At the same time that HUD requests less money, the Congress and HUD have directed 25 percent of Section 811 funds to tenant-based rental assistance. While it appears that this rental assistance will be very useful for people with mental retardation and other disabilities, the Arc cannot be the only group to wonder why HUD keeps trying to do more in this program with less money. This only harms people. The Arc supports tenant-based rental assistance as part of the Section 811 program only if additional funds are added to the program, not subtracted. The Arc seeks your support for more adequate funding for the Section 811 program. The program is one of those success stories where nonprofit organizations have worked in partnership with Federal and State governments to provide people with mental retardation and other disabilities with needed housing in the community. This is a cost-effective preventative program, and if I can send any message this afternoon, it is that there are faces attached to this problem. These are real people faced with very real problems. These are profiles prepared by the Arc of the United States which provide anecdotes and stories of real people that are affected by this issue. One of those individuals are within Congressman Frelinghuysen's district. I would urge you to remember to not only look at the numbers involved here, but know that there are people behind those numbers. Thank you for this opportunity. [The statement of Mr. Testa follows:] [Pages 265 - 276--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Frelinghuysen [presiding]. Thank you for your blunt testimony, and may I say that both Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Stokes and all members of this Committee have been supportive of the action we took last year, and obviously, we will be strongly considering similar action this year. Thank you very much. Mrs. Meek? Mrs. Meek. No. Thank you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you for being with us. ---------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WITNESS PAUL GROGAN, PRESIDENT, LOCAL INITIATIVES SUPPORT CORPORATION Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Paul Grogan, president, Local Initiatives Support Corporation. Mr. Grogan. Good afternoon. Mr. Frelinghuysen. A copy of your entire testimony will be included in the record, and if you would like to summarize, we would appreciate it. Mr. Grogan. I will be very brief. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Paul Grogan. I am the President of something called the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, which is a 17-year-old private nonprofit entity, known as LISC, that was formed by major corporations and foundations for the purpose of speeding the flow of private capital into inner-city and rural revitalization efforts nationwide. In our history, we have mobilized more than $2.5 billion of private capital in the form of grants, low-interest loans, and equity investments which have been contributed to us by more than 1,600 corporations and foundations across the country, and we have used that capital to build up the capacity now of a formidable network of grass roots, nonprofit organizations which are succeeding in astonishing ways in turning around some of the most devastated communities in America. We as a rule do not take public funds and do not seek public funds for our own institution. Our role is to mobilize private capital, but given our experience in bringing so much private capital into these communities and working in some of the toughest neighborhoods in the country, we do have some strong views about what kinds of public investments work to liberate the energies of volunteer grass roots and nonprofit efforts and to speed the flow of private capital which is our primary mission. I know that this panel and, indeed, this Congress is very excited about the ferment of grass roots, housing, and revitalization activity that is growing across the country. This is one of the great success stories in the country based on self-help, partnership, intangible results. Mr. Chairman, I had an opportunity to meet with you recently, and Speaker Gingrich and Congressman Lazio, as LISC, Enterprise, and Habitat for Humanity announced a $13-billion 4- year commitment of private and volunteer energy to build more than 200,000 homes in this country. I think that's the kind of statement that illustrates just how far along this nonprofit movement is and what a bright future it may well have. Just last week, we released a report with the Center for National Policy, here, in Washington, called Life in the City, in which we report that public pessimism, which is widespread about the cities, is seriously out of date in view of the stunning revitalization efforts that are succeeding in many cities across the country. There is a long way to go, but we are clearly making progress. Now, what are the kinds of public investments at HUD that are uniquely valuable to this nonprofit movement? Well, it is a very short list, Mr. Chairman, HOME and the community development block grant. These flexible block grants that flow out through States and localities have been wonderfully effective in making effective partners of local government, in building the capacity of them to understand what will draw private capital in, what will make neighborhood groups strong, and the results of these programs are really startling, and I don't think that that is any news to this Committee. These programs are under tremendous pressure, as is, indeed, the whole discretionary budget, but even inside the discretionary budget, there is this contest between what I would characterize as maintenance programs and new investment programs. We have the view that this country continues to need to make new investments in people and in communities, and these investments are working. So we would like to argue today that these programs, proven as they are and associated as directly as they are with one of the most positive things going on in our community, ought to perish the thought and expand it. We are very grateful to the Committee in this difficult funding environment for maintaining level funding the last few years, and that has been a wonderful signal of the standing that these programs enjoy, but if programs are this effective, can't we consider modest expansion? That is our position today that we ought to try to take HOME up modestly from $1.4 billion to 1.5. In CDBG, we would like to see at $4.6 billion, which is the current level, but not including such setasides as are often found there, 2- to $300 million. If there are going to be setasides, those ought to put on top of that $4.6-billion level. We are putting far too few dollars into new investment as opposed to maintenance. Mr. Lewis [presiding]. I wonder if I could stop you right at that point. Mr. Grogan. Sure. I am about done, anyway. Mr. Lewis. The reason I stop you is that I had a conversation yesterday with my very dear friend, Dan Goldin of NASA, and there are some people who are suggesting that Space Station probably ought to be stopped. The problem is that Mr. Goldin and I have become convinced that if we stop Space Station that all of NASA's programming would go right out the window. I submit that there may be a small piece of that in what you have just suggested about 3- or $400 million. We don't earmark in this Committee any longer, but eventually, sometimes they are. I would suggest that your careful evaluation about that point, perhaps beyond the Committee room discussion, would be interesting. Mr. Grogan. I would be happy to do that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am really finished with my statement. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. [The statement of Mr. Grogan follows:] [Pages 280 - 297--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Now, this is the first witness I have seen who has come to us, and he has got a stopwatch on his wrist. So he doesn't talk too long. That is pretty good stuff. If nothing else, he gets lots of credit for that. Mrs. Meek. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to compliment Mr. Grogan, particularly on behalf of Miami. LISC has helped us tremendously. Sandy Rosenberg taught us all a way to go, and it is such a magnifier of the amount of monies we have been able to get from other sources, and we thank you. Mr. Grogan. Well, thank you very much, Mrs. Meek. Mr. Lewis. I would say your testimony is very excellent testimony, and succinct. I note that you adjusted your comments for the record. We will weigh carefully your entire statement, and we do appreciate it. Mr. Grogan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Lewis. Yes. Ms. Kaptur. I just wanted to ask the witness, if I might, first off, again, thank you for the excellent work you do around the country, including Toledo, where we have seen several hundred housing starts because of LISC's presence, and I did want to ask what are the total assets of the corporation. I know a couple of years ago, it was somewhere, I think, over $300 million, but where are you today? Mr. Grogan. We have direct corporate assets of about $360 million, and we are have limited partnerships exceeding $2 billion under management. So it has become a very substantial enterprise. Last year, we put out two Community Development Corporations, about $480 million in direct financial support. Mrs. Meek. If I may add to that, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Lewis. You certainly may, but with these people are asking all of these questions, we are 20 minutes behind the schedule now. Mrs. Meek. Well, it is my fault, Mr. Chairman. I must say that LISC has provided such good technical support to these CDCs. It is phenomenal how you have helped us. Thank you. Mr. Chairman is looking at me with a jaundiced eye. Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much. Mr. Grogan. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lewis. We appreciate it. ---------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WITNESS RICHARD C. GENTRY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RICHMOND REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY Mr. Lewis. Mr. Gentry, how are you? Mr. Gentry. Good. It is good to see you. Mr. Lewis. Yes, it is good to see you. If it hasn't been said earlier, we try to let people know that we really do appreciate well-developed testimony, and we do take that to the record and weigh it carefully, but summarized statements usually get more money. Mr. Gentry. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to be here with you. My name is Rick Gentry. I am the Executive Director of the Richmond, Virginia Redevelopment Housing Authority, and also currently president of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, which represents some 9,000 practitioners in the field of housing and redevelopment and some 95 percent of the housing authority industry as well. We have a prepared testimony for you from NAHRO, but I won't read that. I will give you some very brief, succinct comments. The first had nothing to do with money. It has to do with the authorizing language that was included in the appropriations bill last year. Although we were hopeful that there would be an authorizing bill last year, there was not. In the authorizing language of your bill, it was the best bit of deregulation I have seen in the 25 years I have spent in this industry. It has given us some dramatic changes. We implemented rent reform in Richmond a year ago tomorrow, and I have already seen some dramatic changes in admissions and people going to work, and it is an effort that has rewarded people for working and producing like the rest of us to the larger society, and I would request, respectfully, that although we hope for an authorization of this bill this year as well, and I understand it is on the floor today---- Mr. Lewis. Yes. Mr. Gentry [continuing]. If it does not go through, we would ask that the authorizing language in your bill of last year be continued. It has been a great help, and I would hate to see it lost. Mr. Lewis. I appreciate that, Mr. Gentry, and I have been talking with Mr. Lazio a lot of late. They are hopeful that they can work out the problems with the Senate and have a bill somewhere at the other end of this process. If not, carefully working with the Authorizing Committee, we will see what we can do. Mr. Gentry. That is great. Well, it has made big difference in Richmond, and my colleagues across the country say it has, and there are other areas as well. It has been a great help. Mr. Lewis. I appreciate that. Mr. Gentry. It is a good precursor to the bill that he is working on right now. The second issue is that of the reauthorization Section 8 programs. Many of our members operate many of those programs. We do in Richmond, both existing moderate rehabilitation and new construction. We understand the need to renew those, and we do want those renewed. We also believe that each of the programs should have a bit of financial integrity and that each of the programs be renewed without harming other programs, and we think it would be a shame that if one program that serves a proportionate population very well, it will harm in order to reauthorize other programs. So Section 8 should be reauthorized, but not at the expense of public housing or some of the other major programs. We also have some concern over the long-term implications of the Subcommittee's decision to recommend the recision of the $3.6 billion of Section 8 reserves this year. We understand the reasons why. We have a great deal of sympathy over the need for those funds, but we would hope there would be just as much sympathy when it comes time for a new Section 8 program over the next 4 to 5 years if that plays out. Mr. Lewis. Let me respond to that by saying I think you are sophisticated enough to know full well that budget authority that is available around here in a very difficult year or any year doesn't just sit there and wait for 3 or 4 years to be used. Mr. Gentry. Yes, sir. We understand that. Mr. Lewis. So, under the circumstances where we suddenly discovered reserves, it was pretty obvious that rather than having those other reserves that couldn't be used next year because they would be gone, go to some other place, and the emergency funds, the one-time need that seemed logical, the Secretary and I have had a serious discussion about the futures. There is no doubt that we are talking about pressures from Section 8 that with reform are going to add an extra $50- billion-plus in VA needs. I mean, that could push all of the rest of the programs out the window. So your concern is placed correctly. I hope that all of the authorizers understand that. I certainly hope my appropriators understand just how serious it is going to be. So I appreciate it. Mr. Gentry. That is right. I understand. Mr. Lewis. We are committed to try. Mr. Gentry. My agency had problems this year, and I had money I was putting up for next year. I would be hard-pressed to explain that, too. I understand that, but we just would look for sympathy in the future for these needs as well. Finally, we would also call for a full funding of each of the programs included in the budget this year, and I would like to point out for the record, although I am aware that you fully understand it, that the need for operating subsidy funding, in particular, for public housing is a structural need and not a performance-based need that is based on the Housing Act of 1974, the performance funding system, the Brook Amendment, the whole structure of the program, and we are currently in our third year of reduced funding and only in our first year of reduced regulatory controls, thanks to your Committee. We are getting ready to enter our fourth year. We are afraid with reduced funding, and according to the contractual commitments between us and the Federal Government represented by HUD, we would respectfully request consideration for full funding for PFS, modernization, HOME, and CDBG. Also, in closing, I would offer to you a desire from NAHRO to work with you. As you draft the details of the bill, we would be glad to be a resource to you and your staff as you complete your work this year. Mr. Lewis. Could I ask you a question on the record that I would like to have my members begin to focus on? There is only one other member with me right now, but it is something I intend to as of a number of our public witnesses. We have scheduled at this moment time for public witnesses, not including the members who want to testify. It involves approximately twice the time we spent with the Secretary of HUD and twice the time we spent with the director of NASA. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, even though I like the exchange. Would it be more valuable if we ask public witnesses to submit their testimony for the record and where it was appropriate and valuable to both sides--not both sides, to the people who are involved, invite personal discussions of matters like this rather than--that is a straightforward question. I would just like to see how you react to it. Mr. Gentry. Yes, sir. In my capacity as President of NAHRO and Senior Vice President before that, which goes back now about 4 years, I have had the opportunity for a lot of interaction up here on Capitol Hill, and I think that a 5- or 10- or even 15- or 20-minute presentation is necessarily very brief and not very thorough or comprehensive. I think the kind of interplay, like we were able to have here in this room with you last month dealing with the Section 8 renewal issue, if I were you, would be of much more benefit to me, and that is what I would opt for. Mr. Lewis. I am going to probe that further and maybe broaden that opportunity for other members who want to participate, but you have got a lot of things to do with your time, and there are a lot reasons to want to travel to Washington, but in the meantime, when someone is coming across the country for 10 minutes, that is kind of silly. Mr. Gentry. Well, we are very interested in helping you help us serve the constituents out there. Anything we can do to help you, we would be glad to do. Mr. Lewis. I appreciate very much your response. Nice to be with you, Mr. Gentry. Mr. Gentry. Thank you, sir. [Pages 302 - 314--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Wednesday, April 30, 1997. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WITNESS BARBARA J. THOMPSON, DIRECTOR, POLICY AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF STATE HOUSING AGENCIES; ON BEHALF OF THE NATION'S STATE HOUSING FINANCE AGENCIES Mr. Lewis. Ms. Barbara Thompson? Welcome. Ms. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Kaptur, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. Mr. Lewis. I won't burden you with having to spend a lot of time with the Committee, but if you do have testimony for the record, we would appreciate it. Ms. Thompson. I have testimony for the record. You will notice I don't even have any notes in front of me. This is going to be ever, ever so brief. I am Barbara Thompson. I do represent the State Housing Finance Agencies, the agencies in all of the 50 States, and my testimony addresses three areas, HOME, the Section 8 program, restructuring program, and finally the FHA wish-sharing program, and I would like to summarize my statement by just making three basic points with you today. First of all, the States implore you not to cut the HOME program by the 5 percent that the Administration has recommended or, for that matter, by any amount. The HOME program, as I think you know, Mr. Chairman, is working extraordinarily well. In fact, we believe it is exceeding even the objectives that Congress expected of it, particularly in the area of income-targeting, and this very Subcommittee recognized that in your report last year. We think it is working because it does devolve decision- making to State governments, to local governments. It leverages other resources. It is helping out with programs like the low- income housing tax credit and MRBs, enabling those programs to expand their reach and particularly to reach people who are lower on the income scale. So we really ask you, Mr. Chairman, to continue the support that you have shown for HOME. We know it has not been easy to keep it level-funded with all the other pressures you face. I would have to associate with LISC in asking that if there is any way that we can edge this program up over time, we think that is the place to put the resources to the extent that they may be available to you. HUD, I know, says that while they agree with the success of the program, they feel that it, too, has to take its share of deficit reduction. We would argue that it has; that by being frozen, which effectively it has been, although we are grateful for it, since 1994, it has lost purchasing power, and we urge you to do anything in your power to increase it over time. Second is the Section 8 program. I want to thank you for recognizing that public agencies, States, local governments, nonprofits are the right entities to carry out the very necessary Section 8 restructuring. You recognized this in your demonstration last year. I am pleased to report to you, Mr. Chairman, that 30 States, every single State that applied, has been accepted by HUD into the demonstration to act as HUD's agent in carrying out this restructuring. We are very pleased about that. I think it exceeds all of our expectations in terms of how many States would come forward, and it represents three- quarters of the inventory, of the total inventory that needs to be restructured is in those 30 States. I will also tell you, and Valerie knows the details on this because she has been extremely responsive to us, we are concerned about the slow pace of the demonstration. They haven't frankly demonstrated very much that is going to be helpful to you this year. We know that. We have pushed and pushed and pushed, and it has been a bit of a struggle. Frankly, HUD has invested more resources in getting its own staff ready to do the restructuring at the field level, which we don't think was your priority, it was the Congress' priority, than they have in working with the States. We are at the point now, we are finally ready to go, I believe, with certain States. I don't think the nonprofits have even begun their discussion with HUD. HUD has put that off in terms of dealing with the States first. So I think HUD, frankly, could be moving more quickly than they are, and I urge you and anything you can do to push that process along. We are also very concerned that the legislation they sent to Congress last week does not contain the priority role that you gave public agencies and nonprofits. We are concerned because we think you did what you did because you recognized, as we do, that our agencies not only have the capacity that the private sector has, if not more, but we also are committed to the public mission, and our agencies exist to provide affordable housing and affordable housing over the long term and to protect tenants. We bring that to the table, and we think you recognized that last year. We urge you in any permanent Section 8 housing solution this year to preserve that priority role. Lastly, the wish-sharing program, a tremendous success, authorized in 1992, so successful that this year HUD has put forward in its budget that it costs no credit subsidy to run the FHA wish-sharing program with the States; that the premiums essentially are paying for that program. It is self-supporting. We urge you because the authorizers haven't done it yet, even though HUD has called for this and the States have, to make that a permanent multi-family insurance program. It is the only program, Mr. Chairman, that operates under unit limitations, and they are strangling the program. Your State alone could use about 10,000 more units right now; 20,000units have been done nationally, 3,500 in your own State. Much more is in the pipeline, but if we could just get away from these year-by-year unit allocations, it would have no cost impact. We really urge you consider that. Mr. Lewis. Thank you for that. Ms. Thompson. Lastly, as I leave the table, I just want to say that we also urge your support for a program which while it is not under your jurisdiction, it is vitally, vitally important to affordable housing, and that is the low-income housing tax credit program that I made reference to earlier. That program is being reviewed by the Ways and Means Committee. We urge you as a housing advocate and the leader of this Committee to put your 2 cents in, in terms of how important the preservation of a permanent tax credit program is because we are producing--virtually all the rental housing that is being produced today, affordable rental housing is being done through that program or HOME, and we must preserve it. [The statement of Ms. Thompson follows:] [Pages 318 - 324--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Valerie, let's help with those letters right away. Ms. Thompson. Very good. Mr. Lewis. I certainly hope that in every possible way, you will join me in urging the policy-makers to move forward with something regarding Section 8. Ms. Thompson. We could not agree with you more. Mr. Lewis. There is not a bill in the House--you know, we have been thinking about it ourselves, but I don't want to become the policy-maker involved here. Ms. Thompson. You have played that role for a couple of years. Mr. Lewis. Well, it really is important that we recognize what this is going to do. There is no doubt that in this current environment, if there is an escalating dollar need for Section 8 over the next several years, there are going to be required offsets. Where those offsets would become by way of the Budget Committee, for example, nobody knows. Ms. Thompson. Right. Mr. Lewis. Indeed, the sooner we begin to get a handle on this and insist that we get some idea of what others would view as the appropriate way to respond, the better, but the sooner we fix it, the better. Ms. Thompson. The States were very active in designing Senator Mack's bill, and we want to be as helpful as we can. We agree that we need a solution, and we need it this year. It is overdue now. Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much for your testimony. Ms. Thompson. Thank you. ---------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. VETERANS' AFFAIRS WITNESS WILLIAM T. BUTLER, M.D., CHANCELLOR, BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLEGES Mr. Lewis. Dr. Butler, we--at least the chairman attempts to communicate to all who come before us that we are very interested in your testimony. That which you have prepared we will review in-depth. If you would summarize your testimony, it would be very helpful. As you know, our schedule gets to be crazy, and we do not like to have you just sitting around here for no reason at all. Dr. Butler. Well, you have my prepared testimony, and I have a stop watch in my mind, and I guarantee you it will not be too long. Mr. Lewis. Thank you. Dr. Butler. I do appreciate you being able to shift gears here a little bit and talk about the VA here in the middle of HUD. Mr. Lewis. Happy to do it. Dr. Butler. I also want to thank Congressman DeLay for helping to accommodate to my schedule. I am Dr. William T. Butler. I am Chancellor of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. I also served for 7 years as chairman of the Special Medical Advisory Group for the VA, which reports annually to Congress on the status of the VA. Mr. Lewis. Describe that again, the Special---- Dr. Butler. Medical Advisory Group, which is a congressionally chartered committee that reports to the Veterans' Affairs Committees each year. Mr. Lewis. In a formal fashion? Dr. Butler. In a formal fashion, yes. Mr. Lewis. With recommendations, et cetera? Dr. Butler. With recommendations, and basically with sort of a summary of the year's events and what we feel are the needs of the veterans. Mr. Lewis. Let me hear the rest of your testimony, and then I want to have a little exchange about that. Dr. Butler. Today I am appearing on behalf of the Association of American Medical Colleges. Currently, our Nation's medical schools are affiliated with 130 VA medical centers---- Mrs. Meek. Would you talk a little louder, please? Mr. Lewis. She cannot hear you. Dr. Butler. Okay. Mr. Lewis. We do not have quite the microphones set up that most places have. Dr. Butler. Our medical schools are affiliated with 130 VA medical centers throughout the area where 30,000 medical residents are trained and 20,000 medical students are trained. And the high quality of patient care for veterans is to a significant degree due to the strong affiliation with our Nation's medical schools. Through these academic affiliations, the VA is able to recruit the best physicians who want to treat veterans in an environment where medical knowledge is at the leading edge of discovery. Today I am going to comment briefly on two aspects of the President's budget, VA funding for research and for medical care. Mr. Lewis. All right. Dr. Butler. The President proposes to reduce the VA medical research budget by 10.7 percent. However, after correcting for inflation, it is almost 15 percent, and, if implemented, will seriously jeopardize the future of VA medical research. For example, it would jeopardize the work of researchers like Dr. David Graham at our VA hospital who holds an academic appointment at Baylor. He is one of the co-discoverers of a treatment for peptic ulcer disease. He found the bacterial cause of that disease, and now with a treatment of $100 per veteran, can cure the disease as opposed to, in prior years, treating for $1,000 per year with anti-ulcer drugs and not curing the patient. Translated into the aggregate, it is hundreds of millions of dollars of savings in patient care. But his research was funded through VA-funded research. Mr. Lewis. That is news to me, I must say. All of us have read about the peptic ulcer developments, but I did not know where this process took place. Dr. Butler. The specific bacteria is Helicobacter pylori. But it occurred in the VA, and that is the importance of research in the VA. Mr. Lewis. Correct. Dr. Butler. Allied is the research career development program which has not been able to be funded for the past 2 years and which will not be funded under the President's budget. That is the program we use to attract young physicians just out of training to the VA as a permanent career in the VA, taking care of patients who are the veterans of America. It would be a tragedy if we cannot attract the high-quality doctors to the VA that we have been able to attract. We believe that the VA medical research must be funded at a minimum of $280 million, and the details are in the testimony. Let me now speak briefly to the issue of the patient care budget. The President's budget of $17.5 billion is portrayed as an increase in the VA medical care budget. However, upon closer inspection, the proposal actually calls for a $54.6 million cut from the fiscal year 1997 medical care budget. The President's proposal relies upon $468 million to be funded by yet-to-be- enacted legislation. To trust the medical care of our veterans to proposed legislation sends a message that the Nation may not place the priority on the promise that Abraham Lincoln made to the veterans to care for those who have fought the battles. In order to fulfill this promise, the VA must receive an appropriation of at least $18.2 billion for medical care and not rely on third-party reimbursements from Medicare, for example, that is now not--the enabling legislation does not provide. In conclusion, then, I would say that the President's proposed budget cuts in the VA medical care and Medicare research hopefully would be rejected, and I would urge the committee to keep its promise it has made to the veterans of this country, which ultimately will be to the benefit of all Americans. [The statement of Dr. Butler follows:] [Pages 328 - 333--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Mrs. Meek, I am going to respond to the latter part of his commentary first, and turn to you, and then I would like to discuss a little bit about this advisory committee that you mentioned initially. I happen to have a veterans hospital in my district and as associated medical hospital and for a long, long time have felt that there needed to be an expansion of relationship in terms of medical research, in terms of the kinds of things that one can do with a sizable control group. Veterans are identifiable, men and women, items like--I had no idea about peptic ulcers, but items like prostate cancer and breast cancer are logical targets for that sort of work. And I must say that I haven't received the kind of enthusiastic response within the Administration since I have been addressing this issue that I would like, but in the meantime, money is tough and I understand all that. That expresses my bias relative to where we ought to be going with this kind of funding. But at the same time, my experience with my own hospital is very similar to what I hear from a number of my colleagues, on this Committee and otherwise, that is, that their veterans automatically presume very long waits. The employee base automatically assumes that they got some kind of a number on their forehead, not heroes of our country to whom we have an obligation but, rather, people to get out of the way instead of serve. And that mood exists in spades. People have a lack of confidence in the kind of care they are receiving because of attitudes that are present. And it has been my desire to shake the system from the top because of that. Clearly, we have got an obligation. Clearly, we have spent enough--plenty of money over years. But I have been watching this since, you know, 1969 and I have not seen much of a change in that one hospital. There have been a lot of changes in Administration, et cetera. And it concerns me a lot. So having said that, Mrs. Meek, that is the first part of my question. Anything you would like to ask? Mrs. Meek. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I concur with both you and the doctor. If you remember at our last hearing when Secretary Brown was there, I pursued this question because I did not see the kind of funds for medical research that I thought would be necessary to continue the kinds of breakthroughs that you have done with the VA over the years. And it appears that the Administration does not put as much, I would say, emphasis on this as they used to do. And it is something that the Congress has to pay attention to in terms of assuring this medical research is reinstated. I could not agree with you more. Dr. Butler. Well, thank you. Mr. Lewis. Now, to the other matter, I hope that perhaps you would spend a little time when you have the opportunity with my staff, with maybe material that goes back 5 years relative to the kinds of recommendations that you have made to the Department, longer if you would like. I would like to see what kinds of recommendations have been made in terms of experimental work, what kinds of dollars have been applied relative to those recommendations, et cetera. I frankly want to get a handle on how we can best accelerate research and direct funding in fashions that make a lot of sense. Dr. Butler. I think to a large extent the report of the Special Medical Advisory Group stayed pretty much at the generic level of supporting research and patient acre activities, aging projects, and other special categories. We were not down at the technical---- Mr. Lewis. I would like to just evaluate some, because who knows? We might ask some questions that might do a lot of good. Dr. Butler. Yes. Mr. Lewis. Especially if you help us. Dr. Butler. I appreciate that. Mr. Lewis. With that, thank you very much for your time. Dr. Butler. Thank you very much, and thank you for your support of NASA, too. We just signed a contract with NASA at Baylor for the Biomedical Institute. We are very, very pleased that you are helping them. Mr. Lewis. Keep your eye on that target. Dr. Butler. Okay. Mr. Lewis. Thank you. ---------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WITNESS BART HARVEY, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE ENTERPRISE FOUNDATION Mr. Lewis. Barton Harvey, please, Enterprise Foundation. Mr. Harvey. Greetings. Mr. Lewis. Good to see you. I can see you have summarized your testimony already. Mr. Harvey. That is right. I will be very short, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to start by thanking you for having those policy discussions and reaching out to the housing community. Mr. Lewis. I appreciate that. Mr. Harvey. It was really very, very helpful, and Valerie gets great praise on doing that as well. Mr. Lewis. Well, she learned very early that I learn slow, sometimes I learn good. Mr. Harvey. You learn very well and very quickly, let me tell you. I will not go through all of this. I would just like to make, very simply, four points. I should first say Congresswoman Meek knows what the Enterprise Foundation does. We work in Miami, and Jim Rouse--and we started many years ago, and just a year ago we had a 10th anniversary which was terrific. And we thank you for speaking at it. Even more terrific was the work that is being done in all of these communities throughout Miami, and very encouraging. But the points I would like to make: First, there has been a tremendous change in our economy, as you know, and for a house to start with the economy may be unusual, but there is a very productive end, the high-end, high-value creation, and then there is the manufacturing base is largely gone, and there is a large service sector. And I saw statistics of 30 percent of all those employed in the country today make $8 or less. Thirty percent of everyone employed. That is $20,000 and under. That is the population that Enterprise and LISC and others are serving in these communities all the way down to the people with special needs. And that is a critically important community and percentage of the economy that needs help. Mr. Lewis. Absolutely. Mr. Harvey. Thankfully, we have got very good programs that are going on that are taking Federal funding in a very disciplined and yet flexible way, and marrying it with the private effort that is coming from the grass roots, and that is through the HOME program and the Block Grant program. They are both very flexible. They are fundamental to everything that the non-profits are doing in the country today. They are reaching into the poorest neighborhoods. They are serving those with the most needs in our community. And they can be used for a whole variety of things, from a little bit of money for down payment assistance for a first-time home owner to helping deepening the reach of the low-income housing tax credit to get to people that are homeless and get them back on track and into a productive society. The next point I would like to make is that we were pleased to see the Administration come forward with something that you have been working on, which is a fix for the Section 8 issue and problem. I was delighted to see Treasury along with HUD together working at the problem, and, of course, that will come back to Chairmen Lazio and Mack and to you all as well. Mr. Lewis. And the Ways and Means Committee as well. Mr. Harvey. That is right. We look forward--it is not a perfect first step by the Administration and there are other bills out there, but we really look forward to working with you on a fix because that is the Pac Man that eats the budget as we go forward in housing, and it does not add a single new unit. Mr. Lewis. You have got it right. Mr. Harvey. But we ought to find a way to resolve it, and I think there is--I think there is the hope that that can be resolved. Finally, I would just end by saying we hope that you support efforts like the National Community Development Initiative, which is taking Federal money and using it in very different ways, leveraging it with money from foundations and corporations. This is on a three-to-one basis so that the private sector is putting up three for every dollar that the Federal is putting up, and this NCDI uses LISC and Enterprise. It only gets to 23 cities, but it is a demonstration of what we can do in those 23 cities for all the cities in the country. I think there are creative uses that you can use for money to encourage those kinds of experiments that will be going on throughout the country to find new ways to marry welfare reform and community development and to really fix all the needs of our low-income community. Mr. Lewis. Off the top, can you tell me the cities in California? Mr. Harvey. I am going to need help, because LISC is--those are LISC cities, but I can get them to you. I know it is the Bay Area, there is one in Los Angeles, and two---- Mr. Lewis. Let me tell you the reason I am specifically interested. I think I am going to--Willie Brown is an old colleague of mine from the legislature, and I want to see firsthand some of the transition that San Francisco has been through the last decade or so in housing. And I am interested in their programs, and it strikes me at times it probably is-- -- Mr. Harvey. It is. It is one. Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those are both LISC administered. Enterprise took half the cities, and LISC took half the cities. Mr. Lewis. All right. Mr. Harvey. That really concludes my testimony. I really appreciate the outreach. [The statement of Mr. Harvey follows:] [Pages 338 - 342--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. We appreciate your help, and we are very interested in your input regarding all the problems you mentioned, especially the Section 8 thing. We are going to have to have a heavy exchange with a number of--there are several interests involved here. Mr. Harvey. Yes, there are. Mr. Lewis. Most importantly, the people who might be out on the street if we do not find a solution. Mr. Harvey. Absolutely. Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much. Mr. Harvey. Thank you very much. ---------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WITNESS LIZA K. BOWLES, PRESIDENT, NAHB RESEARCH CENTER, INC. Mr. Lewis. Liza Bowles? Ms. Bowles. I have got mine down to these bullets right here. Mr. Lewis. Look at hers. Ms. Bowles. I am ready. Mr. Lewis. Isn't it strange? I come in the room and all my---- Ms. Bowles. And everybody leaves. [Laughter.] Well, I will be brief. I would like my entire testimony submitted for the record. Mr. Lewis. It certainly will be. Ms. Bowles. I just want to make a few comments, and I have with me today Pammy Bakke from our staff, who is just going to show you some of the examples of what we are talking about on the computer. I am president of the NAHB Research Center, and we are a wholly owned subsidiary of the National Association of Home Builders. We were set up about 30 years ago to improve the quality and affordability of America's housing. NAHB is a large trade association, close to 200,000 members, build like 85 percent of the Nation's housing, and they run through 800 State and local associations. There is one in every State, and there are many, many locals. We were asked back 1994 by the National Science and Technology Council to work on national construction goals, and these were for the overall construction industry. We quickly broke into sectors, with the residential sector, which, of course, we know the best, being very different than those builders who build bridges and dams and things like that. We have worked on this process for a couple of years. It has had good support and good input from builders, from modelers, and manufacturers. What they ended up with is reducing the seven goals that the Federal Government had come up with to two goals that we felt had good private sector support and needed national support, and those are reducing first costs and improving durability. Where at first they sound somewhat contradictory, first cost is always an issue in housing, and durability really related to problems with hurricanes and earthquakes and other things that really where our housing stock has not performed as well as we would like. The group ended up with seven strategies to address those two goals, and the top strategy was using the information infrastructure to really be able to get information out there so builders not only had good product information, but if you look at the categories, they need to know where they can get things. They need warranty information. They need to know installation instructions. It is amazing how many products are out there with poor installation instructions and instructions that do not work. Part of the problem, in sympathy a little bit with the manufacturers, is that there are so many builders and remodelers that they are very difficult to reach. But if you can compile the information and you can use products like CD- ROM and faxback services and the Internet, you can hook into this, you could hook into it theoretically to the Internet, and you can get information on hurricane ties and things that work in Seismet. Now, the problem has been that when you do have a disaster, like we had with Andrew, what happens is products that really make good sense, like staples in housing--that is a productivity improvement--end up being banned. And they end up being banned because people were not using them right. So there really is a need to be both looking at the technologies and the use of those technologies so that we can have better housing without negatively impacting affordability. So we have ended up with these strategies. Mr. Lewis. Let me interrupt you and ask a question there. Ms. Bowles. Sure. Mr. Lewis. I assume that some of your research may be kind of fundamental to the work that is known as Safe Home? Ms. Bowles. Yes. Mr. Lewis. I would think so. Ms. Bowles. Yes. Mr. Lewis. The reason I ask that question is I ran into one of your people from Safe Home on the airplane the other day, and he was talking to me about it. But in the meantime, in that conversation I raised the point that I would like to ask you. It happens in California that I have been for a year in the midst of a major remodeling, great people, terrific builder, et cetera. But in terms of the question of upgrades for earthquake safety, neither the architect, who is a pretty well known guy in the region, nor the builder knew a heck of a lot what to do. Ms. Bowles. Well, and that is the problem. And one of the things that we have done for HUD is actually survey on earthquake damage and hurricane damage, and we have pretty detailed reports on what has failed and why it has failed. But there is oftentimes an over-reaction in those areas, and they end up adding things that add costs and really are not giving those units any better protection. But what you really do need to do is get the information out there because you are right, remodelers do not know, builders do not know, and in the home building industry we use architects and engineers very little. Mr. Lewis. Well, why don't you help me by seeing if I can get the best reasonable summary of such information and share it with the Members of my Committee? Ms. Bowles. Sure. Mr. Lewis. I might even start a little revolution in San Bernardino County. Ms. Bowles. Okay. We would be happy to help you with that. The final point that I wanted to make is that---- Mr. Lewis. I live on the San Andreas Fault, by the way. [Laughter.] Ms. Bowles. So this is interesting to you. Mr. Lewis. Yes. I have been wondering if that is why my wife wants to spend so much time here. Ms. Bowles. Well, I would not blame her. But there is technology that can work on those things. Oftentimes, technology is not as much of our problem as the implementation of that technology and the understanding. One of the other things I just wanted to mention is through this effort we would very much like to see HUD play a larger role than they played in the past. HUD's research budget is dwarfed by DOE's research budget and EPA's and others, and when it comes to housing, they have single focuses. And we have done real good research on energy and how to improve the energy in houses, but we really need some good building technology research, and we think it would be much more balanced with affordability if HUD had a larger role. Thank you. [The statement of Ms. Bowles follows:] [Pages 346 - 349--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Thank you. We appreciate it. Could I ask a question off the record before Mrs. Meek gets to you, because I might not ever get back to it if I---- Mrs. Meek. Thank you very much. I was really happy to hear you say that research is needed in building technology. And I am wondering if any of the universities have undertaken any. Ms. Bowles. The universities have done some, and a lot of what we do, we subcontract out to universities. We run a consortium of housing research centers, and we have 18 universities that participate. To get the university research that is done more applied to the housing industry, we also take a lot of interns from the universities. Mrs. Meek. Thank you. Mr. Lewis. Good. Thank you very much. ---------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WITNESS WALTER D. WEBDALE, DIRECTOR, HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA; ON BEHALF OF ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCIES, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, NATIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES, AND THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS Mr. Lewis. Walter Webdale? How long have you been sitting here? Mr. Webdale. Not too long. Mr. Lewis. Not too long? Then maybe you have not heard my stories, so I had better start over again. Mr. Webdale. Okay. [Laughter.] Mr. Lewis. We are very happy to receive your entire testimony in the record, and it will be considered very carefully. But summarized testimony is the most effective in our Committee, so---- Mr. Webdale. I already have a summary. Mr. Lewis. All right. Thank you. Mr. Webdale. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Walter D. Webdale. I am the Director of Housing and Community Development for Fairfax County, Virginia. I am appearing before you today representing the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies, and the National Community Development Association. We appreciate the opportunity to present our views on fiscal year 1998 appropriations for the two priority programs of local government--Community Development Block Grants and HOME. We wish to commend you, Mr. Chairman and Members of theSubcommittee, for your continuing support for Community Development Block Grants and HOME as evidenced by freezing funding for them at $4.6 billion and $1.4 billion respectively since fiscal year 1995. However, we want to reiterate our deep concern over the proliferation of unrelated set-asides within the Community Development Block Grant program. For 1997, $289.6 million is allocated for set-asides. Of that, $180 million is for programs unrelated to the basic CD program: Youthbuild, public housing supportive services, lead-based paint abatement, and public housing law enforcement. The administration's---- Mr. Lewis. Could I interrupt at that point? I do not want to repeat the comment I made earlier about NASA, but in the meantime, I have seen CDBG programs--or distributions that were not individually designated within our bill, but where funding went by way of application to the X and Y community, used for some pretty unusual things compared to what I thought the fundamental purpose of CDBG was. Do you ever calculate all those monies and to give us a figure for that much? Mr. Webdale. Well, we could go back with the organizations we have and calculate it and see---- Mr. Lewis. I am thinking about it. I am a great supporter of the YWCA, for example. I really am. But when CDBG funds are going to the YWCA programs in some communities, I just scratch my head and say, well, somewhere we are a little bit off track. And that is not a part of the piece that you are talking about here. Mr. Webdale. But I think if we do look at the overall record, you know---- Mr. Lewis. I am asking the question for a reason. Mr. Webdale. There are people out there who will do things with CD money or any kind of money which we would all have hoped they would not have done. Mr. Lewis. Well, the point I was making earlier is that sometimes the driver behind the funding for CDBG money may be the other item that you were complaining about, and yet we are not complaining about the other problem. Mr. Webdale. Oh, I see. Mr. Lewis. That is a fundamental problem. And I would suggest--I would urge you to examine it. Mr. Webdale. We will take a look. Mr. Lewis. Help us examine it. Sorry about that. Mr. Webdale. Okay. Fine. The administration's 1998 budget also requests set-asides totaling $290 million. To the extent these programs deserve to be funded, they should be funded separately. Making them set-asides has the effect of taking formula funds, which benefit many communities, and converting them into discretionary funds, which benefit far fewer communities. I characterize the inclusion of unrelated set-asides as a hidden cut in CDBG. Although the CD programs have received level funding of $4.6 billion since 1995, the actual amount of funding for local governments and States has declined 4 percent, while the number of new formula grantees has increased 3 percent. The only set-asides that should be funded are those which have been part of the program since its inception--those for Indians, insular areas, and for Section 107 special purpose programs. Even without considering inflation, this ongoing trend toward unrelated set-asides creates a steady, yet hidden decline in the actual Community Development Block Grant funding to entitlement jurisdictions. My written statement shows the effect that this cut has had on several jurisdictions. As with CD, there is the beginning of a trend toward set- asides in HOME. For 1997, $15 million was set aside for housing counseling. The HOME program has also experienced an increase in the number of participating jurisdictions each year, spreading the funds even further. Due to the hidden decline in Community Development Block Grant and HOME funding over the past 3 years at ``level funding,'' we urge the following funding levels, and that is: $4.6 billion in formula funding to entitlement communities and States without any set-asides within this amount, and $1.5 billion for HOME. Community Development Block Grant is arguably the Federal Government's most successful domestic program. Its success stems from its utility, that is, providing cities and counties with an annual, predictable level of funding which can be used with maximum flexibility to address their unique neighborhood revitalization needs. Based on HUD's most recent annual report to Congress, between fiscal year 1993 and 1996 an estimated 14 to 17 million households benefited from the Community Development Block Grant program. During that same period, an estimate 114,799 jobs were created through the Community Development Block Grant-funded economic development activities. Like Community Development Block Grant, the HOME program is also producing very positive results in expanding the supply of affordable housing. In fact, your subcommittee report accompanying H.R. 3666, the fiscal year 1997 HUD appropriations bill, stated, ``. . . the program is well monitored, making it possible to determine whether low- and moderate-income families are receiving the benefit of the assistance.'' We heartily agree. According to HUD data, HOME has helped to develop or rehabilitate over 230,000 affordable homes for low- and very- low-income families. Sixty-five percent of all occupied HOME- assisted rental housing is rented to families at or below 30 percent of median income. This is substantially deeper than required by the statute. HOME funds also help low- and very-low-income families realize the dream of home ownership. Since 1990 HOME has assisted 68,900 home buyers. For every HOME dollar, $1.79 of private and other funds has been leveraged since the program's inception. This clearly illustrates the effective and judicious use of HOME funds by participating jurisdictions. We also urge the Subcommittee to fully fund the Administration's request for renewal of expiring Section 8 subsidy contracts--I was here for that. There is a great problem there, but it really needs---- Mr. Lewis. I would think that the National Association of Counties and the National Association of Cities by now would have an answer as to how we solve the problem presented to us because it is such a high priority. Mr. Webdale. We have been in many discussions and worked with many staff people. Mr. Lewis. I would not say that in jest, of course, but---- Mr. Webdale. Right. But, you know, we have these people living in our communities in affordable housing, and it could be a real disaster if all of a sudden we found that they were going to be put out on the street. Mr. Lewis. But would the National Association ofCounties and/or Cities recommend that we fully fund Section 8 renewals at the risk of literally closing down every other housing program if we have in excess of $50 billion of added need in the next 5 years, over the next 5 years? Mr. Webdale. Which puts us into the---- Mr. Lewis. The answer is no---- Mr. Webdale. The answer is absolutely not. Mr. Lewis [continuing]. We certainly would not. But in the meantime, that is the problem. Mr. Webdale. That is the problem. That is the dilemma that we are in because we need both sides. Mr. Lewis. Correct. Mr. Webdale. The families need help in terms of housing. They need help in terms of the other programs. Mr. Chairman, we believe that a strong Federal role in housing and community development programs must continue. Since the Housing Act of 1937, Congress has repeatedly said that, as a matter of national policy, the Federal Government has an obligation to assist States and local governments in providing decent, safe, and sanitary housing for lower-income households. While progress has been made towards this goal, it has not been fully achieved. Thank you for your time. [The statement of Mr. Webdale follows:] [Pages 354 - 358--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Let me ask a question that is really more direct and one that perhaps you can respond to, and it would be logical that one of these associations would have been involved. Have any of these, like the National Association of Counties or the National League of Cities, Conference of Mayors or otherwise, in the past 5 or 10 years done or commissioned a study to see how CDBG monies have been spent, relative to that outline of the original purpose that you so---- Mr. Webdale. I believe, John---- Mr. Lewis. Identify yourself for the record. Mr. Murphy. I am John Murphy, Executive Director of the Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies. Some of the material prepared does indicate funding levels and ways funds have been spent. There are some good case studies in the back. Mr. Lewis. Let's see. Mr. Murphy. We also did a study of CDBG programs and stated they have a positive impact. Mr. Lewis. Give me your last name again. Mr. Murphy. Murphy. Mr. Lewis. Murphy. Well, this is interesting largely because I really do want to get a handle on it. I am a very strong supporter and I think probably Mrs. Meek is a strong supporter of CDBG. But at the same time, I have not seen an analysis of the mix, and I think as long as there is concern about $249 million and X and Y--and I think that is justified-- maybe it is time for us to look again. After I review some of this material, I may ask GAO to take a look to help us evaluate it, because I want to make sure those excellent uses of money dominate the way the funds are used without removing flexibility. But it is not always that cities and counties make the best decisions. Some make very good decisions. Others make others. I am thinking of one right now that I love but is not in my district but whose solution to their central city problem is to build a set of movie theaters at the end of a mall where 150 movie theaters have just been built. And I a saying to myself, Is this going to work? And when I asked the question, the consultant almost blanched because I asked the question. What is the city going to do with these theaters if they do not work? He said, Well, we have got a full year's reserve. It was not a very good answer for the mayor who might be in trouble. Mrs. Meek. Another thing I have seen, Mr. Chairman, and to you, sir, many times the CDBG program funds are used to revitalize cities with tall buildings and skyscrapers and to sort of like bail big industries out. That has happened in my area. But, of course, there is a catch to that because they did it so that they could generate jobs, so it might be a good use of CDBG funds. But I felt badly about it, but now that I have looked into it and see that Pan Am--and I will mention them-- received CDBG monies--not CDBG monies, but they were guaranteed by the CDBG monies, they got 108 monies to get their airline off the ground and they let them have it. And I, you know, yelled a lot, but then when I saw that they were going to generate 5,000 jobs, Mr. Chairman, I had to close my mouth because that meant that they were utilizing the money for what CDBG is purposely doing. Mr. Lewis. It is really, I guess, part of our Committee's both responsibility but frustration about the fact that there is not ongoing authorization, and it gives us some guidelines in a variety and mix of areas, and this is an excellent program. But really good programs could fall off weight if, indeed, we find people with ease criticizing pieces of those programs that draw attention that is negative attention. Mr. Webdale. Well, quite often, the anecdotal story that comes down, and then when you finally get through it, but then the headlines have done all the damage, and there is no way to correct it. Mr. Lewis. Yes. Mr. Webdale, I appreciate very much the work you are about and your being with us. Mr. Webdale. Thank you very much. Mr. Lewis. Thank you. ---------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WITNESS REV. LAVERNE JOSEPH, PRESIDENT AND CEO, RETIREMENT HOUSING FOUNDATION, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF HOMES AND SERVICES FOR THE AGING Mr. Lewis. I see all kinds of notes there, so, I hope you summarized your statement. Mr. Joseph. I surely did. Mr. Lewis. Oh, good. Mr. Joseph. I have a written statement and then I have the oral statement and I have summarized the oral statement. Mr. Lewis. I notice with your background that off the top you can speak very well anyway. Mr. Joseph. Sure, that is right. The last time I had the opportunity of speaking with you was two years ago and when the delegation from the California Association of Homes and Services for the Aging visited in your offices and talked with you about some of these same issues, plus some other issues. I am the President and CEO of Retirement Housing Foundation and we are a national nonprofit and we are based in Long Beach, working in 23 States, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Half of our facilities are in the State of California and Congresswoman, we also have facilities in the State of Florida. I am here today representing the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging. And I know in some sense you are quite familiar with all of these issues. You are aware that HUD's fiscal 1998 budget called for something less than what we would like to see with our programs. You are also aware, I think, that in 1996 HUD commissioned a study which showed that there were 1.2 million households headed by elderly persons who are either paying more than 50 percent of their income for rent or living in severely substandard conditions. I am also aware of the pressure that you have trying to do so many good things with limited resources and I heard the question that you asked the previous speaker and I think I might have a couple of possible answers. So, at least we will put them on the table. There are basically five points I would like to make briefly today. Like others, we urge the renewal of the Section 8 subsidies and existing project-based rental assistance contracts for Federally assisted elderly housing. I do not believe that the Administration or HUD or Congress would walk away from their commitments to poor seniors. But I believe that that commitment needs to be firmly made because I can tell you as a provider we have seniors that are scared. They read about this in the newspaper and they are frightened because they think they are going to lose their home. Mr. Lewis. I must say if I can just interrupt you? Mr. Joseph. Yes. Mr. Lewis. I have found from time to time that there are people who have not been noted to run the best possible programs who are willing to go out of their way to scare those seniors. That is an activity which is not just unacceptable to me, I find it to be just absolutely the worst sort of treatment of their own constituency. Mr. Joseph. That is right. I think you would not find that to be true in the nonprofit community that I represent. I might even digress from my notes here to say that one of the things that we labor under is that we are required one year in advance of the expiration of the Section 8 contract to post a notice. And many people then interpret that to be a done deal, that they are definitely using their subsidy. So, for us, I think that is where a lot of the fear is. We try to calm people and have a good quality life rather than to scare them. Mr. Lewis. Yes, it is very important. Mr. Joseph. Secondly, we are urging the restoration of the funding for the 202 program in Fiscal Year 1998 in an amount sufficient to at least maintain 1996 units. You are aware I am sure that HUD has asked for $300 million for 1998 and that represents a 53 percent reduction in funding over 1997. It represents a 64 percent reduction in funding over 1996 and if you go back to the premier years of housing production it represents an 81 percent reduction in the number of units. You, perhaps, have seen this chart--Larry Nichol and Colleen Bloom from the OSEP, Public Policy Housing Staff. Thank you. And you see what we showed there is a decline in the production but the demographic line of the numbers of seniors increasing. Now, you will probably say to me that is very good, it is very needed, but where do we get the resources? Back in 1989 or 1990, we proposed, and it was adopted, the creation of what is called the PRAC program, the Project Rental Assistance Contracts. The PRACs have no debt service over 40 years, as long as they are maintained in their affordability. The result of that is that the Section 8s or the subsidy, the Project Rental Assistance gets reduced significantly. And one of the things that we are proposing is the conversion of the existing elderly housing, nonprofit elderly housing subsidies to the Project Rental Assistance because that would have the effect of substantially reducing the outlays for subsidy. It would, in many projects, reduce the subsidy contract by more than 50 percent. And, so, would provide more authority for providing new units, at the same time giving the ability to renew because the renewals would not be at this greatly enhanced cascade effect. Interestingly we have been talking about this for several years and your colleague, Mr. Lazio and Mr. Kennedy, as well as Stephanie Smith from HUD are now saying that they believe that this is the best solution to the current problems that we are facing. So, this has yet to play out in all of the dialogues. And we are most interested in working with you and the Committee. Mr. Lewis. I certainly hope that you had these discussions with them before they went to the floor today. Mr. Joseph. Yes. They have been ongoing. We also recognize that the whole matter of budget scoring is somewhat complicated. And, so, as Chair of the Housing Committee we have been producing several documents. And this is to come out this week on budget scoring which will be used to educate our members about this very complicated process. I also have---- Mr. Lewis. You are going to get your members to read this? Mr. Joseph. I think so, at least the executives. Mr. Lewis. Okay. Mr. Joseph. They have in the past. We had a study group that produced a document two years ago which I think was most helpful in saving the programs. Mr. Lewis. That is very encouraging. Mr. Joseph. This is a draft copy of---- Mrs. Meek. Did OMB get to read this? Mr. Joseph. Yes, yes. Mr. Lewis. If you would give me some very specific references to where it was read in OMB and the positive results, please let me know that, I would be interested. Mr. Joseph. We think it is going to be an interesting dialogue over this year. It is not an easy solution. We thank you for your support in the past for the service coordinators. We are again urging service coordinators as an eligible project expense because we believe that it is good national health care policy. Maintaining frail seniors with the aging in place within their own homes, it is less expensive. And we believe it fits in very well seeing housing as part of a continuum of care of long-term care. It just makes good policy sense and it makes good economic sense. And, so, we would like to see the service coordinators funded as a part of the budget. And, finally, we urge the restoration in 1998 of the Congregate Housing Services Program to pre-rescission 1995 levels, to direct HUD to implement the retrofit program, which is to update facilities for the aging in place. It is not to bring around or pump more good money after bad money into trashy facilities. Those are the articles that you read in the newspapers about some owners. But it is quality sponsors and quality managers needing to update their facilities to address the aging in place problem, and to allow Section 236 elderly projects to retain excess rents. Both HUD and members of the Hill have called the 202 and the 811 program the crown jewel of the housing programs. Unfortunately, over the years, we have seen these programs eroded because there have been a number of bad programs that we are all familiar with. And, so, the resources have chased or been put into the other programs to try to shore them up. Kind of like a child who acts out in school gets the attention from the one who is always there with her homework and model behavior. So, we believe that we should not become the sacrificial lamb for the difficult budgetary problems that we have today. And, then finally just one little personal note. Because I believe that it is very easy for all of us to think in terms of statistics and with our more than 14,000 residents I get to talk with a lot of them. And I want to tell you a little story about a facility that we were dedicating in California. And afterwards--this is a 202--and afterwards the lady came up to me and said, I want to tell you my story. She said, before I moved into this place a few months ago I was getting $680 a month in income. I was paying $550 a month in rent and it was going up every six months. You have made it possible for me to live and to enjoy life again. That is what it is all about for the nonprofit senior housing community. We find people for whom we have to literally collect furniture from churches because they come in with nothing. We have people who have lived in cars. We, obviously, have lots of people who have been spending most of their resources on housing and need to make difficult choices, desperate choices between paying the rent, paying for their medication or buying adequate food. And, so, we are meeting the needs of the poorest of the poor and we thank you for what you are doing and what we hope you will do for us and we pledge ourselves to working with you in any way we can to address the difficult problems. [The statement of Mr. Joseph follows:] [Pages 364 - 369--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Let me say I very much appreciate your testimony. Mrs. Meek, you might be interested in knowing that long before you and I had a chance to become acquainted, I did something that got me for the first time on the front page of the Los Angeles Times. Now, you know you might change the world and not get yourself on the front page. Mrs. Meek. That is true. Mr. Lewis. Well, this involved a trip up to the top of Mt. Whitney with a 90-year old woman. That woman, some years after that, sold her home because she thought she was losing a bit of her strength and otherwise and put herself in such a facility. She is still alive at age 101 and she lives on the third floor because she wants to make sure she walks up and down the stairs every time she goes. It is fabulous. Absolutely no question that we need to be sensitive and careful about what we are doing with these programs. So, thank you. Mr. Joseph. Thank you, it is a pleasure to be here. Mrs. Meek. Thank you very much for appearing. ---------- Wednesday, April 30, 1997. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WITNESS C. KEITH CAMPBELL, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS Mr. Lewis. C. Keith Campbell, the American Association of Retired Persons is going to kind of add strength and verve to this last testimony, right? Mr. Campbell. Right. [Laughter.] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lewis. Welcome. Mr. Campbell. Thank you for the invitation. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Keith Campbell, a Member of the Board of Directors of the American Association of Retired Persons. Mr. Lewis. Now, Mr. Campbell, I can see several pages there. Mr. Campbell. Yes. Mr. Lewis. And I wonder if--one of the problems is that Mrs. Meek keeps telling me that she learned how to read down in Florida, she and I both did. Mrs. Meek. Good afternoon. Mr. Lewis. And so if you would summarize for me kind of a sense of your testimony without 10 pages. Mr. Campbell. Certainly. Mr. Lewis. And I have done this to everybody today, so, I hope you will not be---- Mr. Campbell. I am not insulted. Mr. Lewis. Okay, that is fine. Because I know you arevery sensitive about these programs and very articulate and all stuff and, you know. Mr. Campbell. Well, we are really concerned about weeding out the ineffective, wasteful, bureaucratic issues in these regulations, number one. And any time you can do that we are here to support that particular effort. But we are really---- Mr. Lewis. Everything you can do to help us get a housing bill, the better. Mr. Campbell. But we really need to reward the existing programs that do work, such as the 202 elderly housing. Mr. Lewis. Correct. Mr. Campbell. Because the specialized features that are providing housing for the frail elderly like the grab bars, skid bars really do help these people who are growing older and older and more frail as they age in place. Mr. Lewis. Right. Mr. Campbell. So, you have heard the statistics, eight people waiting for every one vacancy and you are more conversant with that than I am, I am sure. Mr. Lewis. But it is important that we have that material in the record and I appreciate it. Mr. Campbell. Absolutely and our written testimony will go into great detail on that particular thing. But the existing cuts that are proposed are 53 percent below the existing appropriation. We think that is entirely too much, if there is anything that can be done about it. And that would make a drop from 8,500 units to 3,500 units per year, and we feel at least a status quo, if it can be maintained, is entirely defensible. And we do strongly urge that the Section 202 be maintained at its current level. Mr. Lewis. We hear that across-the-board and have a lot of testimony about that. Mr. Campbell. Right. Also, the voucher programs designated for the tenant base programs for persons with disabilities, we think needs to be maintained. And these are targeted to, of course, the public housing authorities that take care of these kinds of problems with mental and physical disabilities. And, of course, the additional development and modernization funds, I think was mentioned by the previous speaker, are of real interest to us because that does help people stay in affordable housing. Mr. Lewis. Not only are you doing very well as you turn those pages, I noted that they are not full pages of comments. So, you know, you are doing fine. Mr. Campbell. But AARP recommends that no less than the Administration's $50 million for public housing supporting services continue to be set aside in the Community Block Grant Program. These will be used primarily for non-medical services for the frail or elderly. The service coordinators, again, are an important factor in that particular management team in as much as they do help the large numbers of disabled residents get through the maze of this particular service. And we do feel that the coordinators should be automatically included in the routine operating budgets and HUD should be encouraged to fund them as a part of the operating budget. Congregate housing programs are due to expire next year as you are well aware of and curtailing the non-medical assistant that is desperately needed by these frail and disabled tenants is really counterproductive, we feel. Many have estimated that for thousands of residents currently benefitted by the program will be undoubtedly forced to relocate into expensive Medicaid, Medicare and confining nursing homes. We do recommend that expiring contracts be extended for another year by setting aside sufficient resources in the Community Block Grant Program. We further recommend that HUD be directed to come up with alternative strategies for providing future funding for these vital programs. Next year we certainly do urge the availability for housing counseling programs. These programs require independent housing for elderly homeowners who seek FHA insured reverse mortgages. As you are well aware again, there are scam artists who are at work in this particular avenue and we think that this is one way to help in the education of people when they are house-rich and cash-poor and they certainly do need adequate counseling so their resources are not squandered by scam artists. In the interest of time, again, thank you for considering our testimony and the full written record, I trust, is inserted. [The statement of Mr. Campbell follows:] [Pages 373 - 382--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. It certainly will be in the record. And let me say, Mr. Campbell, I appreciate very much your testimony. I might mention to you relative to that problem that we learned about in California that the first time I ever personally testified before a Committee was way back some time around 1959 or so where I went to Sacramento to testify about the need to do something about what I described as suede-shoe people who were selling elderly people health contracts on a beg and a promise with large print on the front page that supposedly said what they were doing for them or not doing for them. There is no doubt that there are people who want to take advantage and we must be willing to pursue those who make that attempt in every way possible. So, on those items, please, communicate with me any time if you think I can be helpful. But in the meantime I was going to say that for someone testifying on behalf of AARP I am not really certain that your hair is yet the appropriate color and I am a little concerned about that. Mr. Campbell. It is getting there. [Laughter.] Mr. Lewis. Mrs. Meek? Mrs. Meek. Thank you so very much. I enjoyed your testimony. Mr. Lewis. Thanks a lot. We appreciate your presence here. Mrs. Meek. I am a member of AARP, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lewis. Good to be with you. With that, I think we are adjourned for the day. Thursday, May 1, 1997. MISCELLANEOUS WITNESSES HON. WILLIAM LEHMAN, FORMER REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA MARY LOUISE COLE, DIRECTOR, ICARE BAY POINT SCHOOLS Mr. Lewis. We will start the meeting. The Governor who was scheduled to be with us is going to be delayed, but to my delight, one of my colleagues is with us, and we certainly don't want to cram his schedule. So why don't we get Bill Lehman up here. Mr. Frelinghuysen, you know Bill Lehman, our former colleague. Mr. Lehman. How are you, sir? Mr. Frelinghuysen. Rodney Frelinghuysen. Mr. Lewis. You may remember his father. Bill, in this committee, as you know, we normally follow a pattern whereby we receive any formal statement that you want for the record, and then, from there, if you will summarize whatever you would like to share with us. Welcome to the committee, and it is a pleasure to be with you. Mr. Lehman. Thank you. Just briefly, while we are here, about 10 years ago, we were before this Committee, and we applied for and received a grant for Camilla's House for the Homeless, and now the same people that were running Camilla's House then, it is now the ICARE institution in South Dade that does Youth at Risk to prevent the youth from becoming homeless. So this is an event initiated from the Camilla's House for the Homeless, but I would like to just introduce Dr. Cole who is running that facility now, and she is going to tell you what it is all about. Dr. Cole. Mr. Lewis. Dr. Cole. Ms. Cole. I am Dr. Cole. Mr. Lewis. I am sorry. Ms. Cole. They do it to my husband, too. They call him Dr. Cole. Mr. Lewis. Well, you know, I have got twin boys who are college professors, and I do that to them, too. I would say your daughter is much smarter than you are. Dr. Cole, please. Ms. Cole. Immediately after the hurricane, I was asked to pull together a coalition of the churches to build a camp to house all the volunteers that you all said that came through their churches to help us with Hurricane Andrew, repairing and building the homes of those who were too poor who owned their own homes, but had no insurance or they were cheated out of their money. Of course, as that operation has slowly died down, my whole field and my Ph.D. is in child development, and I am very concerned about what we are doing with the youth that are getting into trouble. As a Nation, we are pretty disgusted with them, and our whole plan is to build more prisons and to send these kids off to prison, but they just learn to be better criminals and they do come back home. You don't send a 14- or 15-year-old kid off for life. So my idea was to try to do something about that, and I had this temporary camp already set up with dormitories and ways to feed them and warehousing and things like that. So I started a boarding school for at-risk boys, 14 to 18 years old, because in my experience, any of the kids I knew getting into trouble as we were growing up were sent off to boarding school and military school to get straightened out. These kids, many of them are already homeless. They are homeless because they have not had family and they are sleeping in the parks and they are selling drugs and they are stealing and they are getting into all kinds of trouble, or else, they are homeless. Because they are so out of control, their parents have kicked them out, and they go from neighbor to neighbor or friend's house, but they are sustaining themselves by criminal activities. What our problem is, I have them housed in these very temporary buildings, and I really need to build permanent buildings, and there will be 200 of them on this campus. It should be a model. Mr. Lehman. People, not buildings. Ms. Cole. 200 buildings. Is that what I said, 200 people? The whole thing is---- Mr. Lewis. Bill will catch you. Ms. Cole. He will catch me, okay. The important thing, I think, is that this should be--I would like to see this become a national model, and I have gotten some private funding that purchased what was a formal Federal missile base for a million dollars, and we have State funding for the operations, but I have no way to build these buildings, and I am hoping that we can get through HUD some kind of special grant funding. Mr. Lehman. Demonstration project. Ms. Cole. Yes, a demonstration project. And barring that, if there is no special grant funding for this, then perhaps some report language that would get us that. It is extremely, I think, important that we show that what we are doing, it is unusual. It is different. We are excited about getting an education, and I would say 100 percent of those boys hate school, have either been kicked out or have just dropped out, and suddenly, in the kind of motivational teachers we have and the kind of training we have, they are excited about becoming educated. Once they get a little bit of success under their belt, we have boys in college, in special kinds of schools, and also those who can't go to college in vocational training, learning to build houses along with those wonderful volunteers. So we are into the construction trades. Mr. Lehman. Low-income housing. Ms. Cole. All low-income housing, of course, because, obviously, rich people don't need to go there. Mr. Lehman. I have been down to that program, and these boys have a big turnaround. They don't go back. They don't go back to the streets. Ms. Cole. No. Well, we keep them, even though their State funding runs out. If they haven't finished getting their high school diploma or their college semester doesn't start for another few months, we just keep them there. I think another very important thing of what we do is teach them behavior management, leadership skills. They have to learn to confront other kids when they are doing something wrong, and so we have this wonderful positive peer environment. When you walk in, you are just overwhelmed with how polite they are for teenagers, and they all look nice. We teach them to look presentable because, if they are going to get a job, they can't look like punks from the street. It was an experiment that has amazed all of us, even me, which I really believed it could happen. This is, like, wow. [The statement of Mr. Lehman follows:] [Pages 388 - 399--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Dr. Cole, I presume you have a plan or a game plan that would project this as the way you take this over time, what the cost might be and all of that? Ms. Cole. Yes. Of course, we have had architects and site plan development, and the whole project will be $20 million. What we are asking for is if we could get some seed money through HUD for $3 million, go back and get State funding and matching funding from the corporations. We need a beginning. Mr. Lehman. If you make the grant, there are, all over, matching funds from corporations or State. Mr. Lewis. One of the items that we worry about on this Subcommittee as well as others--I use the kind of classic phrase, it is one thing to buy the cow, then you have got to feed it. Ms. Cole. Right. Mr. Lewis. Let's assume that you went forward with this and you had construction funds and you got 200 boys. Where does the ongoing funding come from? Ms. Cole. The Department of Juvenile Justice in the State of Florida. They are very excited about what we are doing. They have operational funds, and I am kind of caught in between. I need the buildings. Mr. Lewis. Yes. Mr. Lehman. She has all of the zoning approved and everything. Ms. Cole. And we own the property now that a private family foundation paid the million dollars to buy the 45 acres. It is 45 acres. Mr. Lehman. It comes from Carrie Meek's district. You know who that is. Mr. Lewis. I have heard of Carrie Meek somewhere. She just doesn't happen to be here right at this moment. Ms. Cole. Yes. Oh, I am so disappointed, too. This is really hers. Mr. Lewis. Apparently, she must be voting right now, and she is on her way. Ms. Cole. That is right. She expected us to be later. Mr. Lewis. That is right. I must mention for your benefit, but especially for my colleagues' benefit, right now all of the Committees are meeting pretty intently. I just came from an Intelligence Committee meeting where they are discussing China, and I was anxious to stay there, but could not because of the conflict. The members will receive your testimony in total, and I hope that this sparseness presently doesn't reflect in your mind's eye anything, but in the meantime, I think what I will do--here she is. Just sit right down there, young lady. Ms. Cole. We are talking about your program in your area, too. Mrs. Meek. Good, good. Mr. Lewis. I think maybe what we will do is--Carrie. Mrs. Meek. Mrs. Meek. Yes. Mr. Lewis. Have you voted? Mrs. Meek. I just voted. Mr. Lewis. You did. I think I will temporarily turn the questioning and discussion over to you while Rod and I go upstairs and vote, and we will come right back down. Mr. Frelinghuysen. I did vote. Mr. Lewis. Oh, you voted already? Mrs. Meek. He has voted, right. Mr. Lewis. I will turn the gavel over to you, and you can distribute the questions. Excuse me. I will be right back. Mrs. Meek. All right. Mr. Frelinghuysen [presiding]. Mrs. Meek, the floor is yours. Dr. Cole is going to talk to you about her programming needs. Mrs. Meek. Yes. From my understanding, Dr. Cole, you are with ICARE. Ms. Cole. That is right. Mrs. Meek. Would you like to tell us briefly what ICARE does and why you think you need to come before this Committee for funding? Ms. Cole. Well, ICARE started out being the interface coalition for the Andrew recovery effort, which was a whole camp and coordination of all the volunteers to help rebuild the homes of home-makers who were too poor to rebuild their homes after Hurricane Andrew. It has since become, also, a boarding school for at-risk boys, 14 to 18 years old, most of whom have been getting into habitually offending kinds of things, selling drugs, living in the parks and in the streets, and doing things that are totally unacceptable. What we have done is started this boarding school as opposed to a juvenile detention center because we feel these kids need to get turned on to get a good education because, without that, they are going nowhere, and we convinced them of that. Then, we also add to that the vocational training and learning to build houses, along with our volunteers, houses for the poor, low-income people in our community. We teach them behavior management. We do all of those things, and what my problem is, I can get operational funding because they are at risk. Mr. Lehman. From the States. Ms. Cole. From the State of Florida, I have gotten private funds to purchase that property for a million dollars. I am looking for seed money from HUD to use as a matching grant. The whole project will be $20 million. Right now in those very temporary buildings, we have put up quickly for hurricane volunteers, and I really must build permanent housing. Mrs. Meek. I understand. Ms. Cole. If I could get a grant, special purchase grant, or some kind of report language---- Mr. Lehman. A demonstration project. Ms. Cole [continuing]. For this demonstration. We are working miracles. These kids are excited about getting an education. They are going off to college. They are going off, out into the community as leaders. We give very strong leadership training. Mr. Lehman. It is your district. Ms. Cole. Oh, Carrie has been there. Mrs. Meek. Right. I am familiar with your program, and I think it is good. Ms. Cole. Oh, I want you to come. It is really amazing. Mrs. Meek. And I wanted to challenge you. I understand specifically that you have given us an option, Mr. Chairman, and that is the special purpose grants. If they happen, you are asking for $3 million for special purpose grants. I am not sure of the challenge. You might be able to speak to that more specifically, whether this Committee is going to have special purpose grants, but you are saying if we do, that is something you want to be on a high priority for that. Ms. Cole. Right. Mrs. Meek. The second thing, you are asking for language in this year's bill. Ms. Cole. As a demonstration grant. Mrs. Meek. That is right. The language will help us persuade HUD that this is an important project. Ms. Cole. Right, right. Mr. Lehman. Congress is going to do that. Mrs. Meek. Yes. Well, I don't have any questions. I just know, Mr. Chairman, that this project has been very lively. It has helped since the hurricane, and it has done something that most projects don't do. They have got real busy on this. They are working with at-risk kids that a lot of other groups don't like so much to work with because these are juveniles, and people don't have that much sensitivity many times with this group. I can vouch for the reliability and the momentum of this group that is here, and the fact that they have the best Congressperson in the world here with them says a lot, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Frelinghuysen. That is a very good endorsement, and we are pleased that you took time to be with us, Representative, Dr. Cole. Thank you, and copies of your full statement will be included in the record. Mrs. Meek. In the record. Thank you. It is so good to see you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Meek. Ms. Cole. I hope when you are in town, you will come by. Mrs. Meek. I am going to try. Mr. Frelinghuysen. The next participant will be, I think, Director Mary Mathews or Rita Haynes from the Coalition for Community Development Financial Institutions. Anybody from that organization here? ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS WITNESS WADI N. SUKI, M.D., PRESIDENT, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY Mr. Frelinghuysen. The American Society of Nephrology. Is this Dr. Suki? Dr. Suki. Yes, I am. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Okay. Dr. Suki, welcome. Dr. Suki. How are you, sir? Mr. Frelinghuysen. Fine, thank you. Dr. Suki, we have, you know, in the neighborhood of 50 or 60 witnesses today. So we urge people who come---- Dr. Suki. I will be concise and to the point. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Great. We will take your entire statement for the record, and it will be considered by the membership in the meantime if you will summarize and be concise. We appreciate that. Dr. Suki. I will do that. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you. Dr. Suki. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Frelinghuysen, I am Wadi Suki, and I am president-elect of the American Society of Nephrology, which is the society that represents the specialists in kidney disease and researchers in the field of kidney disease who are working to find cures for kidney disease in this country. I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you to support funding for biomedical research in the Veterans Administration. The American Society of Nephrology, which I represent, is concerned that President Clinton's fiscal year 1998 proposal for budget for VA proposes a devastating $28-million reduction in biomedical research funding in the VA. This represents a 10.5-percent reduction in actual dollars and a 15-percent reduction in dollars after inflation. The total funding for VA health care research in 1996 was $257 million, or just a little more than 1.5 percent of what the Veterans Administration spends on health care services. Therefore, it would seem that the financial impact of meeting the health care needs of an aging veterans population far outweighs the amount spent on research. This is quite troubling to our society and our membership. It is our view that an investment in research is the only real opportunity we have to reduce the enormous cost to the VA and to curb human suffering from chronic diseases. If President Clinton's fiscal year 1998 budget request is enacted, research opportunities will be lost. The VA will be required to make significant changes in their current research program both in terms of reductions in the recruitment and retention of investigators and in terms of the conduct of medical research. The VA Research Realignment Advisory Committee found that the VA is not satisfactorily recruiting and sustaining the next generation of outstanding clinical investigators. The American Society of Nephrology believes that the major obstacle to achieving the goals of a cure for and the prevention of kidney disease is a difficulty in the current environment of attracting the most talented young individuals to pursue careers in research in the VA. If President Clinton's fiscal year 1998 budget request of $234 million is enacted by Congress, the reinvigoration of the VA's career development programs would be delayed indefinitely. Also, for the third year in a row, the VA would not be able to initiate any new career development awards. Reducing the career development awards would affect the VA's ability to attract and retain high-quality physician investigators for careers at the VA. Considering that 75 percent of VA researchers are the physicians who provide medical care for veterans, the potential impact on the VA's ability to provide the high-quality care associated with academic research VA facilities would be significant. As this Committee may be award, diabetes, high blood pressure, flomerulonephritis, and polycystic kidney disease are the major causes of kidney failure in this country and in the veterans population. If President Clinton's fiscal year 1998 budget request is enacted, plans for new research, centers of excellences, as in diabetes, for example, addressing the ravages of diabetes, which are kidney failure and blindness, these centers will go unfunded. They would not be able to be initiated. A number of other cooperative studies having to do with heart disease and high blood pressure, high blood pressure being the second commonest cause of kidney failure in this country and in the veterans population, these cooperative studies and what therapies might emerge from them in terms of preventing and treating kidney disease would not be realized. Furthermore, most research breakthroughs in this country come from investigator-initiated projects. If the VA research budget is funded at only $234 million for fiscal year 1998, 10 percent of existing investigator-initiated projects would be terminated. That is, the number of funded research projects would decline from 1,666 in fiscal year 1997 down to 1,400 in 1998. This would decrease the funding opportunities for VA researchers to an all-time low of less than 15 percent; in other words, 1 in every 8 to 10 grant applications that have been reviewed and approved will be funded. While the American Society of Nephrology appreciates the Clinton administration's efforts to balance the national budget and recognizes the difficult task that Congress has in choosing between Federal programs, these sacrifices should not come at the expense of those who have fought for our freedom and for the freedom of peoples around the world. Therefore, to ensure that research opportunities are not lost and that veterans continue to receive high-quality medical care, the American Society of Nephrology urges this subcommittee to support the full restoration of the $28 million that were cut in President Clinton's budget and to fund an additional $18 million in new funding for fiscal 1998, to bring the total VA research appropriation to $280 million. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to present it before you. [The statement of Mr. Suki follows:] [Pages 405 - 418--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis [presiding]. Thank you very much, Dr. Suki. I must say to you that this Committee has a longstanding pattern of very strong support for research of the kind you discuss. I must mention to you, in the medical field, there is a lot of discussion going on between the various committees that have this responsibility, for, as you know, some areas of research have been treated differently than others. As we move toward attempting to be realistic about balancing the budget, there will be a lot more dialogue. So I hope that you will pay attention to that and help us focus as well. Dr. Suki. We will, and we appreciate your time. Mr. Lewis. Any questions from the members? Thank you very much, Dr. Suki. Dr. Suki. Thank you, sir. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WITNESS STEPHEN GORDEN, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND SEWAGE, CITY OF DETROIT, AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION Mr. Lewis. Let's see who is next. Is Mr. Stephen Gorden here? Mr. Gorden. Yes, sir. Mr. Lewis. We appreciate your being present. I know it is a little out of order, but on the other hand, you know--you have heard my suggestions regarding giving other people an opportunity to speak as well. In the meantime, we will take your entire statement in the record, and if you would summarize your remarks, we would very much appreciate it. Mr. Gorden. Well, thank you very much. My name is Steve Gorden, and I am the Director of the Detroit Water and Sewer. I am also a Chairman of a legislative group for the American Water Works Association, and if you do not know that group, it represents the water community, and we have about 55,000 members. Mr. Lewis. Since we don't have a microphone, I would ask you to speak up just a little. Mr. Gorden. Sure, great. There are four issues that we are really concerned about, and they are the SRF, the drinking water State revolving fund, drinking water research, very, very important to us, public water system supervision--that is part of the enabling legislation for the Safe Drinking Water Act--and the agency itself. Whereas, we have seen what those budgets are, they are not funded at the level that they really should be. We are talking about, as you are, public health, and the drinking water industry is very dedicated to public health. In fact, we are really probably the entity that has the white hat on, and we are trying to encourage the Congress. We are trying to encourage the agency to do more in that area. In fact, if you look at the budgeting for SRF, we suggested around a billion dollars has been suggested, three-quarters of a billion dollars. In Detroit alone, my budgets for capital expenditures that I need to stop the mining of the capital is $400 million a year. So I could take the whole half of the SRF myself forever. So you can see the inadequacy of really trying to fund that. It needs to be readily increased. As far as research, research is very, very important for the industry for a whole host of reasons. One is regulations come to us, and there is not adequate background work that has been done. Health effects, we have requirements for taking contaminants out of water, and it is a supposition. The research is not there to back that up, and we really need to do that because when some regulator says we need to remove something, that involves a real cost to our utilities which can be in the billion-dollar arena. We don't need to do that. If we do the research, we can get the information, and we can make appropriate decisions, which affect the public in a correct way. The other thing it lets us do is to make decisions on sound plans, and that is very, very important because then you build credibility. People know that you are doing what is in the best interest of the public, and we are spending their money wisely. I am sure that you are involved in that. The other thing, interesting enough, we talk about contaminants and taking them out of the water, and yet, I pick up my vitamin bottle and I look, and what we are taking out over here, we are putting in here. That is why I think there is a connection in some research that needs to take place. The other thing is the risk factors. Do we need to take something up that is going to affect maybe one in a million people? Do we need to do something that is going to affect somebody, one in a hundred, one in a thousand? Where is that, and how do we best determine what that is? Another thing for research is long-range planning. The agency does not do any long-range planning in our estimation. In other words, if we were to ask what are the regulations going to look like in 2020, they can't come up with that, and it is not their fault. It is just that we are not doing that kind of research, and we need to do that because when we make investments, they are for 30 years. With a little adjustment incrementally, we could probably handle a lot more issues than handle one issue, have to go back and reengineer the whole issue again at a much greater cost. There are other things that the industry itself and the water community through its research foundation is more than willing to assist in the research. There are issues on arsenic. There are other issues that our research arm has put forth, and they are willing to match those funds. So we are asking for about $5 million in that area, which the industry internally will help match, and that is pretty good leveraging of Federal funds. I think that is a very, very wise decision. The other thing that is really occurring is the Federal Government has stopped giving as much assistance. There is a requirement for public water supply supervision, and as regulations increase and that requirement is not at the State level, the State level has to come up with some resources in that area, and they don't have those kind of resources. So the decentralization, as we look at it, starts to take place. You have got to make sure that the appropriate resources hit the right area or it is not going to have the effect that both of us need. Lastly, I would ask--and I guess this will really surprise some people, but we think the agency needs its funding, especially with the water programs. They have a lot of things that they need to do. They have a lot of things that we are working on concert with them, and if you don't fund them appropriately, we won't be able to do that. We won't be able to carry on. [The statement of Mr. Gorden follows:] [Pages 422 - 428--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Mr. Gorden, your comments are very much appreciated, and this committee feels strongly about playing a role in the development and encouragement of sound science, especially wherever we can, but with tightening budgets moving towards the year 2002, all of us from the ground up have to be working together on recognizing there is a partnership. I can't help but be reminded of the fact that one of the small rural regions that is a part of my district over the last decade on three occasions turned down bond issues that involved water delivery systems. So there wasn't a commitment there in terms of property tax dollars to be willing to say we are going to find a way of delivering water to people, and public attitudes are very important in all of this, and we are all in this together. I do note, though, with interest that the clean water funding proposed by the administration is a billion dollars, and the drinking water program is 750, and I kind of gather that you might reverse those two, at least from your priority perspective. Mr. Gorden. I am on both sides. Mr. Lewis. I thought you might say that, but in the meantime, your commentary for our record is very helpful. As we go forward from here, you know that the budget gives us a broad outline of all dollars available, and then we have to select between priorities. The priorities involve choices between clean water, veterans medical care, housing, the National Science Foundation, NASA, EPA. To say the least, when you have those high priorities, all competing with one another in a shrinking circumstance, it is difficult, but in the meantime, without your input, it would be even more difficult to make these choices. Mr. Gorden. Let me suggest this. We are talking public health. Mr. Lewis. We are talking public health at every level. My local people have a responsibility. They are taxpayers, too. They have to set their priorities. The States have to set their priorities, and we have to do it here as well. Mr. Gorden. And the issue that I am trying to bring before you is this. The older inner-core cities do not have the resources. If you look at the structure, the demographics of the citizens, if you enter the population as a worker, 72 or beyond, and you are in the bottom 70 percent, you see now real increase in real income. Mr. Lewis. Let me suggest this. I am not being argumentative at all, but my first term here was in 1979. Geraldine Ferarro and I were classmates and on the same Committee together, then the Public Works Committee. We went to New York to look at their water systems. They still have those same challenges, and one way or another, altogether, we haven't done what might be done. Dollars were easier then. So I am suggesting that, as we fight these battles, at every level, we have to raise the mind's eye of the public if these things are going to be feasible. Are there questions? Mrs. Meek. No, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much. We appreciate you being with us. ---------- -- -------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WITNESSES HON. CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN, GOVERNOR, STATE OF NEW JERSEY HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Mr. Lewis. We are going back to the original guest on our panel who was delayed by way of a flight plan differential, but if we can. It is the Committee's pleasure to welcome our colleague, Jim Saxton, along with our other colleague, Mr. Frelinghuysen, as they in turn bring our guest today, Governor Christine Todd Whitman. Governor, I had occasion to discuss just a couple of days ago with Pete Wilson the fact that you were coming to our committee. He wanted me to personally extend a special welcome to you, and thanks for being with us. Governor Whitman. My pleasure. Mr. Lewis. So we will accept your entire testimony. We will accept your entire testimony for the record, and from there, when you do make your statement, whatever you want to say is fine. We are on a tight schedule, but I also want to recognize Jim Saxton, who is going to formally introduce one of his very dear friends. Mr. Saxton. That is true. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I have a written statement that I would like to submit for the record, if that is all right. Mr. Lewis. It certainly is. Mr. Saxton. Mr. Chairman, as Rodney Frelinghuysen knows, being the governor of the most densely populated State in the country presents many challenges. Governor Whitman has stepped up to the plate and has been extremely successful in meeting those challenges. One such challenge that comes from having a lot of people live in a relatively small geographic area has to do with certain contaminants that find their way into our environment. In Toms River, New Jersey, which happens to be in my district, there is an event that has occurred which is very unfortunate, and that is that in a very small area of Toms River, there is an extremely high incident of brain cancer in children, and we are searching for the answers as to what the causes are and, even more importantly, under the Governor's leadership trying to fashion a solution to the problem. Last year, you were very generous in providing us with $900,000 to begin the work of determining what the problems are. We are here to ask you to consider extending that program, and under the Governor's leadership, then New Jersey will have the resources to proceed to complete the study and fashion the solutions that are necessary. So Governor Whitman is here to make a personal appeal today, and I want to express my gratitude to her for being here. [The statement of Mr. Saxton follows:] [Pages 431 - 434--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Governor Whitman. Thank you, Congressman, very much. Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Governor Whitman. Governor Whitman. I will dispense with reading of any statement, Mr. Chairman, in the interest of the fact that you have it, and I know you all can read, and well, and in the interest of time. Mr. Lewis. I think most of us have had the privilege of hearing you speak off the top before, and you are fabulous. So just go ahead. Governor Whitman. Thank you. Let me just reiterate what Congressman Saxton said. We began this study after an appeal by parents who came to us from Ocean County documenting, to the best of their ability, what seemed to them to be an inordinately high incidence of cancers, the particular cancer of childhood leukemia and brain and central nervous system cancers. We did the initial study with money from the Federal Government and about $700,000 of State dollars as well, and we conducted a study which did find statistically significant increases in the level of brain cancers and central nervous system cancers and leukemias, especially in children under the age of five in Dover Township. We also found a statistically significant increased number of neuroblastomas in Ocean County as a whole. What we are proposing to do now, the next step, we thenundertook perhaps the most detailed study of water systems in the Nation anywhere. We, as you know, have one of the unfortunate distinctions. I like New Jersey having distinctions, but we are number one in the number of Superfund sites. There is a Superfund site near this, located in this township, and obviously, people initially thought that was an immediate area for concern and the first place to focus, and among other environmental studies, we did study the water. We found higher levels of certain naturally occurring toxins, as well as some others that would come from--could have come from the manufacturing that had taken place at Sibagogi plant, which is the current Superfund site. We don't know, though, whether there is a relationship. The studies have not been complete enough to be able to tell us whether, in fact--we shut down three wells in the township. At the moment, they are still closed down. We brought our cancer registry up to date, one of the few in the Nation that it as up to date as ours is, up through 1995. We have found a statistical evidence of increased cancer rates. We feel now that the next step is going to be an epidemiologic study that is going to require individual interviews, extensive interviews, and patterning and going back through the water system, as well as the air, to look at the Superfund site, to look at what is being transported into the water systems, to try to make a statistical--to see if we can find any kind of connection and any kind of causal relationship between what is turning up in the waters and these increased incidents of brain cancer and leukemia in children. We are working very closely with the Federal Government and with the citizens group that is there, called Oceans of Love, and I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, and I am sure you know that there is nothing more tragic than to meet with a group of parents sitting there with children who have cancer or parents who have lost their children to cancer. They deserve an answer, and we are going to do everything that we can to try to find that for them, but we simply cannot undertake a study of this magnitude on our own. We do feel that there is some real lessons that can be learned for the Nation, relative to Superfund sites, clean water standards, whether this is something we need to take a further look at, and so, while we feel it is important for us to get answers for our people and we need and ask for your support in doing that, we also feel that there are going to be lessons learned that could be applicable to other parts of the country. [The statement of Governor Whitman follows:] [Pages 437 - 439--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Governor Whitman. You might be interested in knowing that even though we are on a passway that involves very, very difficult budget circumstances moving towards the year 2002, during the last Congress, early on, the Speaker had a group of chairmen who deal with research dollars into his office. The purpose of the meeting, we thought, was how do we cut our budgets one more time. Instead, he said, you may have wondered about this, but for good or for ill, I have a strong bias relative to research, both applied as well as basic research, urging us, then, to make reductions in areas in our budgets and trying to preserve research wherever we can. Your statement regarding cancer in children goes to the heart of some of the serious responsibilities we have. Jim Saxton has talked to me about this more than once, and in turn, Rodney Frelinghuysen has been fighting the Superfund battle here in our Committee. So, Rodney. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, Governor, we are honored to have you here, and thanks to Jim's continual persistence on this issue, your good self, Dr. Len Fishman from the New Jersey Department of Health, I can tell you, you couldn't get a more receptive Chairman, and I hope that he will, indeed, be receptive again because I think we need some more money to continue this work and study, and certainly, I am going to be working hard on this committee and with Congressman Saxton and the entire delegation to see what we can do to get some help. Thank you. Mr. Lewis. I know that his list of priorities have been very, very carefully scaled down. This is getting a very high priority. Mrs. Meek. Mrs. Meek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor Whitman, I am a great admirer of yours, and I appreciate you and Representative Saxton coming this morning with this project which is going to be meaningful for the entire country. I am one of the ones on this Committee who strives very hard for research, particularly the kinds of research which you are going through, and I am hoping the Chairman and the rest of the Committee will be sympathetic to what you are doing in terms of funding you fully because it will be dollars well spent, and you have shown the validity and it does take time to complete these studies. I want to thank you for coming, and you, Mr. Saxton, as well. Governor Whitman. Thank you very much. Mr. Lewis. Mr. Knollenberg. Mr. Knollenberg. Governor, thanks for coming by. I can assure you that I echo the words of my colleague that this chairman is interested in your concerns. Rodney Frelinghuysen, my colleague to my left and one of yours, makes sure that this gets mentioned. He has been there, and I am not suggesting that he has overdone it, but he does, and I believe that he is very sincere about that. I just wanted to make sure that you knew that he is there keeping---- Governor Whitman. He has been wonderful. We know that, which we are very appreciative. Mr. Knollenberg. Thank you. Ms. Kaptur. Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to welcome the Governor and our distinguished member, Mr. Saxton. I was not here to hear the testimony. I have read it and will try to be helpful. We have a general problem in the environmental budget, and we never have enough money to do all what we are being asked to do. That is certainly true with Superfund cleanup, whether it is New Jersey or Ohio or California, and so we appreciate the Governor coming and expressing in the strongest possible terms the need for additional information. We need that in many areas of our country, and we are glad to have the Governor as an ally on the environmental front. We appreciate you coming today. Mr. Lewis. Governor, I might mention that the budget request for EPA includes a very sizeable request for funding for Superfund. We have expressed our concern over time about the fact that so much of the dollar in Superfund circles has been spent on lawyers rather than otherwise, and we are attempting to do something about that. In the meantime, the priority that we hold for this kind of work and particularly the breakthroughs you can make in research that affect people's health, expressed very well by you, is a priority for the Committee. So welcome, and we appreciate your coming and helping to deliver the message as well. Governor Whitman. Well, thank you, and thank you for allowing us to testify, and I indicate my support for all that Congressman Saxton has done in this area. Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Governor a question? Mr. Lewis. Certainly. Ms. Kaptur. On the ozone regulations, I wondered if the State of New Jersey has a position in terms of the Administration's, the EPA's efforts to include particulate matter. Governor Whitman. I am very supportive of the need for there to be national standards. As you know, New Jersey has done a great deal to try to mitigate our air quality, and we were fortunate last year. We had for the second time--it isthe first time since the Clean Air Act has gone into effect that we have had two consecutive years where we had attainment relative to carbon monoxide. We still have particulate matter problems, but we feel that many of our problems do come from transport. So I have been very interested in seeing that we do make an effort to have national clean air standards so that we can benefit from that. We are doing a lot of things in New Jersey that many States have not had to do. We have had the tail pipe emission test for 20 years. We have the fume capture, whatever they call that little thing they put on the gas pump that captures the fumes for 10 years, and we have required inspection for that. We will continue to live up to our commitment, but we would like to see clean air standards that are reflective of the fact that there is an issue called transportation, and transport is air. Mr. Lewis. Governor, I think Ms. Kaptur raises a subject area that is very important where you could also be helpful to us. My own district is probably the most impacted district in the country in terms of air quality questions. We have the toughest district in the country dealing with that, and yet, probably, under the existing Federal standards, my district because of transport will never quite reach the standard that you have. Governor Whitman. We don't meet all our standards. Mr. Lewis. Our challenge is across the country, encouraging people to continue to fight clean air. That means we have got to be in the real world in terms of what we are dealing with here. The requirement of excellence of science to make sure we are dealing with communities not only positively, but whereby they can have the success that you have attained so far is very important to us. Governor Whitman. I would agree. That is nice. Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Governor, very much. Governor Whitman. Thank you very much. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. CNCS WITNESSES HON. SAM FARR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ALEXANDRA HERRERA, FORMER AMERICORPS MEMBER Mr. Lewis. Mr. Farr, welcome to the committee. Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lewis. My colleague from California, as you know, we will take your entire statement and put it in the record. Those people who speak most briefly usually do the best on this committee. Mr. Farr. I learned long ago that the mind cannot comprehend what the seat cannot endure. So I will try to be short. First, I bring you offerings from Hershey. They are not a bribe, but they help. Mr. Lewis. Thank you. Mr. Farr. Mr. Chairman and members, I am here today to support the President's request for AmeriCorps, the Corporation for National Service at $549 million. The increase is to launch America Reads, a challenge to all Americans to help children read well and independently by the end of the third grade. I happened to sit right behind the Governor, who was just here at Philadelphia, which is launching this, what I think is a reinstatement of the war on poverty, and that is that we are going to go out and use all the resources of this Nation to try to get to the most difficult nooks and crannies which we have never been able to do before. I was a Peace Corps volunteer, and it was much in the spirit of Philadelphia that I found myself 30 years ago getting out of the Peace Corps and realizing that I had just gone through one of the most incredible experiences of my life. Peace Corps paid a stipend, and it was a stipend that you use overseas. It was a cost-of-living. And AmeriCorps does the same thing, and some people in this Congress have criticized that, thinking that all volunteerism has to be free. Well, we have had Vista for a number of years in America, and I think that in every program, it was indicated that it was a success. In Philadelphia, that were behind it, was a budget. So this is the budget behind, I think, the national approach to try to reach those corners. Now, it is not just that program, but it is also the benefits of that program, and I brought with me today a volunteer in my office named Alexandra Herrera. She is from Watsonville, California, which is a major agricultural area. Her father was a farm worker. She was born in the United States. She went to a public school, to Watsonville High School. She is currently a student at Georgetown University. While she is a student at the university, she not onlyvolunteers down here as an intern in my office, but she volunteers weekly with under-served children in Washington, D.C. She was a volunteer with AmeriCorps as a seasonable volunteer for summer at the Second Harvest Food Bank in Watsonville, and I just thought, you know, we are always here talking about numbers and figures, but what we are really about and why we are all elected to office is to do things for this country and for people in this country. Here is one individual where one of our Federal programs had a major effect on her life, and I thought rather than putting it in the record, I would like to just present her and give her a chance to testify before this awesome Committee in the United States Congress. So, if you listen to Alexandra for a minute, I would appreciate it. She was an AmeriCorps volunteer. [The statement of Mr. Farr follows:] [Page 444--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Hi, Alexandra. Would you identify yourself for the record so that our recorder has it correctly written? Ms. Herrera. Sure. My name is Alexandra Herrera, and as Sam said, after having completed my first year at Georgetown University, I was able to return to my home town of Watsonville, California and participate in the AmeriCorps Summer of Gleaning Project. I was a volunteer assistant at the Second Harvest Food Bank, and as an AmeriCorps member, I was able to take part in an endeavor which went far beyond the normal college student summer job. I was given an arduous task to complete in the time span of 3 months. Along with another local AmeriCorps member, we were to recruit community volunteers to glean the fields and provide fresh produce to needy people in the area. The most rewarding aspect of the program was that, as a volunteer at the food bank, I was able to see how our work directly benefitted people from the community, and the AmeriCorps program strives to unify people of diverse backgrounds, and I can honestly say that I met people from an array of backgrounds in my own community. At one point during the program, I was an operator at the community food hotline which directs people from the area to local food pantries, and this experience made the nationwide social problem of hunger and malnutrition much more immediate than anything else ever could. I feel that you have to interact with people who are affected by the social issues to truly grasp an understanding of the matter, and I have always held rich ideals about what I would like to do with my life. My experience with AmeriCorps has given me the incentive to return to my community and make a difference. I have learned a great deal about myself and the type of job that I would like to pursue after graduation. I would like to see myself as a public servant, either as an elected official or by getting involved with nonprofit organizations in the community. In addition to this newfound inspiration, the AmeriCorps program provided me with an opportunity to enhance my leadership skills and the confidence to know that it is possible to attain effective results. I stated before, I feel I was very fortunate to have been a part of this program, and I believe it is important to provide these types of opportunities for today's youth. The AmeriCorps program encourages college students like myself to return to their communities and make a difference and becoming involved with worthy causes, and I also feel that it emphasizes the importance and value of community service. So I strongly urge you all to fund the AmeriCorps program. [The statement of Ms. Herrera follows:] [Page 446--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Ms. Herrera. I really don't have any questions of you, but I might mention that one of my colleagues who at one time was responsible for running counseling for the Peace Corps in Southern California once said to me that it really is not quite so significant that which the Peace Corps does in the countries where these people have a chance to go, but, rather, the fact that they come back as different kinds of Americans, and there is a parallel here. I might, though, ask a question of Mr. Farr. I have had another request. It is not exactly in my Committee, but it involves education as well, in which the dollars are very tight, and it is difficult in this whole process, and sometimes you have to make tradeoffs. There is some request in California for funding from the State colleges who are base conversion that relates to educational dollars, and if there had to be a tradeoff, would you make a choice in this process? That is just in jest, Mr. Farr. You don't have to respond. Mr. Farr. Mr. Chairman, you are a very wise man, and I have always had a pleasure of working for you when I was a staff member in the California legislature and with you here in Congress, and I know that that choice, you will make---- Mr. Lewis. Carefully. Mr. Farr [continuing]. Carefully. The base closure has benefitted from AmeriCorps because they used AmeriCorps volunteers to clean up, and just to tell you a story there, in Fort Ord, California, which is the largest military base closing in the United States, when bases close, there is a lot of cleanup work. What the Army did isn't suitable just for civilian use without sort of fixing it up and cleaning it up. AmeriCorps was called in before the University started, 29 young Americans. They were older than Alexandra. Mr. Lewis. Frankly, I liked Alexandra's story better, and rather than extend your testimony, why don't we just take it for the record. Mr. Farr. The point is, these students would have never gone to a University, and after experiencing AmeriCorps, they enrolled in the University and started there at Ford Ord. Mr. Lewis. Are there other questions of my colleagues? Mrs. Meek. I don't have a question. I have a comment. I want to compliment Alexandra for coming this morning with such an enriching presentation. It has made me believe more in AmeriCorps. There is an old saying that I would rather see a sermon than to hear one any day. So, this morning, you have demonstrated that. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lewis. Mr. Knollenberg. Mr. Knollenberg. I would just add that you mentioned you have an interest in public service, and I see that you are interning for Congressman Farr. Do you have any interest in replacing him? Mr. Farr. It would be nice if she did. Mr. Lewis. Ms. Kaptur. Ms. Kaptur. I just wanted to thank Sam for bringing in such an inspiring young woman. You are a true credit to your family because you have had to work your way up, and that is very hard. That will serve you well the rest of your life, and I think Watsonville is one of the communities in California, is it not, that has lost lots of jobs in the food processing industry? So it is not a community that has necessarily only experienced good economic times. Isn't that true? Mr. Farr. It is the center of the Loma earthquake. Before NAFTA, a lot of the companies that were packaging companies left the town, high unemployment, 28 percent at one point. We do have a lot of poverty in the area. Everybody thinks the Monterey Bay area is just affluence because of Pebble Beach and Monterey Peninsula, but remember that the produce of this country is harvested in the Salinas valley, and Alexandra Herrera's family helped do that. Ms. Kaptur. Alexandra, are you the first young person in your family to go to college? Ms. Herrera. Yes, I am. Ms. Kaptur. All right. You are going to do just fine. Mrs. Meek. That is right. Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. Mrs. Meek. Thank you. Mr. Lewis. Thank you for being with us. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS COALITION WITNESSES MARY MATHEWS, RITA HAYNES, KATE McKEE Mr. Lewis. Has Mary Mathews been able to arrive? Ms. Mathews. Chris Gaffney has been held up. Mr. Lewis. We understand that is the case. Ms. Mathews. Kate McKee is taking her place. Mr. Lewis. Okay, Ms. McKee. You have heard us express our concern about the numbers of people in line. Ms. McKee. Yes, absolutely. Mr. Lewis. So your entire statement will be included in the record. So, if you would be brief, we would appreciate it, and if you would identify yourself for the record as we go forward. Ms. McKee. Yes. Thank you very much. I am Kate McKee from Self-Help in North Carolina, and I am representing the CDFI Coalition, and we appreciate the opportunity to come before you today and support the President's full request for funding for the Community Development Financial Institution's Fund, a request of $125 million. I will not read from the remarks, particularly since I didn't write them, and it just arrived a few minutes ago, but will speak just very briefly to the overall field of community development financial institutions, the key role the fund has already played in its first year of existence in building these institutions which served disinvested communities, and then we will ask my colleagues to briefly speak from their own experience in Cleveland and in rural Minnesota to the kind of work that CDFI can do and the work that the fund supports. Mr. Lewis. That is fine. If you would individually, as you speak, identify yourself for the record and summarize your statements, we would appreciate it. Ms. McKee. The CDFI Coalition was formed in 1992, and it represents over 350 Community Development Financial Institutions in all 50 States across the country that are many different types ranging from micro loan funds to community credit unions, community development loan funds, community development banks. A number are located in the areas in which you represent. Community Development Financial Institutions are basically about creating opportunities for economic uplifting in disadvantaged communities, and so we are in the business of providing financing and related assistance for small business development, for job creation and affordable housing, and development to support key human services. The CDFI Fund was created to use scarce Federal dollars. The fund was created to be able to leverage very scarce Federal dollars to let CDFIs, which are private-sector institutions, leverage those dollars in turn, and my institution, for instance, for every dollar that we received in this last round of funding from the CDFI Fund would be able to leverage that 20 times into loans for small business development and affordable housing. The fund has developed a very careful program of reviewing business plans, extensive business plans that each applicant submits, and figuring out how to use its capital most judiciously, so as to make the maximum amount of private-sector capital come into the institution, and we urge full funding for the fund which was very over-subscribed in its first round. Now I would like to ask Rita Haynes, who is the Director and Treasurer of the Faith Community United Credit Union in Cleveland and a member of the National Federation of Community Development Credit Unions, to briefly speak to the work that her organization has been able to do, followed by Mary Mathews who is the---- Mr. Lewis. If you would let them identify themselves for the record, that would be fine. Ms. McKee. Sure. Ms. Haynes. Mr. Chairman, I am Rita Haynes from Cleveland, Ohio. I have been a Director with Faith Community United Credit Union for some 25 years. We started as a church credit union, the Mount Sinai Baptist Church Credit Union, in 1952, later changed our charter to be community, and now we serve a mostly low-income community of African Americans on the east side of Cleveland. We currently have $5 million in assets, and we use this money for consumer mortgage, auto loans, and now, with the help of the CDFI Funds, we are going into home acquisition and home improvement loans. We received from CDFI a $350,000 grant, 200 of which was for capital to allow us to get into these other areas, and the $150,000 of it was for technical assistance, so that we could improve our operation. We are very happy to be a part of the Community Development Fund because it has enabled us to really help our borrowers who are the real recipients of the money, and as was said, when we receive this money, we can leverage it by over 20 times. We are also representing Northeast Ventures Corporation, which serves seven rural counties in Northeast Minnesota, and they received $1.25 million from the fund, Louisville Development Bank Corp, which is helping small businesses, they received $2 million, Boston Community Loan Funds, which provides capital for distressed areas in Massachusetts, and South Hills Ventures Fund in North Carolina, the Enterprise Corporation of the Delta, serving Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, the Santa Cruz Community Credit Union in California, and the Cascadia Revolving Fund in Seattle. All the borrowers are counting on assistance to help them do a better job in what we are already doing in the central cities of the United States, and I might say in our credit union, in faith, we also have an AmeriCorps volunteer who was very helpful in what we are trying to do in the inner city. Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much. Ms. Mathews. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Mary Mathews. I am president of the Northeast Entrepreneur Fund in Virginia, Minnesota. We are a micro- enterprise program that helps unemployed and under-employed men and women in Northeastern Minnesota, start or expand small businesses as a way of achieving economic self-sufficiency. I am also the chair of the Association for Enterprise Opportunity, which is the national association representing micro enterprise organizations, and we are also a member of the National Association of Community Development Loan Funds, which is the organization that represents nonprofit Community Development Financial Institutions. So I am here today with my colleagues to talk to you and to encourage you to provide full funding for this effort. As one of the key features of the CDFI Fund is that it has the ability to be flexible and responsible to community meetings, and CDFIs have grown up in their local communities based on what that community needs have been as a way to really promote true community, grass-roots community development. Ms. Haynes referred to the Northeast Ventures Corporation, which is our affiliate company in Northeastern Minnesota that makes equity investments, and they are as a partner to us. We are the micro enterprise development organization that works in conjunction with them. Our organization--and what I would like to do is add a few comments to what already are my written remarks and to reference some of our experience and the results that we have had working Northeastern Minnesota. Since the end of 1989, we have helped start over 300, help, start, stabilize, or expand 301 businesses. Those businesses have created just under 600 jobs, including that of the business owner. As an organization, we have made over $800,000 in loans to date. Our average loan is $6,000. In thinking about how this affects the community, we recently did a study, and out of those 301 businesses, 37 of them have been owned and operated by welfare recipients, and today, 27 of those businesses are still in business, and three- quarters of them are off welfare and are being supported either by sole income from the business or income from the business and a job. Micro enterprise strategy often becomes part of an income- patching strategy, a frequent strategy for people today. We see people come in to our program, and they wantto be full-time employed by their business. Ultimately, they may need to get a job, but it gets them into the marketplace and helps them build a lifestyle that their family wants to move to. I could tell you a couple of stories. I don't know if you have time for stories, but---- Mr. Lewis. The chairman has read the ``Magic of the Dream,'' though, I think. Ms. Mathews. Okay, okay. Well, in Northeastern Minnesota, we are not making $50 loans. Mr. Lewis. I understand. Ms. Mathews. And they are a little bit larger than that, but they are having an effect, a dramatic effect not only on the individual borrowers and the individual business owners, but also on their families. We have families--we have one family where the son is starting a--the father does auto repair. The family is now off welfare, and the adolescent son has started a little business buying and refurbishing bicycles. It is sort of his replication of his parents' business. So it is having a real impact, and it is having a multigenerational impact. So I thank you. [The statement of Ms. Mathews follows:] [Pages 452 - 459--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. One of the first jobs I had was taking apart the sprockets of my neighbors' bicycles. I might say that the Committee is very interested in this kind of work and the impact that it can have upon the communities involved. We have been supportive of CDFI in the past and programs like Neighborhood Reinvestment. I am concerned, and I would hope that you would help us with this concern as well. There is a tendency sometimes when we see what we believe to be a good thing to want to explode it overnight, and if you are not very careful, you can take a success pattern and destroy it by not allowing it to grow and mature in a way that exercises the strengths. So we were very concerned about loss ratios. If you look at the Gramine Bank, the loss ratios there are commercial kinds of ratios, and it is phenomenal, but in no small part because of local community, that is, people involvement in reviewing those individual small loans, but nonetheless, you are in a very fascinating subject area where private sector efforts are attempting to tap a few dollars and maximize their potential in the communities. So we appreciate your being here. If members have questions, I would be very happy to yield. Ms. Kaptur. I do. Could I just briefly speak to the point of losses? Because the CDFI industry as a whole has losses that actually are compared favorably with commercial lending institutions. My own institution has made over $90 million of loans, all of them that would be considered non-creditworthy by banks, and our losses are well under 1 percent. So I think you make a very important point about the need to grow these organizations judiciously. I can just say, having been through the ringer with CDFI Fund staff, they really question the assumptions of our business plan and scaled back many of the requests and suggested that people have activities. Mr. Lewis. Sometimes our local community banks have made their biggest mistakes by the fact that they have had a small pattern of success. Ms. Kaptur. Yes. Mr. Lewis. Suddenly, they want to expand overnight and become Bank of America, and shortly, they are closing their doors. Ms. Kaptur. Yes, yes. Mr. Lewis. It is very important that we be sensitive to those concerns. Ms. Kaptur. Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, I just couldn't help but take a moment because this is what I did before I was ever elected to Congress and say how pleased I am with the progress that has been made across our country through organizations like yours with the supplemental help of entities like CDFI, and I am certainly thrilled to have someone here from Cleveland from a credit union. I am a big supporter of credit unions. I did want to ask whether or not the credit union in Cleveland has been talking at all with the FHA. I understand the FHA has a special outreach to credit unions in the mortgage arena. Have they managed to find you yet? Ms. Hayes. We have been talking to them. We haven't gotten it to the point that gets them to the larger realm. That, we haven't been able to do yet, but we have been communicating. Ms. Kaptur. All right. Ms. McKee. Our credit union was actually the first CDFI recruited by FHA to start offering their products. Ms. Kaptur. Really? I would be very interested in knowing more about that experience, if that is possible. Ms. McKee. We would be happy to share that with you, yes. Ms. Kaptur. Ms. Mathews from Minnesota, could you just describe--you mentioned the auto mechanic business. Could you just tick off two or three of the businesses that your efforts have helped to spawn? Ms. Mathews. The range is incredible. You know, auto repair is one that is frequent, but we have worked with small manufacturers that have national and international markets, as well as local service businesses. There is a higher percentage of service businesses because they are easier to start and require less capital, but the range--there are some craft business, some industrial products, in fact, one that has an international marketplace. So it is a full range. Ms. Kaptur. I just wanted to end by saying, it is very interesting to me that three women have come before us today doing the hard work of community development at the local level, business development, financial development. You are cosmic mothers. Mr. Lewis. If you haven't read the ``Magic of the Dream,'' one should. It is all women in that case. Mrs. Meek. Mr. Chairman, I am not asking for any special credit for Miami, but our program won a national award, and I just wanted the Committee to know that. Mr. Lewis. Thank you. Mrs. Meek. We are so good. Mr. Lewis. Thank you for being here. Ms. Mathews. Thank you very much. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WITNESSES ROBERT MARTIN, GENERAL MANAGER, AWWA RESEARCH FOUNDATION AND THE ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES; ACCOMPANIED BY WIT VANCOTT, CITY OF TOLEDO, OH; AND MR. STEVENSON, HOLLYWOOD, FL Mr. Lewis. Next on our list is a hometown fellow from beautiful downtown San Bernardino, Bob Martin. Mr. Martin, you have heard me caution other witnesses, and you can see the schedule we have. Mr. Martin. Yes, I have. Mr. Lewis. People in and out every 5 minutes, but in the meantime, you certainly are welcome and we will take your entire testimony in the record, and from there, if you would summarize, we would appreciate it. Mr. Martin. Thank you. My name is Robert Martin. I am with East County Water District in San Bernardino, California. With me is Mr. Stevenson from the City of Toledo, and Mr. Vancott from Hollywood, Florida. We want to thank you for---- Mr. Lewis. You just happened to select people from Ohio, from Florida, and California. I wonder why? Mr. Martin. It kind of worked out that way. We want to thank you for last year's add-on that this Committee provided for us, the $2.5 million for the American Water Works Association Research Foundation and $1 million for the Arsenic Health Effects Research. The AWWARF money is being matched with $9.1 million in monies that have been collected across the country from water agencies. This is a $3.64-per- dollar match, and on the Arsenic million dollars, we matched it with the half-million dollars from, again, water agencies in California, Arizona, and Texas, and another half-million dollars from the AWWARF Foundation. Since we appeared before you last year, there have been new partnerships that have been formed with EPA. The AWWARF has formed a partnership to look at the disinfection byproducts issues in drinking water for just iridium, and as well as the new partnership to look at the health effects of arsenic in drinking water. These partnerships are underway now, and we have high hopes that they are going to be very effective. Based upon this track record of cost-sharing, we are here to request an add-on of $5 million for the AWWA Research Foundation, as well as a $1 million add-on for the arsenic program that we have with the EPA. The Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization demands that good science be part of all new regulations. For us to go back to our customers, it is essential that we have good research to back up new regulations, to justify the costs that are associated with them. As in the past, the water supply community is bringing its own money to the table before we ask for congressional add-ons. The colleagues that I am here with today are a good example of that. Mr. Gorden, who was here earlier on behalf of Detroit, has committed $375,000. Mr. Ciaccia, who is here from the City of Cleveland and is also the Vice Chair of the Research Foundation, is committing $116,000 to the program. Mr. Correll from United Water in New Jersey is $135,000. Mr. Stevenson from Toledo is $42,000. Mr. Vancott from Hollywood, Florida has invested $10,000 this past year. The Miami Dade Utilities has committed $200,000 to this program. My own agency is committing $13,000 this year. We believe that this local investment and the peer-reviewed science that it secures is the best way to fund new drinking water regulations. We want to thank you for your consideration and your past help. [The statement of Mr. Martin follows:] [Pages 463 - 467--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Well, we appreciate very much your testimony. Each of us, as you have kind of demonstrated by your outline here, has an interest in clean water in our individual districts. Mr. Frelinghuysen went so far as to get the Governor of New Jersey to show up earlier this morning regarding some problems, and in the meantime, I just have my local water district representative, and we appreciate that. Any questions from the members? Mrs. Meek. No. Ms. Kaptur. No, Mr. Chairman. We are just glad to have this work back. Mrs. Meek. That is right. Ms. Kaptur. They have done an excellent job. Mr. Lewis. Yes, they have. Ms. Kaptur. We look forward to more progress. Mr. Vancott. Mr. Chairman, I might add, the zebra muscle issue that came into the Great Lakes was a joint project between Detroit and Toledo and Cleveland. I was a long-term resident of Toledo and a good friend of Marcy Kaptur. The Research Foundation has been the national information clearinghouse for that project, and we brought in two grants from the Research Foundation for about $350,000. That money was leveraged with almost another $1.2 million between those cities involved. So that money is being very well used. This year, I am going to be on the Board of Trustees for the National Research Foundation, and I will keep Frank Cushing well informed of how well we are using that money and how that is being spread. Mr. Lewis. Well, we not only appreciate your expanding on the record, for we will receive your entire statement for the record, but anybody who can help me keep Frank Cushing informed---- Mr. Martin. This gentleman does an excellent job. We are both Eagle Scouts. Mrs. Meek. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lewis. Yes, ma'am. Mrs. Meek. The research that you conduct, sooner or later, leads to policy-making in this body. Am I correct? Mr. Martin. Yes, ma'am. That is what we hope for. Mr. Vancott. Yes, ma'am. The arsenic issue in California is extremely important. We have water supply---- Mr. Lewis. Do you think that my colleague hasn't talked to me about that? Mr. Vancott. Yes, sir. But Florida is now experiencing water supply issues---- Mrs. Meek. Yes. Mr. Vancott [continuing]. And we are sharing with our colleagues---- Mrs. Meek. Absolutely, big ones. Mr. Vancott [continuing]. In California the experiences they have had. So I did bring some water bottles. There are some for the staff in the back. Mr. Lewis. I am not even sure we can accept this. Mr. Vancott. These are 87 cents, Congressman. They are nominal. Mr. Martin. They are de minimis. Mr. Vancott. We thank you. Mr. Lewis. Well, as you all understand, with our very difficult record here, we do appreciate your taking the time to provide a supplement for our record, and it is a pleasure to work with you and we look forward to continue to do so. Mr. Martin. Thank you very much. Mr. Lewis. Thank you. Mr. Vancott. Thank you. Mr. Lewis. If you keep wanting to raise other issues, the longer the testimony, the worse off you are. Mr. Martin. I will take that as good advice. Mr. Lewis. All of these people are waiting in the office. Mr. Martin. Thank you, sir. Mr. Lewis. Thank you. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WITNESSES DONALD L. CORRELL, CHAIRMAN AND CEO OF UNITED WATER RESOURCES, AND CHAIRMAN, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS COMMITTEE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WATER COMPANIES; ACCOMPANIED BY PETER COOK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Mr. Frelinghuysen [presiding]. Moving right along, I am pleased to recognize Donald L. Correll, Chairman and CEO of United Water Resources, and Chairman of Government Relations Committee, National Association of Water Companies. Good morning. How are you? Mr. Correll. Nice to see you. Thank you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Your statements will be included in full and total in the record, and if you could be good enough, given our time schedule, to summarize some of your points, but please proceed. Mr. Correll. I will be glad to do. I apologize on behalf of all the member companies of the NAWC. We could have provided at least 100 more water bottles, if we would have known that that was acceptable, but good morning. Thank you. With me today is Peter Cook who is the Executive Director of the NAWC, and I am Chairman of the Government Relations Committee and a Member of our Board. Our trade association represents the investor-owned water utilities that provide water to some 33 million people across the country every day. We are representative companies, the number of 340, and we have members in 41 States. On behalf of all of them, I appreciate the opportunity to be here with you today. I am also Chairman and CEO of United Water Resources. We are based in Harrington Park, New Jersey, which is, as you heard in the earlier testimony, the most densely populated State, and our service area is the most densely populated region of the most densely populated State. We are the second largest investor-owned water services company in the United States, and as an aside, I would also say that we serve the Toms River, Dover Township area that the Governor mentioned a little earlier. As an aside on her behalf, I would also support the request for the funding of this study since it is our three wells that she alluded to that are out of service, and we have worked very closely with the Governor and her staff and the Department of Health and the EPA and the DEP in the State to try to resolve this long problem. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you. Mr. Correll. Our company has also been a leader in forming public-private partnerships to provide contract operations to municipal systems across the country, and through our company and through our affiliates and subsidiaries, we provide service to an additional 2.5 million people in several States across the United States. On behalf of our industry, as my testimony says, we have a long tradition. Our Association just celebrated its hundredth anniversary. Many of our member companies, including ours, trace their roots back to the mid-1800's and have been providing service for almost 150 years in some cases. Our goal is to provide safe and adequate water supply to all of our customers on a daily basis, and all of our member companies are tax-paying entities and pay taxes at every level of Government on an annual basis, but whether it is our investor-owned companies or the municipal systems, we all look to the EPA for some guidance in establishing the regulations, and with that in mind, we fully support the full funding in accordance with the budget request for the administration's request for $105 million for the EPA's drinking water program and $104 million for the State and Tribal Drinking Water grants. We also support the request, the notion of full funding of the SRF, and we were somewhat disappointed that the Administration's request did not look for full funding of that, and we would certainly support full funding at the billion- dollar level, as authorized by the SDWA of 1996, rather than the $725 million that was requested by the Administration. We also believe that full funding for research of the health effects of water is important, and in that regard, we would support the SDWA setaside of $10 million each year for the drinking water State revolving fund, drinking water funding for research. We believe that the setaside is both appropriate and necessary, and given the expense and importance of such research and the need to assure researchers, the future support, we think it is important to have that setaside. I think the Governor's request this morning is a further example of the need for further research funding. We also support the request by the American Water Works Association Research Foundation for $5 million for added EPA research on drinking water. In closing, I would just like to say that we have read with interest the EPA's draft response to the Congress on the privatization of waste water facilities. We understand that that was prepared in response to this Subcommittee's request last year for information about this, and while it was specifically focused on waste water, I can say that most of the conclusions and most of the information are equally applicable to the water industry and the municipal water industry that exists. We believe that it is important to eliminate all of the barriers to privatization and public private partnerships that exist for municipalities today, and that they should be given all of the options necessary to improve their service. Serving almost 200 communities in almost 20 States, I can say we are asked on a regular basis to provide some additional services to neighboring or adjacent communitiesand municipalities, and indeed, there are a number of restrictions and impediments that are imposed upon us that really prevent us from providing a full array of options to these municipalities. I can say, having read the report and having had a direct interest in both the Indianapolis waste water privatization that was alluded to in the report, as well as being the ones who privatized the Jersey City water system, which to date is the largest water system in public-private partnership in the country; that all of the impediments that were alluded to in the report exist on the water side as well, and I think that complying with the executive orders and directing the agencies to do whatever is necessary to remove those impediments would be a great tribute to this Committee's work and it would be something that would be very much appreciated by all of the municipalities. Once again, I want to thank you for the opportunity on behalf of our Association to offer this testimony, and I am ready to answer any questions. [The statement of Mr. Correll follows:] [Pages 472 - 476--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Frelinghuysen. All right. Well, thank you very much for your testimony here, a New Jersey flavor to it as well. Ms. Kaptur, any comments? Ms. Kaptur. In 30 seconds, I just wanted to ask, geographically, of the 20 States in which your Association has a presence, are more east of the Mississippi, west of the Mississippi, north or south? I wanted to get a sense of that. Also, within metropolitan areas, does your Association represent more suburbanized privately owned water companies, or are these in central cities? Give me a sense of where you are located because I am unfamiliar with your services. Mr. Correll. The almost 20 States that you referred to was the number of States that our company provides service to. Our Association, representing some 340 companies operates--has representatives from 41 States. I would say that they are pretty much equally divided across the country, although I am almost certain that almost every State east of the Mississippi is represented by one of our companies. There may be a few in the western States that aren't represented. Most of them are more suburban. They are all investor- owned, but most of them provide service to suburban areas outside of the large cities. However, I would note that if we were having this discussion 50 to 100 years ago, many of those urban areas, particularly east of the Mississippi, were, in fact, investor- owned water systems. Our industry and most of the water systems east of the Mississippi trace their roots to the investor-owned industry, but over a period of many years, many decades, through the use of tax-exempt debt and other opportunities, many of the investor-owned systems were purchased by and taken over by the municipalities. Ms. Kaptur. And are most of your customers or your members, are they residential, industrial, commercial, or is it strictly residential? Mr. Correll. All of our members have a mixture. Many of them provide services to residential areas, but many have-- particularly in the State of New Jersey where 40 percent of the population is served by investor-owned companies, we serve many industries as well. Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you very much. Thank you for being here. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WITNESS JULIUS CIACCIA, JR., PRESIDENT OF AMWA, AND COMMISSIONER OF WATER FOR CITY OF CLEVELAND, ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN WATER AGENCIES Mr. Frelinghuysen. I am pleased to recognize the president of AMWA and commissioner of Water for the City of Cleveland, and representing the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies. Would you be good enough to pronounce your name? Mr. Ciaccia. Yes, I knew I was going to have to do that. My name is Julius Ciaccia. It is C-i-a-c-c-i-a, just like it sounds. Mr. Frelinghuysen. I thought of taking a leap of faith, but I didn't. Mr. Ciaccia. It is an Italian name. Mr. Frelinghuysen. A copy of your full remarks will be included in the record, and if you would be good enough to proceed. Mr. Ciaccia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. As I said, my name is Julius Ciaccia. I am president of the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, and I am also the Commissioner of Water for the City of Cleveland, Ohio. The Association which we call AMWA is composed of the Nation's largest public water systems, water system to serve over 100,000 people and collectively serve over 100 million Americans. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to testify, and as you said, we are glad that our testimony will be part of the record, but briefly, I could outline what that testimony is. I was heartened this morning to hear that the Chairman and this Committee, when addressing the Governor of New Jersey, to acknowledge how important research is, and especially in the drinking water area, and that is what most of our testimony covers. It is going to cover health effects research, funding for research partnerships with the American Water Works Research Foundation, funding for arsenic research through Partnership of Research Foundation, California Water Systems, and other water supply agencies, and then the EPA Drinking Water Program, State primacy grants, and the new Drinking Water Revolving Fund. Briefly, on each of those, I would like to say that, last year, the entire Congress, of course, is to be commended for passing the new Safe Drinking Water Act, and this Act included an increase under reliance of health effects research. In section after section of this Act, there is a call for the EPA to poach regulatory decision-making differently. The statute requires the Agency to utilize health effects data to identify contaminants for future regulation and for setting up drinking water goals and standards. For the first time, the law gives the EPA the discretionto consider risk tradeoffs and to set standards based on such data. Beyond the research needed to satisfy program requirements, funds are needed to expand the scientific community's understanding of health effects of microbial contaminants and disinfection and disinfection byproducts. AMWA would like to thank this Subcommittee for last year appropriating $10 million specifically for health effects research. Without substantial investments on an annual basis, Congress, EPA, the States and our drinking water suppliers cannot assure American consumers that contaminants selected for regulation will be the appropriate ones for drinking water standards to have adequately established. AMWA recommends that Congress meet EPA's fiscal year 1998 request of $35.9 million for drinking water research. In addition, AMWA has urged EPA to set aside $10 million per fiscal year for Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, specifically for health effects research. In addition to the EPA's request, AMWA supports separate funding for research partnerships outside of the Agency. These partnerships, which involves the AWWA Research Foundation, the Association of California Water Agencies, and other drinking water suppliers have already been highlighted by my colleagues, and I would like to stress their importance. Last year, Congress provided $2.5 million to AWWARF. The drinking water community matched that amount with $9.1 million and looks forward to maintaining the longstanding cooperative relationship we have had with the EPA. Just as an example, the EPA and AWWARF jointly participate in a research project called the Microbial Council. It addresses microbial disinfection, disinfection byproduct research needs presented by the Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and other related rules, and there are other types of examples of joint efforts such as this. AMWA recommends providing $5 million for fiscal year 1998 for EPA AWWARF partnerships with the Nation's drinking water suppliers matching those dollars, as we always have. The other area that AMWA believes deserves the subcommittee's support is the Arsenic Research Partnership. For fiscal year 1998, AMWA recommends providing $1 million specifically for arsenic research under the aegis of the partnership, which includes AWWARF, the Association of California Water Agencies, and the EPA. As in the past, the funding would be matched by individual drinking water suppliers. Beyond the research needs, EPA's Drinking Water Program faces a daunting---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. You need to work to summarize a little bit. Mr. Ciaccia. Okay. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you. Mr. Ciaccia. Well, as I said, beyond the research needs, we would recommend that the Congress support the $105.3-million budget that has been submitted. We would also ask that the Congress authorize $100 million for public water system supervision, public program grants, and finally, that $1 billion be authorized for the revolving loan funds, as authorized. Again, Mr. Chairman, it is a big task in front of us, and we would ask for your support on all of these recommendations that we have made. [The statement of Mr. Ciaccia follows:] [Pages 480 - 484--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Frelinghuysen. We will do our best. Thank you. Ms. Kaptur, any comments? Ms. Kaptur. No. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you very much for summarizing. Mr. Ciaccia. Thank you. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WITNESS DOUGLAS B. MacDONALD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCE AUTHORITY Mr. Frelinghuysen. Moving right along, Mr. Douglas B. MacDonald, Executive Director, Massachusetts Water Resource Authority. Mr. MacDonald, how are you? Mr. MacDonald. Fine. Thank you very much. Mr. Frelinghuysen. The same cautionary note that we have given to the other witnesses and guests, and a copy of your remarks will be included in the record. Mr. MacDonald. Let me say, thank you for seeing us today, and say that---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. I thought you were going to say thank you for moving the testimony along. Mr. MacDonald. And thank you for the support that the Committee has given to our project. We have been here before, and the staff is very familiar with the project, as are the members, and I will spare you most of my written testimony for that reason. The project is a huge one. It is a local project, but it was driven upon us by requirements of the Clean Water Act, and we have responded to a Federal mandate by building a massive new treatment plant, really unprecedented anywhere else in the country. That had very, very difficult rate impacts for us, which have had almost national notice in some respects, and your Committee and the Congress and the Administration has helped with that by giving us a small piece of what the project has cost to help our local efforts. I can really cut to the chase, I think, if I show you simply a page that I brought in some of the material in here, but I found this very helpful in talking to some members of our delegation to illustrate exactly what is going on, and I have this for the Members. Mr. Frelinghuysen. All Members will get it. Mr. MacDonald. We will make sure that we have this submitted to you, but it makes the point so simply. The red is the burden of the $3.6 billion that have been paid by our local ratepayers. These shares in pink are portions that our State government has brought to the party because everybody has recognized that in asking the Federal Government for help, we have had to show that our entire State has also backed this effort, and each of these sea-green, sea-blue pieces are the various pieces that the committee and the rest of the Congress have found it appropriate to help our local situation with, and essentially, what we are asking at this point, and consistent with the administration's request, is that a couple of small further blue slices, a slice off from that small red slice so that the Federal share of the project would go to about 22 or 23 percent, and the local ratepayers' share would drop to about 56 percent. We are still locally bearing much thelargest burden of this project, and it is appropriate to do so. I mean, this is not a quarrel about that. It is about how the Federal Government can continue to help with this enormous mandating expense, and that is essentially what I am here to ask, if you could continue to help us with in this very difficult budget, and this tells the story of what it means to us more effectively than anything else I could say. There is some information about rates further on in the back of the package. Yesterday, some of our delegation was here supporting the project, and there were some other ideas presented, one of which is some ways in which the Federal Government may be able to help through liberalizing some SRF procedures, a very small slice of what is in the pink, and we are going to be in touch with you about the details about how that would affect us, and it would have very salutary effects for a number of other people, definitely something we think would be excellent flor the committee to move forward on, but in our instance, while helpful, it is not a substitute for what the committee has been so helpful with in the past, but our principle here has always been to thank you for what you can do and let you know that we are grateful for every drop of assistance that comes forward. So it is also a constructive idea, and we will supply you some information about exactly how it would affect us and support the members of the delegation who talked about it with the chairman yesterday. Now, I am remiss not to do one further thing, listening to the testimony, and I know I am always supposed to stay on message when I come down here. I am also a water supplier. These research things that have been discussed with you today are enormously important, and I want to second the statements of people from the water industry who have talked to you today about the importance of those issues. All of us in the local community that are trying to give safe drinking water and good environmental work depend on the support that we have from EPA and the Congress. So, in addition to our local needs, I just want to, since I am here, speak in support of these other initiatives that have been discussed. They are very important to us all. [The statement of Mr. MacDonald follows:] [Pages 487 - 489--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you very much, and as the chairman said to some of your congressional delegation yesterday, the Boston Harbor Project is important, and I am sure that we will be continuing to participate. Mr. MacDonald. We have many witnesses that I know you have to hear. So I am not even going to say, that is what the project is about. It has national significance for the environmental values it embodies, as well as local significance for us. So, in helping us, I hope you are serving more than just a local agenda, and we are very proud of our project and grateful for your help. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you very much. Mr. MacDonald. Thank you. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WITNESSES DAVID SLADE, ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAMS; ACCOMPANIED BY KEVIN McDONALD, CHAIRMAN, CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF PECONIC BAY OF NEW YORK; AND BILL KERR, CHAIRMAN, CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF INDIAN RIVER LAGOON OF FLORIDA Mr. Frelinghuysen. David Slade, Association of Natural Estuary Programs. If you could come forward. Mr. Slade, good morning. How are you? Nice to see you. Mr. Slade. We have brought some colleagues. Mr. Frelinghuysen. If you would be good enough to identify yourselves. Mr. Slade. I will do that. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you. The formal comments will be in the record---- Mr. Slade. Yes. Mr. Frelinghuysen [continuing]. And if you could do your level best to summarize, that would be wonderful. Mr. Slade. Very good. I am David Slade, and we are here to testify on behalf of National Estuary Program, and I am a citizen and a Member of the Association. To my left is Kevin McDonald. He is Chairman of the Citizens Advisory Committee in Peconic Bay in New York, and to my right is Bill Kerr, Chairman of the Citizens Advisory Committee in Indian River Lagoon in Florida. So the three of us are here as citizens in strong support of this program. The National Estuary Program was established under Section 320 of the Clean Water Act. It is 10 years old, and the reason we support it so strongly is it is not one of the old school command-and-control type of environmental programs. Section 320 sets up a process where conservation management plans are developed by the local sectors, the local agencies, the State agencies, local business groups, local citizens and citizen groups, and the process requires everybody to come together in a consensus, and it has really been successful in decreasing-- not wiping out, but decreasing litigation. It has been very successful. It is a 10-year-old program, like I said. There are 28 NEPs around the country. We do have something you could take a look at here. It is just to show you the geographic coverage of this program. Of the 28 that are there, 17 have reached the implementation stage, while 11 are still in the development stage. There are two stages of development and implementation. So it is really turning the corner, and with the two stages, with the development and implementation stage, it is important. The message that we wanted to bring to you today is there are several sources of funding for this program within the Clean Water Act. There is Section 320 funding itself, which is the core program, but for development and, later down the line, implementation, the NEP program is to coordinate closely with a Nonpoint-Source Pollution Control Program, the Construction Grants Program, and the Revolving Loan Funds Program. We are here today asking the assistance of this Subcommittee to help us get that message through to EPA. We are not asking here for an additional appropriation amount. Whatever the appropriation is to the EPA, we would like the Subcommittee's assistance in getting direction to allocate $28 million of the NEP money to the core program. That is $1 million per site, and these gentlemen to my left and right can tell you why that is important. The second is in the implementation stage. We need EPA to give priority emphasis when they are, in turn, allocating out the Nonpoint Pollution Control, the Construction Grant, and the Revolving Loan Fund Programs, to put a special emphasis on those CCMPs who have approved management plans. That is our central message to get this Subcommittee's assistance with that message to EPA. I will turn it over to Bill. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Sure, very briefly. Good to hear from another citizen. You have some counterparts in New Jersey, I see. I see you have got some things. Mr. McDonald. The successful element of this program and why we are here, both Bill and I from far places from Washington, is that as a result of this program, citizens across the Nation are conferring with one another about what some of the problems are in our waterways and how one problem solving one part of the country can be transported to anotherpart of the country, good technology transfer. This program is a success in the sense that there are thousands of hours of citizen participation, month after month after month, that are actually solving the problems. We have a diverse interest involved in this program. At one time, it wasn't uncommon for marine operators to be fighting with environmental groups and farmers to be fighting with citizen groups and environmental groups. This program makes us all work together. It puts us at an even part with constructive problem- solving, and it is actually working, and I would say better than most other resource concepts across the country. Better than that, it is because of that structure, because we are working together, we are able to get support at the local level in terms of State, county, and hundreds of millions of dollars of water quality improvement projects. Just in New York State alone, we approved a bond issue last year, $800 million to improve water quality, and the Governor smartly said we have the plans in place. It is the Long Island Sound study, the Peconic Estuary Study, of which this program helped general. Finally, it is inventing good solutions that we otherwise didn't have, and it is that network that we have. It is incentive-based, and it really is working, and with a modest investment further, I think we can make significant improvements. Thank you. [The statement of Mr. Slade follows:] [Pages 493 - 496--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Frelinghuysen. Your work is exciting and innovative. Interesting. Any comments? Mr. Kerr. Just that it has encouraged State, local, and Federal governments to work together, and as a consensus- building process in conflict resolution for environmental issues, it is tremendous. Mr. Slade. This is really one of those environment programs that works from the bottom up. It works from the local level up, and it is 10 years old. It is coming into fruition, and it seems to be meeting with a lot of success. Mr. Frelinghuysen. I see a lot of bumper stickers that say ``Save the Bay.'' Mr. Slade. That is right. Mr. Frelinghuysen. This is a lot of your work. Thank you very much. Mr. Slade. Thank you. Mr. McDonald. Thank you very much. Mr. Kerr. Thank you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. We will take about a 5-minute recess. [Recess.] ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WITNESS VANESSA M. LEIBY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF STATE DRINKING WATER ADMINISTRATORS Mr. Frelinghuysen. I would like to start the hearing again. I recognize Vanessa M. Leiby, Executive Director, speaking on behalf of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators. Ms. Leiby. Thank you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Good morning. Ms. Leiby. Good morning. Mr. Frelinghuysen. A copy of your full testimony will be included in the record, if you would be good enough to proceed, and if you could, summarize. Ms. Leiby. I will try to be brief. I didn't bring anybody else with me. As you indicated, my name is Vanessa Leiby. I am the Executive Director of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators. We represent the States who are charged with implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act across the country. Before I get into the official testimony, I do want to thank you and the other Members of the Subcommittee for knowing about drinking water, for caring about drinking water, and really being very strong supporters of drinking water of the last few years. It has certainly been a help for us to be able to come before you and speak with people who are knowledgeable about these issues. As you know, through a coordinated and committed effort of the States, the utilities, local government, the environmental community, EPA, and the Congress, we were able to pass a new drinking water law in August, and it really will dramatically change how we protect drinking water over the next 10 or 20 years in this country, and there are four major themes, really, in the new law. There are prevention programs, such as source water protection and enhanced operator certification, regulatory improvements that require a new emphasis on sound science and risk assessment, new funding provisions for infrastructure improvements and other setasides for important other activities, and a significant new emphasis now on consumer outreach and public involvement, which we think is very important. Now, while the States, who our members supported many of these provisions in the law, they also recognize that successful implementation would require new resources and enhanced coordination and cooperation among all of the interested stakeholders that I have mentioned, and the reality is that much of the work is really going to fall on our Members to get done. They are the ones that have to develop and implement the programs, and it will ultimately be held accountable for the success of those programs. For instance, many of the new initiatives include a requirement for States to assess and delineate all of the source waters that are used for drinking water in their State within a 2-year time frame. Well, there are 187,000 public water systems out there, and as part of that process, they are going to be identifying potential sources of contamination and analyzing the vulnerability or susceptibility of each of those water systems to contamination. It is a sizeable task, and they are also, as you know, working feverishly to get State Revolving Fund Programs in place so that much needed monies will be going to these systems for infrastructure improvements. They are also going to be doing a lot of work for all of these water systems. In the viability area, you know we have quite a problem with particularly the smaller systems who are not able to comply, and so the new law requires that the States develop programs that will review the managerial, financial, and technical capabilities of all of these water systems to provide safe drinking water, again, a permittable task. Many States will also be required to expand operator certification and training programs to ensure that there are qualified people at each of these systems. As part of the outreach effort, they will be providing annual reports to the consuming public, all of the consumers in their States about the quality of drinking water and providing significant amounts of new information to EPA oncontaminant protection information. Almost all of these new efforts involve quite a bit of public outreach and effort. Given all of these new responsibilities and programs that the States have to implement, you can imagine our surprise when the President's budget for fiscal year 1998 included no increase for our members, the States, to implement and begin developing these programs, but once again, we are looking to Congress to help us. We are just requesting, really, a fairly modest increase of $10 million, for a total of $100 million for public water supply supervision and grants to the States. This is the amount that was authorized in the Safe Drinking Water Act and one that we agreed was reasonable. We hope that that amount will be authorized and appropriated and that it will be an indication, really, to the States that Congress recognized that significant new challenges were placed on the States and they want the States to succeed. Another vital area of concern, as you have heard from numerous preceding individuals, is the importance of health effects research, and again, I will be short and summarize and say that we certainly support the $39.5 million in the President's budget for drinking water research, and also the $5 million for the American Water Works Research Foundation and EPA partnership and the $1 million for arsenic research. I have been very, very impressed with the quality and capabilities of the individuals and the expertise that have been brought to bear in both of these projects. These monies, as you well know, like those that the States receive are matched and dramatically increase the funds that are actually contributed. Again, I will concur with earlier testimony that we support the $1 billion authorization for the drinking water SRF. As you are aware, EPA's infrastructure needs reports they just provided to Congress indicated a $138.4-billion need over the next 20 years. So we don't think that the $1 billion that we had asked for is too much, and certainly, of the $34.4 billion that the report indicated as immediate need, the $1 billion will certainly help to go towards that. So we really would hope that the subcommittee would increase that from the $725 million in the President's budget. Finally, we would also like to support the President's budget of the $105.3 million for EPA for their Drinking Water Program efforts. We recognize that they need to be strong. They need to have the resources available to develop sound standards, to write guidances and regulations that are implementable, and we do support them having the appropriate funding to do that. That is all for my testimony, and I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. [The statement of Ms. Leiby follows:] [Pages 500 - 514--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, thank you for going through your testimony quite rapidly. These are critical issues, and your being here to endorse what we have done and some of the things we need to do is important. Ms. Leiby. Well, we appreciate it very much, and thank you for supporting the States. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, thank you very much. Michael Paque, is he here, Ground Water Protection Council? ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION WITNESS PETER D. SAUNDRY, PH.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMMITTEE FOR THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT Mr. Frelinghuysen. I am pleased to recognize Peter D. Saundry, Ph.D., Dr. Saundry, the executive director for the Committee for the National Institute for the Environment. How are you? Mr. Saundry. Nice to meet you, sir. Mr. Frelinghuysen. I expected an older man. Mr. Saundry. I am actually a little older than I look. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, it must be the good water you drink. Mr. Saundry. I hope so. I hope so. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Maybe you don't drink coffee like the chairman whose place I am taking. Mr. Saundry. I try to avoid such coffee. My name is Peter Saundry. Mr. Frelinghuysen. A copy of your full remarks will be included. Mr. Saundry. Thank you very much, and I will provide a very brief overview and details to be brought up later. The Committee for the National Institute for the Environment is a national nonprofit, nonpartisan organization. We do not take issues on specific environmental issues. Our issue is improving the scientific basis for making decisions on environmental issues. We are advocates for science for better environmental decision-making. Now, our main point is that the United States needs a trusted source of scientific information on environmental issues that are separate from the regulatory agencies. The science should be objective, peer-reviewed science that answers the key questions of decision-makers inside and outside Federal Government. When I say separate from the regulatory agencies, it is because one unavoidable consequence of regulatory agencies is that their science is often viewed, rightly or wrongly, as being tainted, with a conflict of interest, or a political agenda. Rightly or wrongly, that is a very common perception that causes a lot of problems. On the other hand, nonregulatory bodies, like the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, have strong public support in every community. Now, a proposal to create just such a source of credible scientific information has been developed, and it has the support of over 350 organizations, State and local government groups, environmental groups, business groups, colleges and universities, scientific societies, and interestingly, three former administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency, and all former assistant administrators for Research and Development at the Environmental Protection Agency. The proposal is known as the National Institute for the Environment, and you may be familiar with it because Congressman Saxton has been pushing the NIE agenda for quite some time, and we have chosen that name because of the successful National Institutes of Health. Essentially, we feel we need to do for environmental science what National Institutes of Health does so well for biomedical science. The institute is being proposed as a nonregulatory science body with a mission to improve the scientific basis for making environmental decisions. It is designed to be a neutral science forum where those who normally only meet in the courtroom can build a common scientific knowledge base on environmental issues. The institute that we propose will be led by a balanced group of individuals representing different communities that create, use or are affected by environmental science. The NIE would integrate four science activities, very crucial activities: first, ongoing assessments of the state of knowledge about environmental issues, what do we know, what don't we know, what do we have scientific consensus about, what is very controversial, and what questions that decision-makers need answering can be addressed by additional science; second, competitively awarded support for peer-reviewed research, organized around environmental topics; third, distribution of credible nonpartisan information using modern technologies; and finally, support for science-based environmental education and training. These activities can be implemented through an efficient granting mechanism where strict scientific quality control and strict scientific peer review are the norm. Now, my final point is that this subcommittee, which appropriates only half of the Federal Government spending on environmental science has the authority and the ability to make such a source of sound environmental science a reality. We request the committee to direct funds within its budget to one or more of the agencies under its jurisdiction to establish a nonregulatory environmental science institute that embraces the principles I have just outlined. Note that the institute need not be a part of the Federal Government with Federal employees, nor include any new Federal laboratories. Now, deciding how much to appropriate is challenging, but it is a little bit like deciding how much to spend on flood insurance when you are up to your ankles in water already and there is rain in the forecast. We ask that the committee find $20 to $50 million for fiscal year 1998 to allow such an institute to begin operations. We ask that the committee call on the administration to present a request in the fiscal year 1999 budget for sufficient funds for full operations. Now, we do not recommend that these funds be taken out from existing or requested funds for science, ``science'' being the key word there. We recognize that this is very hard, with a cost of not acting or delaying to act is great in terms of dollars misspent on well-intentioned, but misguided policy decisions. I and the staff of the CNIE and the many, many supportives of this initiative stand ready to meet with you to discuss details and also to meet with the staff and bring them up to speed with all the details and work together. Thank you very much, and I would be happy to answer any questions. [The statement of Mr. Saundry follows:] [Pages 518 - 521--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, thank you very much for your testimony. I know of your good work through Congressman Saxton. Mrs. Meek. Mrs. Meek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am thrilled to see what this proposal is all about. I just got here. He wants to be another arm of the research that causes us to make good policy, and the agencies. So one should do this, be involved in this, other than the agencies, but I would like to ask you a question. How old is your organization? How old is the institute? Mr. Saundry. The Committee for the National Institute for the Environment was founded--our first meeting of bringing folks together was in late 1989. The proposal was first introduced in legislation in 1993, and it was legislation in the House and the Senate, occurred in the 103rd Congress and again the 104th Congress. In fact, I should thank Congressman Frelinghuysen for co- sponsoring that legislation. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Oh, I try to be objective as Chairman by not endorsing. Mr. Saundry. But you are exactly right. Something separate from the regulatory process is needed because that provides a neutral forum which is so badly needed. We have had a lot of discussion here this morning about hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on various environmental issues, and yet, the amount that we spent on science is relatively very small, and it can have a very big impact on the budget that it is spent on solving or averting environmental problems. Mrs. Meek. Thank you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Saundry. Thank you very much. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Bye, now. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WITNESS LAWRENCE JAWROSKI, P.E., WATER ENVIRONMENTAL FEDERATION Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Lawrence Jawroski, representing the Water Environmental Federation. Have I done an injustice to your name? Mr. Jawroski. No, sir. Quite right. Thank you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. A copy of your full testimony will be included in the record. Mr. Jawroski. Thank you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. If you will be good enough to proceed as best you can and summarize. Mr. Jawroski. I shall, and thank you for your attention. Good afternoon, I guess, at this point. Mr. Frelinghuysen. It is good afternoon. Mr. Jawroski. It is always somewhat difficult being on this close to lunch. So, hopefully, I can make the most impact with my comments by being mercifully brief. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, we are not stopping for lunch. So, if there is anybody here who is hungry, they can leave. Go right ahead. Mr. Jawroski. I have four key points that I would like you to recall from our testimony as you review it: watershed management, funding, research, and nonpoint sources. I will touch briefly on each of those for you. Watershed management represents an option for approaching the evermore diffuse sources of pollution that we are dealing with now. In the 25 years of the Clean Water Act, we have progressed from dealing with major sources of quite identifiable sources of pollution to the more diffuse nature of pollution that we are dealing with today. Watershed management poses an opportunity for us to act on those sources in a most cost-effective manner. We support EPA's activities in watershed management and suggest that it be made a top-funding priority for the agency, and we also strongly recommend that resources within the Office of Water be allocated to the maximum extent possible in support of these activities; for example, integrating the national pollutant discharge elimination system and PDS permit program into a watershed approach to allow flexibility and coordination of these problems; also, developing guidance for controlling of nonpoint source pollution that will encourage a greater focus on priority watersheds; and enhancing the coordination of water quality data among States and other Federal agencies. While many of these activities were highlighted in EPA's fiscal year 1997 budget request, they were not unfortunately mentioned in the agency's FY 1998 budget summary, and we would encourage that these activities be made a high priority. The second area that I mentioned is financial assistance for waste water facility construction. We have heard several people comment on that this morning. I would like to just point out to you that we are facing additional challenges incontrolling these sources of pollution. This subcommittee and Congress itself has been very generous in its support of water pollution control over the years, and we would like to encourage that support to continue. The EPA budget request for the State Revolving Fund was a little over $1 billion for fiscal year 1998. We believe that that is significantly below the actual needs of the profession. We recommend at least $2 billion for the Clean Water Act SFR. The needs are ever increasing. I am sure many of you are aware of the increasing challenges before us in dealing with sanitary sewer overflows, combined sewer overflows, and storm water, all of which pose significant challenges to us in our profession and in the municipalities in terms of control over those sources. A third priority area that you have heard of this morning is research. We would like to support the continued research being done by EPA and also to point out to you, as you have read this morning on the drinking water side, we on the water quality side have a similar organization called the Water Environment Research Foundation, which is dedicated to similar goals, as our colleagues on the drinking water side. The WERF is an excellent example of leveraging of Federal dollars. The program has received approximately $7.5 million in Federal contributions over the last several years and has been able to leverage those funds at approximately a ratio of 4 to 1 to develop and disseminate information in terms of water quality research. We strongly support the request in EPA's budget for $5 million in fiscal year 1998 for the Water Environment Research Foundation. The final point that I mentioned to you is nonpoint sources of pollution. I also mentioned earlier that we have dealt with many of the more significant and more visible sources of pollution to our Nation's waters, and now we are dealing with the more diffuse and more difficult-to-control sources being nonpoint sources. However, the Nonpoint Source Pollution Program falls nicely into the category of watershed-based management. It allows us to approach those problems on a priority basis and deal with those issues and those sources which will truly have a measurable impact and benefit to our Nation's waters. We would like to recommend that the subcommittee support EPA's budget request for nonpoint source funding. It will help us deal with those problems in the future, and I would like to leave you with, again, just a comment that the future of the improvement of our Nation's waters is based on watershed management, and we urge EPA to focus on that in their future activities. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to answer any questions. [The statement of Mr. Jaworski follows:] [Pages 525 - 535--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you very much for your testimony, raising a number of issues that are important that need further disability. It is always good to see a P.E. after somebody's name around here. Mr. Jawroski. Thank you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. We get quite a lot of Ph.D's, and we are happy to have them as well, and particularly your highlighting of the watershed management. I have one of those highlight projects in my district, and it is pulling all sorts of people together to better communicate and work together. Mr. Jawroski. It truly is. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you very much for being with me. Mrs. Meek. Mrs. Meek. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have any questions. Mr. Jawroski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Is Mr. Paque here, Ground Water Protection? Or, forever hold your peace. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WITNESSES JIM HARP, TREASURER, NORTHWEST INDIAN FISHERIES COMMISSION; TERRY WILLIAMS, COMMISSIONER, NORTHWEST INDIAN FISHERIES COMMISSION; AND BOB KELLY, COMMISSIONER, NORTHWEST INDIAN FISHERIES COMMISSION Mr. Frelinghuysen. We are moving right along. Billy Frank, Jr., Chairman, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. Mr. Frank, welcome. Thanks for your patience. We are a little behind schedule. Mr. Harp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Hi. How are you? A copy of your formal testimony will be included in the record, and we are pleased to have you with us here today. Mr. Harp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not Billy Frank. Mr. Frelinghuysen. You aren't? Mr. Harp. No. Mr. Frank could not make it, but I know he would have liked to have been here. My name is Jim Harp. I am one of the officers of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. I am the treasurer of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, and with me is Mr. Terry Williams, a commissioner with the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. We also have Bob Kelly, another commissioner from the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Welcome to all of you. Mr. Harp. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the tribes of the Washington State, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony concerning the EPA's fiscal year 1998 appropriations. Specifically, we are requesting that programmatic funding levels to the Northwest tribes be included in EPA's budget under Section 104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act. The purpose of our request is to continue the implementation of the model, Coordinated Tribal Water Quality Program, for 26 participating tribes and tribal organizations in the State of Washington for the fiscal year 1998. Strong congressional support for and implementation of this tribal initiative began in 1990 and is present today. However, we are losing ground in the implementation of this effort. Erosion of base-level funding is jeopardizing the Federal Government's long-term investment in this efficient and effective Tribal Water Quality Protection Program. It is very essential that this continues in the future. The specifics of this can be provided by Mr. Williams. Mr. Frelinghuysen. If you would be good enough to do it just by summary because we actually have the benefit of your full testimony. Mr. Williams. I intended to summarize to help speed this up. The Congress has supported our program for about 6 years now, and we feel it is vital that this continues and also at increasing levels. We have been here year after year testifying in support of the program, but have been reducedin the amount that has actually been appropriated. One of the things that we wanted to get across, one of the points is that the tribes are co-managers of the resource in the State of Washington. This came out of the treaties and some history of litigation, but what we have tried to take from the treaties and the litigation is more now the cooperative approach, working with the State of Washington and doing planning and management in a manner that benefits the both of us, and I think that has been working. Just a few minutes ago, you heard from the people talking about the National Estuary Program. In the State of Washington, there is an estuary that has been identified with the plan that is approved. The tribes are in co-management of that plan. We have been managers for 10 years and never been funded for that participation. We helped to develop, first, watershed planning and watershed management processes for the State and continue along with processes now that are approved for doing the water quality and management, TMDLs, monitoring and different lab work. For that participation, we have been relying on this funding for staffing and for our ability for a co-management role. That is getting more and more difficult. As the demands are being laid on us, and I think as you know, the Northwest has a number of problems now that are high risk with water and different species that are being looked at for the Endangered Species Act, the tribes themselves on the reservations are at high risk for the lack of attention over the last 25-some years of the EPA. It has just been recently that EPA programs have identified tribes and have brought the tribes into the management process and into activities. So, with that, we are looking for this funding that would be specific for this program to help us participate in the co- management process, and the funding to be specifically identified either in 104(b)(3) or possibly 319 as a vehicle. A situation within EPA, their internal allocation process tends to dilute funds if they are not specifically identified, so that they could be scattered throughout the Nation, and that is something we are trying to avoid. We have been working extremely closely with the EPA in their process of guidance and looking at what their funding requests are. We support the direction that the agency is going. We support the President's request for funds and hope to see that in the national as well as our own area, but specifically for this work that we are doing, it is critical for us in the management to help be part of the problem solving within the Northwest Region. Maybe just one last comment, and that is, the tribes under the self-governance process that is ongoing have taken that very seriously, and in identifying our problems, we have tribes at each one of the river systems within the States, and as you can see on the map, not only do they become actively involved in the management of this system, and we have a 10,000-year history of these basins with our families, and we understand that we know the resource. We know what can be expected and the general direction of trends are sometimes the first indicators of problems. So it is extremely beneficial to have our people on the front lines with the State and doing this type of work. [The statement of Mr. Harp follows:] [Pages 539 - 543--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, thank you for your testimony. I am glad I don't have to pronounce some of these river systems here. Mr. Williams. Well, we would love to have you out there. Mr. Frelinghuysen. From what I gather, it is a beautiful part of the Nation, and you are very much involved in making sure it is managed properly and resources are looked after. So we will do what we can to be of assistance to you. Your physical presence here is important. It endorse something which is very important to our Nation and to the region. Mrs. Meek. Mrs. Meek. I don't have any questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for coming. Mr. Williams. Well, if you ever have the opportunity to be in that area, please call. Mr. Frelinghuysen. I would use any excuse. Maybe in the real chairman's absence, I can find myself coming our there sometime. Mr. Williams. If you do, give us a call, and we will be happy to provide a tour for you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, thank you very much. We appreciate your being here. Thank you very much. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WITNESSES ANN McCAMMON SOLTIS, POLICY ANALYST, GREAT LAKES INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIED BY JIM THANTOM Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. James Schlender, Executive director of Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Commission? Ms. Soltis. I am not Commissioner Schlender. Mr. Frelinghuysen. All right. Ms. Soltis. He was unable to be here. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Hi. I am Rodney Frelinghuysen. Ms. Soltis. Hi. Ann McCammon Soltis. Nice to meet you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Nice to meet you. Mr. Thantom. Jim Thantom. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Jim, how are you? Good afternoon. Thank you for being here. Ms. Soltis. Thank you for having us. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Representing the Commission and being so patient in the audience--you have been here quite a long time. Have you been here the entire time, too? Ms. Soltis. As long as he has. Mr. Frelinghuysen. As long as he has, right. We will put your entire statement in the record, and if you would be good enough to proceed. Ms. Soltis. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Ann McCammon Soltis. I am a policy analyst with the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, and Mr. Schlender regrets that he was unable to attend today. On behalf of our 11-member Chippewa tribes in Wisconsin,Michigan, and Minnesota, thank you for the opportunity to appear regarding our EPA fiscal year 1998 appropriations request. I would like to briefly highlight the Commission's written testimony and to reinforce why the requested funding is important not only to our member tribes, but to this Nation's overall environmental protection efforts in the Great Lakes region. Recognizing budget constraints, the Commission is not seeking to increase the overall funding for the EPA. Rather, we seek Congress' help in directing approximately $330,000 out of existing funds to the Commission to ensure that the EPA carries out its trust responsibility regarding Chippewa treaties with the United States. Within the scope of Section 1268 of the Clean Water Act relating to the management of the Great Lakes, this funding would be used to develop three aspects of the Commission's environmental program. First, it would help our participation efforts to implement the U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978. It would help us assess potential mining development in the Great Lakes Basin, and third, it would help us conduct cooperative fish contaminant studies. Our written testimony outlines why each of these programs is needed, but I wish to offer a few additional thoughts. Tribal members are uniquely tied to nature. They rely on fish, wildlife, and plants for subsistence, economic and cultural purposes. The United States has recognized this through the provisions in a number of treaties with the Chippewa which guarantee hunting, fishing, and gathering rights, including the right to fish in Lake Superior. However, fishing rights mean little if the fish are unsafe to eat. On the last page of your testimony, as I see you have taken out, there is a map that shows mercury concentrations of walleye in lakes which are harvested by members of the Lac Courte Oreilles tribe, which is one of our member tribes. Even as the EPA concluded in 1992 study of Wisconsin tribes, because of their distinctive relationship with natural resource, tribal members face different types, amounts, and causes of environmental risks than other Americans. In the Chippewa way of life, each person has the responsibility to honor and preserve what the creator has provided. The representatives of their people, tribal governments, and their agencies, such as the Commission, have the duty to carry out this responsibility in exercising governmental powers and functions. Through the various laws, such as the Clean Water Act, and through its general trust responsibility toward tribes, the United States recognizes the need for tribal participation in the programs that develop Great Lakes environmental protection standards and lake-wide management plans. These programs include the binational program to protect and restore Lake Superior. In fiscal year 1997, the EPA provided coastal environmental management funds to the Commission to facilitate tribal participation in the binational program and to address environmental concerns associated with proposed sulfide mining development. Continued progress in these areas depends on the Commission's fiscal year 1998 appropriations request being funded, and there are two basic premises underlying our request. First, the tribes need to be full participants in the decisions that directly affect the natural resources that are so essential to tribal culture and society and to this Nation as a whole, and second, the tribal participation should be based on sound science. Thus, we seek these funds to add to our scientific and technical expertise so that we can better advise our member tribes on issues of concern and encourage decisions on the basis of sound science. The reality is the tribes will be governed by the end results of the various Great Lakes programs, regardless of the extent to which they participated in the decision-making process. The funds the Commission seeks will provide a significant step toward enhancing a partnership role the commission member tribes play with other Great Lakes' stakeholders. The commission and its member tribes are committed to passing a healthy environment onto our children and our grandchildren. Meaningful tribal participation on a government- to-government basis in this Nation's Great Lakes programs will better help us to honor this commitment. With the requested funds, the Commission can help to honor the commitment in a cost-effective and efficient manner that takes advantage of an inter-tribal structure, that pursues intergovernmental and stakeholder cost share and other partnerships and that ensures participation and accountability at the local level by those most directly affected, which, of course, is the tribes themselves. I appreciate the opportunity to appear and testify before you. Thank you. [The statement of Mr. Schlender follows:] [Pages 547 - 551--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you very much for being here. We have enjoyed your testimony. We have learned something about the Chippewas---- Ms. Soltis. Good. Mr. Frelinghuysen [continuing]. Good stewards of the land-- -- Ms. Soltis. That is right. Mr. Frelinghuysen [continuing]. And the need for some of our help. Ms. Soltis. Yes. That is absolutely right. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mrs. Meek. Mrs. Meek. No. I wanted to ask you a question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Frelinghuysen. You are not going to ask me to give a full accounting of the tribes, are you? Mrs. Meek. No, no. This could be an off-the-record question. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you for being here, both of you. There is a lunch break. I can't believe it. Anybody here who hasn't been recognized? Thank you for being here. ---------- -- -------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WITNESS MARCELLUS GRACE, PH.D., DEAN, COLLEGE OF PHARMACY, XAVIER UNIVERSITY, LOUISIANA, ASSOCIATION OF MINORITY HEALTH PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS Mr. Lewis. The meeting will come back to order. We are operating in a circumstance, Mr. Grace, and others, where Members have conflicts all over the Hill. And so we are proceeding in a fashion that suggests that your entire statement will be included in the record, if you would summarize it for us. We will not take too much of your time, but in the meantime, we are happy to have you here. Please proceed. Mr. Grace. Mr. Lewis, thank you very much for indulging me this afternoon. I am dean of the College of Pharmacy at Xavier University in New Orleans, and I represent a cooperative arrangement of eight historically black health professional schools. We have been working with the ATSDR on a projects for now some--this is the end of our fifth year. In essence, we have--I have got a copy of the progress report that I also want to put into the record. We have published some 19 papers and have done work through this cooperation agreement on lead, cadmium, zinc, benzene. We have built major infrastructure, inhalation toxicology facilities at Meharry. At my University we have built, one of only several in the whole country, unique aquatic facility where we actually take talapia fish and catfish and expose them to benzene. To bring this home, you may have heard in the paper 2 weeks ago a barge carrying hundreds of thousands of gallons of benzene went aground in the Mississippi River about 80 miles upstream from where I live, and they had to evacuate the whole campus of Southern University. So to have this kind of work go on, in an area like New Orleans, particularly, is very relevant. We have been receiving $4 million for the last 5 years. We would like to recommend that this continue. We are up for the 5-year renewal. We would like to ask that your Committee would continue to support us as you have at the level of $4 million and increase the ATSDR's budget to $72 million. As I said, you have my full testimony here that can be in the record. I would like to just share with you to add to the record, this is a progress report that we gave to the agency recently, and as I said, 19 publications that were refereed. Since I am the principal investigator for this project, we just hosted a symposium to sort of, if you will, show off. This is our sort of party, if you will, and this is the actual program itself that has all the abstracts. And what we had is 150 scientists and students from all eight schools who came together and presented posters and papers on their work for the last 5 years. I do not like to drop names, but we did have the head of the ATSDR deputy, Dr. Darrell Johnson, who was ill and could not come, notified us the day before. We did have also the head of the NIEHA, Dr. Kent Olin, who was our keynote speaker. And this is the program we had. Also, one of our speakers was Dr. James Buss, president of the Society of Toxicology. So while I am not dropping names, just to make the point that the work that we have been doing for the last 5 years has made a major contribution to the environmental toxicology work area. We want to continue this work and look at some additional compounds from the substance-specific list and continue to do the great work that we think we have done. So I would like to put these in the record. [The statement of Mr. Grace follows:] [Pages 554 - 561--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Well, beyond those names, we are very pleased to have you, Dr. Grace, with us representing Xavier and the pharmacy school there. Mr. Grace. Thank you very much. Mr. Lewis. We do know of your work. We appreciate the update. While we have difficult times, we will do everything we can to try to help. Mr. Grace. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. Mr. Lewis. Good to see you. Thank you. ---------- -- -------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WITNESS PEGEEN HANRAHAN, CITY COMMISSIONERS, CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA Mr. Lewis. Ms. Hanrahan? Is that right? Ms. Hanrahan. Yes, that is very good. Mr. Lewis. Good. I have been mispronouncing my name today, so----[Laughter.] Mr. Lewis. The city of Gainesville. Ms. Hanrahan. That is right. Mr. Lewis. Would you identify yourself for the record? Ms. Hanrahan. Yes, I am Pegeen Hanrahan, City Commissioner with the city of Gainesville, Florida. Thank you very much for having me here today. I am here to talk about the Sweetwater Branch, Paynes Prairie stormwater management project. You may recall that one of my fellow commissioners, Bruce Delaney, was here last year to talk to you about this project, and we greatly appreciate your continuing interest. This is a project that is vitally important not only in north-central Florida, but throughout the State. A modest Federal investment would greatly assist us in repairing the critical problems relating to managing stormwater and treated wastewater, protecting our drinking water, restoring a nationally significant ecological habitat, and relieving impediments to redeveloping our oldest and most socially and economically debilitated areas. As you can see from the map here on the cover of the report I have provided, Paynes Prairie is an 18,000-acrewetland ecosystem State preserve. It is nearly as large as the city itself, which is depicted in the color. Gainesville has 96,000 residents and is the home of the University of Florida, our flagship university that serves 40,000 students. The Sweetwater Branch drainage basis covers 1,700 acres. The Sweetwater Branch Creek itself handles stormwater runoff and wastewater effluent, which has gone on for nearly since the early 1800s. Today, the city's Main Street wastewater treatment plant handles a flow of about 8 million gallons a day, which the city recently spent $15 million upgrading. But the largest problem has to do with the enormous discharge of untreated stormwater. After a rain event, the stream depth can increase by a factor of eight, and there is a photo here that shows you not only the prairie itself, the bison on the prairie, but you can see the significant increase in the volume of stormwater after a rain event. As a channelized flow, the creek's waters are directed to the Alachua Sink. Mr. Lewis. She is doing great, Mrs. Thurman. Mrs. Thurman. I am leaving her alone. I can tell. [Laughter.] Ms. Hanrahan. This is a natural sink hole that discharges directly to the Florida aquifer. This is a photograph of the sink that appeared in the National Geographic. The Florida aquifer is an underground---- Mr. Lewis. Is that where this photo is from? Ms. Hanrahan. Yes. It was taken by a Gainesville Sun photographer, John Melayan. The Florida aquifer provides the majority of drinking water to Florida residents. It extends all the way to the Everglades. Thousands of municipal, domestic, industrial, and commercial water wells rely on the Florida aquifer. The discharge of Sweetwater Branch at Alachua Sink puts a great deal of garbage, oils, pesticides, sediments, and nutrients into this fragile drinking water supply and natural area. Because the Sweetwater Basin is the poorest, most crime- ridden area of our town, as shown in several of the photos we have provided, we lack the private investment or tax base needed to correct this problem. Public and private entities, including the city of Gainesville, Alachua County, the St. John's River Water Management District, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Magurn Investment---- Mr. Lewis. All those. Ms. Hanrahan. All those, yes. Mr. Lewis. That we are going to read about in the record, right? Ms. Hanrahan. Yes. We have all come together to work on a solution, and we have moved forward. In order to solve this problem, the University of Florida Center for Wetlands has identified that it would cost about $14 million. Today we are asking you for about $2 million to initiate the project. There will not be any need for long-term Federal support because the city of Gainesville has a stormwater utility that our citizens are able to provide long-term support for stormwater projects. So---- Mr. Lewis. I often ask, if we buy the cow, then what happens? Ms. Hanrahan. Right. Well, we have taken a proactive---- Mr. Lewis. So you have got a method of feeding it? Ms. Hanrahan. Yes, we do. We do. We have taken a very proactive effort on stormwater issues. But locally and on a State level, it is just too much in this essentially ground field area for us to manage this. So we thank you for your consideration today, and we appreciate you hearing my concerns. [The statement of Ms. Hanrahan follows:] [Pages 564 - 565--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Well, thank you, Ms. Hanrahan. Mrs. Thurman, she has done a very good job. Mrs. Thurman. Ditto, and it is not even 2:14. So I am leaving at that. You keep on the right schedule, and then we will get our project. [Laughter.] Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much. I appreciate your being with us. Ms. Hanrahan. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time. Mr. Lewis. Great. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WITNESS HARRY MAVROGENES, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA Mr. Lewis. Mr. Harry Mavrogenes? Is that right? Mr. Mavrogenes. Yes, sir. Mr. Lewis. Somewhere close? Mr. Mavrogenes. Very good, sir. Mr. Lewis. I think you probably have heard my discussions regarding information for the record. Mr. Mavrogenes. Yes, sir. Mr. Lewis. If you would help us understand your request by way of a summarized comment, we would appreciate it. Mr. Mavrogenes. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. For the record, my name is Harry Mavrogenes. I am Assistant City Manager for the city of Miami Beach, Florida, and we come before you today to bring testimony on two projects. The first that we are seeking assistance on is the coastal erosion prevention initiative. The city of Miami Beach is on a barrier island. It is surrounded by the ocean on one side, the bay on the other, many canals. We have 39 miles of waterfront property with seawalls. And the city being an older city, one of the first ones in the southern part of Florida, has a lot of deterioration in those areas. The seawalls are a barrier that protects properties from tidal action, and the loss of these seawalls can result in loss of property and pose a danger to navigation. We have requested that we do a demonstration project that develops a construction of a new type of seawall which we call a living seawall, which will contain native plant materials as well as boulders and rocks instead of the traditional concrete which has been prevalent, which will enhance the environmental area. We have, again, a very sensitive environment, being a barrier island, and this will provide the necessary protection, probably a better form of protection, and at $1.5 million, I think this will go a long way to providing the protection we need and a good demonstration. The city commission has also set aside $400,000 in local funds, and we are attempting to develop other techniques with the State as well to help us with the beach site erosion. Part of the program includes a planting along the dunes along the beach, and we are looking at other programs that will ultimately provide long-term economically viable protection for the beaches. The second item involved our water and sewer system. The city of Miami Beach, again, developed in 1915, has a sewer system and a water system that is very old. Our commission has bitten the bullet, if you will. They have authorized the issuance of $60 million in funding in bond funds to begin to replace an infrastructure. It is very easy to ignore the stuff that is underground. It is very glamorous to build new hotels, new convention centers. But when it comes to thereal infrastructure, our city has gone as far as it could, and it needs the additional help. We are asking for the 90-10. We are providing the 90; we are asking for 10 percent of up to $10 million to assist us in providing the necessary improvements. Our system is unique in that, as you probably know, again, being this barrier island, we cannot go very far down for our sewers. They are literally at the same plane as water, as our water lines. We have to keep them apart side by side, but it is the type of system where you have to provide the best possible protection of your drinking water from the sewer system. And these improvements are very, very critical to our growth. The city has been one which is now starting to come back. We have the largest historic district of the 20th century in the country with our Art Deco historic area. We have made major strides in rebuilding and revitalizing this older city, and this funding source I think would go a long way in helping us finish the major revitalization for, again, a very modest amount of investment. We are providing the bulk of the necessary other funding. [The statement of Mr. Mavrogenes follows:] [Pages 568 - 571--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Well, I appreciate your testimony. Tell me, who represents Miami Beach? Mr. Mavrogenes. Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Lewis. She was scheduled to be here, but we are moving ahead of schedule. All right. We will have a chance to chat, anyway. Mr. Mavrogenes. Are there any other questions? Mr. Lewis. I do not really think so, and I know that without any question, if we do have, Ileana will make sure that you help us. Okay. Mr. Mavrogenes. Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity. Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND VETERANS ADMINISTRATION WITNESS DR. JOSEPH BATES, AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION/AMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY Mr. Lewis. Dr. Bates, you get to get in early and out early. The American Lung Association, Dr. Bates. Dr. Bates. Yes, sir. I am here to speak about two things. Mr. Lewis. All right. Dr. Bates. The funding for the Veterans' Administration research program and the funding for the EPA, and I am going to spend most of my time in this oral testimony about the VA research funding. Mr. Lewis. If you would give us your entire testimony for the record---- Dr. Bates. We have done that. Mr. Lewis [continuing]. And summarize it from there. As I think you probably know, a number of people have expressed concerns about VA research. The Committee feels very strongly about doing all that we can, so we welcome your testimony. Dr. Bates. Well, I really appreciate that. I am a Past President of the American Lung Association and the American Thoracic Society, and I am the Chief of the Medical Service at the VA Medical Center in Little Rock, and Professor of Medicine at the University there. Mr. Lewis. My district includes the Jerry Pettis Veterans Hospital, and Loma Linda University is just across the street. Dr. Bates. Yes, that is an important medical center. Well, I think you are very informed about all this. The point that we make is that the number of physician investigators in the United States funded for research is dwindling. And when I was young, 60 percent of the RO-1s at the NIH went to physician investigators. Now it is about 14 percent. And most of the physician investigators in the U.S. now, more than any other side, is funded by the Veterans Administration. And this decrease in funding that the administration has proposed is a very serious threat to the survival particularly of the young people as physicians coming into medical research. The VA is an ideal place for clinical investigation, and this is a very threatening thing. As you also know, compared to the NIH, the VA research overhead is much lower. The university's overhead at NIH is very steep compared to the VA overhead. The salaries for the investigators are not included in this. It just goes for research with minimal overhead. So that we are very concerned. As you probably know, the number of investigators has been dwindling because the VA research budget has been held flat for some time. That has resulted in about a number of 400 less investigators over the last 6 years. The other thing we wanted to make sure we provide our comments on is the EPA's Superfund research. We think that is a very worthy project, and we want to encourage Congress to continue to fund it. [The statement of Dr. Bates follows:] [Pages 574 - 581--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. We are very concerned about Superfund, very concerned about that history of spending so much of our money in litigation rather than in cleanup. So we are working with EPA to try to do all we can to make sure that we fix that which has not worked so well and make sure we at the same time make progress in terms of cleanup. I might mention, shifting back to the research question, there are a number of subcommittees in the House that deal with the various aspects of research, medical, health-oriented, et cetera. One of the items that I have asked Loma Linda to help me look at is the reality that over the years there have been adjustments in research budgets at varying levels. Just so that I am clear in your mind's eye, many years ago I put the very first money for AIDS research within this budget. It was then $200,000. Over the years, however, there has been a lot of growth along those avenues and a lot of valuable information has been developed. But in the meantime, if you take lung cancer funding, prostate cancer funding, and breast cancer, that cumulative dollar amount today is, you know, considerably behind another channel. We do need help from the community, the medical community, the research community, to apply some brain power to those balances for all of our committees so that we make sure in this shrinking circumstance, where the reality isbetween now and just the turn of the century there is not likely to be huge growth, indeed we want to make sure that we have our priorities in order. So I bring that to your attention and hope that you would help us. Dr. Bates. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Mr. Lewis. And we would be interested in your comment for the record as well. Dr. Bates. Well, we certainly would support--particularly in the Veterans' Administration, the most common medical reason for discharge from a veteran's hospital is lung disease. And that is chronic obstructive lung disease, emphysema, bronchitis, asthma, lung cancer. Coronary artery disease is an explosion among the veterans because of their age and their smoking history. So these are very, very major areas in the VA. Mr. Lewis. Well, I am of the view that the VA's control group circumstance of their population base provides an excellent---- Dr. Bates. It is unmatched. Unmatched as far as clinical trials. Mr. Lewis. So we appreciate very much your comments. We appreciate your being with us. Dr. Bates. I appreciate your understanding, and thank you very much. Mr. Lewis. Do you have questions? Mrs. Meek. No, thank you. Thursday, May 1, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WITNESS PAUL F. LARSON, M.D., SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY OF NEW JERSEY Mr. Lewis. Dr. Larson, we have your full testimony. It will be submitted for the record. If you would help us with time by way of summarizing and communicating your concern, we would appreciate that. Dr. Larson. Thank you very much, sir. It is my pleasure to be here representing the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, which is the largest public health science university in the Nation. Mr. Donald Payne was going to accompany me, and he will be submitting his testimony separately. Mr. Lewis. That is fine. Dr. Larson. I want to talk about two projects. The first one is the International Center for Public Health at the University Heights Science Park. Infectious diseases are posing a bigger and bigger problem for the world. There was a television program just last week about how infectious diseases are posing such a new threat, armed forces, but also as air travel and sea travel, people moving about. It is a big problem. We are proposing to create the International Center for Public Health. This would locate a first-class infectious disease research and treatment complex to be located in the University Heights Science Park, a Federal enterprise community neighborhood in Newark, New Jersey. Now, this is an interesting Science Park because it is a combination of groups that are working there. It is our other institutions of higher education in Newark, including the New Jersey Institute of Technology, Rutgers-Newark, the Essex County College, but also very importantly, we are working very closely with the city of Newark to develop this Science Park. The $10 million first phase of the Science Park has been completed, and that is thanks to the help of this subcommittee. As a matter of fact, I could say that, without the help of this subcommittee, we would not have Science Park, so thank you very much. Out of desolation has grown a technology business incubator, a day-care center, a new building housing an industrial liaison laboratory for our Center for Biomaterials and Medical Devices. The incubator is already over 80 percent filled, and we just opened it. Many of the companies are minority- and women-owned business enterprises. Our International Center at the Science Park will house two core tenants. The first is the Public Health Research Institute and the other is our own university's Tuberculosis Center. The Public Health Research Institute is an internationally prestigious biomedical organization that employs 110 scientists. They are presently located in New York. They sought to relocate, and we see them as a major tenant to be an anchor within this Science Park. Along with the TB Center, we would have a very strong presence in infectious disease looking at new ways to conquer and to treat the infectious disease that is an imposing threat to our world. We request, therefore, $5 million from this subcommittee to support the Phase 2 development of Science Park and the construction of the International Center for Public Health. A second project that we have is in New Brunswick, and this is to develop a Child Health Institute of New Jersey. As we look across the Nation, there is no center that is putting together the expertise of multiple disciplines to look at the very serious problems of what happens in the intra-utero and then at early life of the children of the United States and of this world. We have the wherewithal to put this together with our partners, and we would like to present this also to the committee as one of our projects. I thank you very much. [The statement of Dr. Larson follows:] [Pages 585 - 591--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Dr. Larson. I am very familiar with and empathetic to the latter question. Children's health is fundamentally--I am on the board of directors of the Children's Hospital of Loma Linda, and I know of their preliminary work. It is very important work. Mrs. Meek. Mrs. Meek. No questions. Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Dr. Larson. Dr. Larson. Thank you. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WITNESSES GLENN GRANT, BUSINESS ADMINISTRATOR, CITY OF NEWARK, NEW JERSEY; AND CLYDE DAWSON, MEMBER OF WEEQUAHIC PARK ASSOCIATION Mr. Lewis. Mr. Dawson and Mr. Grant. Mr. Grant. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lewis. Welcome to the Committee. I have in these hearings been trying to let people know that we have a list of well over a hundred witnesses, and so we really appreciate your willingness to submit your testimony for the record and kind of summarize that which you want to communicate to us. You are welcome to begin your testimony, but first I would like to introduce my friend, Rodney Frelinghuysen, who is also from New Jersey. Please proceed as you wish. Mr. Grant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here before you today. Mr. Lewis. I wanted to mention, though, one of the things that some apparently have forgotten I said this morning, the short presentations do very well in this Committee. Mr. Grant. We will try to adhere to that, Mr. Chairman. We are here today to ask for your assistance and partnership in developing jobs for our citizens. We believe that the projects that we will identify today provide the best public-public partnership to stimulate job growth and economic development. These projects are all within our Federal enterprise community area and will have a dramatic impact on unemployment and poverty suffered by, unfortunately, too many of our residents. The projects that I am talking about are an infrastructure improvement at Waverly Yards, the retrofitting of underutilized industrial buildings in the area known as Frelinghuysen Avenue. Our Congressman here, his ancestors used to be the mayor of the city of Newark, and we are very proud of that long history of leadership and service in Newark. So one of the areas that we are now trying to redevelop is an area known as Frelinghuysen Avenue, that of old industrial factories that are now underutilized and abandoned. And if we really can take advantage of our location next to Newark International Airport, one of the largest airports in the country and one of the fastest growing, we believe that we have an economic engine that can well serve this country, and particularly the citizens of the city of Newark. In regards to our Waverly Yards request, it is the largest undeveloped remaining parcel in the city of Newark. It is directly across from U.S. 1 and 9, and it is an underutilized former rail yard of just over 100 acres which will be connected to our airport, through an airport monorail. The city wishes to develop it to its fullest potential by providing critical infrastructure improvements. There is currently only one road leading into the site, and basic site services such as power, water, and communications lines need to be brought into the location. Site clearance, possible remediation, and acquisition of several parcels are needed in order to make this site an attractive one. An international trade center, which this committee has helped to support, is now under study and preliminary design. It is also proposed to be located in that area. We are requesting that this committee provide an appropriation of $6 million to help make this necessary improvement a reality. These activities will ultimately generate hundreds of jobs for Newark residents in the trade, hospitality, convention, and transportation industries and provide key enhancements to a regional transportation center. Consistent with our goal of stimulating job growth is our proposal to retrofit Frelinghuysen Avenue, as I have indicated. There are thousands of jobs in our port area, but, unfortunately, they are a stone's throw and a highway throw away from being accessed by our citizens. We propose that a project of a supplemental funding of $3 million will assist in retrofitting those much needed manufacturing industrial jobs. An additional project opportunity that we are here to talk about today is the Weequahic Park. Weequahic Park was designed as the first county part in the Nation by the renowned designer, Frederick Law Olmstead, who created Central Park. Now thanks to some innovative efforts of a private, non-profit Weequahic Park Association, the infrastructure is being developed, and the people of Newark are taking back the park. I would like to give a minute of my time to WPA's representative, Clyde Dawson, who will discuss our proposal. [The statement of Mr. Grant follows:] [Pages 594 - 597--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Mr. Dawson. Mr. Dawson. Thank you. In 1992, a group of park users led by Mr. McNeil came together to form Weequahic Park Association, referred to as WPA, which is modeled after and received a generous amount of support from the highly successful Central Park Conservancy in New York City to stand on the shoulders of our Congressman, Donald Payne, a long-time advocate of Weequahic Park. In order to supplement the resources provided by Essex County for use in Weequahic Park and to have a hands-on management role, WPA formally entered into a partnership agreement with the county in 1995. Our estimate of the investment made in Weequahic Park associated with WPA's accomplishments is in excess of $5 million and growing. It should be noted that these accomplishments were made without an administrative budget. Newark's mayor and city council have been and continue to be fully supportive of WPA's restoration efforts. WPA strongly feels, and we concur, that they are at the point of reaching critical mass in their development efforts. The most immediate WPA projects are to: one, continue showing physical improvement within and outside of the park; two, continue to build the management team; three, attract and involve more local institutions; four, raise funds and undertake the Master Plan study; five, raise funds toimplement the Master Plan study; six, provide employment and economic opportunities within; seven, reduce crime. Our ultimate goal is to restore Weequahic Park to a first- class park. An appropriation of $3.5 million is hereby requested to accomplish a broad range of restoration initiatives, including the completion of the Master Plan. The Master Plan will include fund-raising components to involve the private sector and foundations in the continued restoration of this historic and invaluable urban asset. Revitalization of the park also conforms to the recommendations of the State of New Jersey's plan to build on the existing infrastructure available in urban centers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The statement of Mr. Dawson follows:] [Pages 599 - 602--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Well, thank you both. I have not had the privilege of working personally with the historical Frelinghuysens, but I have this guy. [Laughter.] Mr. Lewis. Mr. Frelinghuysen, the questions are up to you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, gentlemen, Mr. Grant, Mr. Dawson, thank you for being here. Mr. Chairman, the city of Newark is our largest and most historic city in our State, and certainly I have a few roots there, and I have had some association that predates Mayor James' time. It is a great city. It is a renaissance city. It is a city that really is remaking itself as we are sitting here. It has really done some great things. And Congressman Payne has obviously been a good supporter of our efforts on this Committee, and we look forward to--I have a little historical anecdote here. I know we will do our best to--this is just for the record now. [Laughter.] Mr. Frelinghuysen. They have touched all the right buttons, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.] Mr. Lewis. Gentlemen, thank you very much. Mrs. Meek. Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Mr. Lewis. Don't forget Mrs. Meek. She is very important here. Mrs. Meek. A quick question. I noticed throughout your testimony--and I have not read it thoroughly, but you made mention of the fact that you are an enterprise community. Mr. Grant. That is correct. Mrs. Meek. Tell me what benefits you are getting now. Mr. Grant. Right now the largest benefit that we have accomplished to date is the creation of a community school. Our plan under our enterprise community was to develop eight neighborhoods. We took the lowest or the poorest neighborhoods in our communities, and we partnered with Weequahic Park and other community-based organizations. We are right now engaged in an RFP for doing an economic development assessment of those neighborhoods. So, to date, the thing that we are most proud of is that we have developed a community school, and, secondly, we are also doing a city-wide wide area network using 25 community-based organizations to tie them all together so hopefully we can have a one-stop shop. As many individuals come to various community-based organizations, they have to repeat the approval process. Mrs. Meek. That sounds real good. Mr. Lewis. He had that down cold, didn't he? Mrs. Meek. What? Mr. Lewis. He had that down cold. [Laughter.] Mrs. Meek. He must have known I was going to ask. But, anyway, it is good that he has this clearinghouse in the CBOs. That helps a lot. Did you apply for an empowerment zone? Mr. Grant. Yes. Mrs. Meek. Did you get it? Mr. Grant. We got the consolation prize. Mrs. Meek. Oh, all right. So did Miami. Mr. Lewis. Thank you, gentlemen, very much. Thursday, May 1, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WITNESS JOSEPH MAUDERLY, DIRECTOR OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, LOVELACE RESPIRATORY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Mr. Lewis. The committee would call Dr. Joseph Mauderly. Dr. Mauderly, would you identify yourself for the record? Dr. Mauderly. I am Joe Mauderly, Director of External Affairs for the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you about two inter-related issues that are very important to the Environmental Protection Agency. The first is the need for a national center for coordination of research and information on the respiratory effects of air pollution. Pollutants inhaled in the environment, home, and workplace are known to contribute to respiratory illness, but the extent of their contribution and the nature of it is hotly debated and very uncertain. This problem is not receiving the attention it deserves in view of the alleged health and economic impacts. EPA is facing increasing rather than decreasing problems in facing this issue as the level of air pollutants goes down because it is becoming more difficult to determine whether health effects are associated with specific pollutants or the mixture of pollutants. It is becoming more difficult to make cost/benefit judgments about the effect of reducing pollutants further. It is becoming very important to judge whether small responses seen in animals or cells or people constitute health effects that are important enough to control. These are all increasing difficulties along with the issue of it is increasingly difficult to identify sub-populations of susceptible people that may manifest the effects. It is becoming more difficult to validate laboratory assays as far as their relevance to human health. This has always been a problem, but there is little coordinated effort to do this. Now, research on these issues is spread across many agencies and non-Federal organizations, as it should be, but there is no mechanism for coordinating these activities or the information that results from them. There is no central resource for information for Congress, industry, or the public. The Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute proposes to establish the National Environmental Respiratory Center to meet several of these needs that I have mentioned. The center would be located in the Government-owned Inhalation Toxicology Research Institute facility which is located on Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque. This facility was developed for the Department of Energy over 30 years to study long-term health outcomes of inhaled materials and has fulfilled that mission. It has unmatched potential as a national user facility of specialized resources for university researchers and others. Now, Lovelace is well suited to establishing the center because it is well known for working in many of these problem areas that I have just talked about. The key functions of the center that we envision would be to facilitate interagency and interdisciplinary research and communication to provide a centralized resource of information to all the stakeholders, to provide specialized user facilities for people to come in and do their research, as well as research that might be conducted in-house, and to provide research training. Lovelace seeks an appropriation through EPA for core funding for operating the center, but envisions that funding for special programs specific to the missions of EPA and other agencies would comprise the bulk of the work that was conducted there. But we are seeking core funding through an appropriation through EPA for $2 million to initiate the center and to support it. The second issue is very related, and I mentioned the importance of mixtures. We know, EPA knows well--it is a dilemma that they face--that we are exposed to mixtures of pollutants. No one is exposed to just one agent at a time. And yet all of our research and all of our regulations envision that we are exposed to one pollutant at a time. And we do not know what to do with this. The effects of combined exposures to multiple inhaled pollutants is a special problem. Understanding this is very important to them, and, again, as air pollutant levels are reduced, it is becoming more important to tease out the effects of the mixture and understand how to deal with mixtures. Despite the importance of this problem, there is virtually no research other than a program that has been conducted by Lovelace for the Department of Energy on some combined exposure issues that are particularly important to that agency. But to date, that research has not been extended to the concerns of other agencies. So Lovelace requests appropriations through EPA to participate in this program, to start extending it to issues that are especially important to that agency. Thank you for this opportunity, and additional details would be in my written comments. [The statement of Dr. Mauderly follows:] [Pages 606 - 610--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. We appreciate very much your summarizing your testimony, and your comments for the record are important to us. Those of us who live in air-quality territories understand the need for health information to justify strategies that will have an impact, and so we appreciate your input. Any questions? Mrs. Meek. No, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Dr. Mauderly. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WITNESSES JUDY GWEN GUSTINIS, DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR INTEGRATED MANUFACTURING STUDIES, AND VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS; NEBIL NASR, PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, ROCHESTER INSTITUTE FOR TECHNOLOGY Mr. Hobson [presiding]. Dr. Judy Gwen Gustinis, and you will have to pronounce your name better than I did there. Ms. Gustinis. Gustinis. Mr. Hobson. Gustinis, okay. From the Rochester Institute of Technology. Ms. Gustinis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to allow RIT--we are from Rochester, New York--to testify today regarding your Subcommittee's consideration of VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies' fiscal year 1998 budget. My name is Judith Gustinis. I am the Director of a newly created center at the Rochester Institute of Technology known as the Center for Integrated Manufacturing Studies. With me is Dr. Nebil Nasr. He is an expert on remanufacturing and a member of the faculty of the College of Engineering at RIT. We would like the subcommittee to consider our proposal to establish within CIMS, a national center of excellence in an emerging area of manufacturing research known as remanufacturing. Establishing such a center at RIT will allow us to use our considerable expertise in applied research and engineering and manufacturing process development and take advantage of our years of work with remanufacturers in the United States. Our database indicates that there are over 73,000 small remanufacturers nationwide. This does not take into account the Department of Defense which is perhaps the largest remanufacturer in the world, and a few notable large companies, such as Kodak, Xerox, Caterpillar, Detroit Diesel, Cummins, Copeland, and a few others. However, the practice of remanufacturing is not widespread in the United States. It is the process of return, disassembly, cleaning, reassembly, and test of a product. Recycling is a positive step in the process for the environment because at least raw material can be recovered, but it takes energy to recycle, and it loses the energy and labor, nonrecoverable materials, that are used to make the components in the first place. Remanufacturer captures these. Recycling often reclaims 5 percent of original cost while recycling recaptures 5 percent of original cost while remanufacturing can reclaim as much as 85 percent. This makes it a profitable venture for business and good to the environment. It is kind to the environment in many ways. It avoids solid waste. It saves significant amounts of raw material. It saves on energy consumption. An example, one study indicates that today, though not widespread, the energy saved annually by remanufacturers worldwide equals the energy generated by five nuclear powerplants or 10.7 million barrels of oil. Imagine the impact of widely, more scientific remanufacturing werepracticed in the United States. Mr. Chairman, new product manufacturing currently creates 87 percent of the waste produced in the United States. Remanufacturers tell a different story. Some statistics from remanufactured auto starters, annually, 8 million gallons of crude oil, the energy that it would have taken to make the new parts, 52,000 tons of iron ore, 6,000 tons of copper. Another example in consumer products world class from Rochester Eastman Kodak Company is the design and remanufacture of the single use camera. Recently, Kodak announced that it had recycled and remanufactured its 100-millionth Fun Saver Camera, avoiding over 14 million tons of material waste. What is important, it is a cost-effective product. It can compete anywhere in the world. It produces a good price for the consumer, and it is a good profit for the company, and it is good for the environment. It is a win situation all around. Mr. Chairman, the EPA predicts that over 80 percent of U.S. landfills will close in the next 20 years, and yet, cost of federally mandated programs have grown significantly in the last 20 years. Pollution control and cleanup grew from 26 million to 115 million in not that long a span of time. It seems as though we are fighting a losing battle. More regulation of dollars to enforce may not be the answer. Developing more scientific design and reuse and manufacturing practice in the United States will automatically be self-pleasing. You might say the motto of our center is make profit, not waste, through remanufacture. This would bring the U.S. a step closer to creating a closed-loop sustainable relationship between industry and the environment. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, RIT is proposing that EPA provide programmatic funding to support this National Center for Remanufacturing. The center's programs will help EPA's science and technology programs address this pressing issue without adding any regulation. RIT is requesting $4 million in fiscal year 1998 for national program start-up activities. It is anticipated ongoing program costs will be approximately $2.8 million, but through State support and revenue from industry projects, we believe we will product 8- to $900,000 of this in the second year. Therefore, we will seek $2 million per year for 4 years after start-up, and we believe the payback to the environment and industrial competitiveness will be more than ten-fold. Because of our work in remanufacturing, there is widespread support for us through trade associations, such as Auto Parts Rebuilders Association and Remanufacturing Industry Council International, and other trade associations and remanufacturers stand with us for this center. Mr. Chairman, RIT has a long history of service to remanufacturers and manufacturers. We have experience in working in this field in providing real solutions. We hope that the Congress will look favorably upon our request to fund a national center of excellence in remanufacture at RIT CIMS. I thank you for the time you have given us and would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. [The statement of Ms. Gustinis follows:] [Pages 614 - 629--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Hobson. Okay. Any questions? Mrs. Meek. Thanks. No questions. Mr. Hobson. Rodney. Mr. Frelinghuysen. No questions. Mr. Hobson. I have a couple of questions that I want to ask on behalf of Mr. Walsh who is not able to be with us at this moment. Ms. Gustinis, in your testimony, you refer to the new Center for Integrated Manufacturing Studies at RIT to be a unique facility which would provide research, laboratory support for the remanufacturing research program you are proposing today. Would you elaborate on why--I don't know whether you pronounce it CIMS or C-I-M-S--is unique and why it is the best place in the country to do this? Ms. Gustinis. The facility itself is a 157,000-square-foot facility. It is dedicated to industrial competitiveness in the United States. Within the facility, there are manufacturing bays that serve manufacturers. There are 20 different laboratories of very many different kinds and technology all geared toward providing real-time solutions for manufacturing today, and over 5 years of work with remanufacturers, we have helped them improve their process, develop new markets, and all of this is very kind of the environment. Mr. Hobson. Okay. Dr. Nasr, you appear to be at the vanguard of an exciting new era of manufacturing research, which Mr. Walsh hopes will have a positive impact on manufacturers in his district around Syracuse, New York, as well as throughout the State and the Nation. Would you elaborate on some of the remanufacturing and research you are already doing at RIT CIMS and what research grants you are already working on with the Federal agencies, and would you also--do you have a plan to transfer your research and technology to the manufacturing sector? Mr. Nasr. Some of the work that we are doing right now at the center is to look at the economics and feasibility of remanufacturing a product that is not remanufactured today. Some of the research grants that we are working on right now is basically doing technical assessment to the remanufacturing industry with funding from the Department of Energy. In terms of transferring that to the manufacturing sector, what we are trying to do with now is actually learn from remanufacturing the product how we can design a product better for the environment and basically transfer this knowledge to the design site of a new product. Mr. Hobson. Either of you or both, what response have you already seen from the U.S. manufacturing community about working with your lab and expanding work in remanufacturing? Mr. Nasr. We have been working with a lot of trade associations that represent the industry, and there is something called the Remanufacturing Industries Council that we are working with now for a few years. Mr. Hobson. I have a question, personally, just sitting, listening to this. If you get an 85-percent return, why wouldn't Pitney-Bowes or Westinghouse be already into this? And I have looked at your resume, and I know you used to work that. So that is why I ask about it. Ms. Gustinis. Actually, that is very nice of you to mention that. I won--was part of the team that won a Corporate One Standard of Excellence at Pitney-Bowes for developing a closed- loop remanufacturing center. We found it to be far more profitable than we expected it to be. We did learn because we shipped products internationally, and that was important because the countries abroad are making much heavier requirements, and companies that want to ship internationally are faced with take-back policies, and we felt it was important to learn about that, but what we learned along the way is it is highly profitable, which is one of the reasons we think it is something that all U.S. industry should be looking at. Mr. Hobson. Well, thank you very much for coming. It is a very innovative approach, and I think we are all going to be looking at this more and more as we go down the road because the energy problem, I think, needs to be looked at. Ms. Gustinis. Thank you. Mr. Hobson. Thank you very much. Mr. Nasr. Thank you. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WITNESS R. MICHAEL McCLAIN, PRESIDENT, SOCIETY OF TOXICOLOGY Mr. Hobson. Dr. R. Michael McClain of the Society of Toxicology. Welcome. Mr. McClain. Thank you. Well, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Dr. Michael McClain, and I am currently the President of the Society of Toxicology, and I appreciate the opportunity to be able to come and talk to you today. The Society of Toxicology is a professional organization that brings together over 4,000 toxicologists in academia, industry, various Government agencies, and our regulatory agencies. Now, a major goal of the society is to promote the use of good science and regulatory decisions. With science as our guide, we can use sound judgment in addressing numerous environmental issues. We work closely with the Environmental Protection Agency and also the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences in addressing issues related to environmental risk. Now, much attention has been focused on reform of the Superfund program. Both the House and Senate authorizing committees are involved in discussions with the administration, industry, and others to build consensus on the reauthorization of this program. The Society of Toxicology is interested in Superfund because the cleanup of hazardous waste is an enormous undertaking which can be greatly facilitated through toxicology research. In fact, the program that I would like to discuss today, the Superfund Basic Research Program, is the only scientific research program focused on health and cleanup issues for Superfund hazardous waste sites. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking the committee for its past wisdom and support for funding the Superfund basic research program. This program would not be where it is today without the support. Now, funding for the research program has passed through the Environmental Protection Agency to NIEHS as established in Section 311 of the Superfund Reauthorization Act of 1986, and NIEHS administers the research program which supports university and medical school research to understand the public health consequences of hazardous waste sites, as well as to develop better methods for waste site remediation. Currently, there are 18 programs at 70 universities involving more than 1,000 scientists. The primary purpose of the research program is to provide the scientific basis needed to make accurate assessments of the human health effects at the hazardous waste sites. In addition, research data is used to determine which contaminated sites must be cleaned up first, to what extent cleanup is needed, and how best to clean up contaminated sites in the most cost- effective manner. Now, this is accomplished by developing more rapid and cost-effective strategies for measuring chemicals in and around waste sites, placing major emphasis on the technology used to detect these chemicals in humans and their effects. Collaboration between engineers and the physical chemists is encouraged to better understand how chemicals are physically trapped in soils so that improved cleanup strategies may be devised, and basic biological chemical and physical methods to reduce the amount and the toxicity of chemicals at these sites are developed. Now, research projects include basic research and the potential chemical effects on cancer, such as breast and prostate, birth defects, and other environmentally related human health disease, and the interaction, common goals, and exchange of knowledge that result from this research program are among the most highly developed programs in the United States. Moreover, it is important to note that this is the only university-based research program that brings together both biomedical and engineering scientists to provide the scientific basis needed to make accurate assessments of human health risk and also in developing cost-effective cleanup technologies. Now, much progress has been made as a result of research conducted under the auspices of the research program, and this includes discoveries about the neurotoxicity and estrogenicity of the polychlorinated biphenyls, advancements in mechanisms to assess the risk to human health of hazardous waste exposure, toxic mixtures, arsenic in drinking water, and developments and remediation technology which ensure timely and cost-effective cleanups. Now, we believe the Superfund basic research program is critical to the success of the Superfund hazardous waste site cleanup program, and funding of the research program really represents just a tiny fraction of the amount of money that is spent overall in this program. Unfortunately, every year we fight a battle to continue funding this research. Once again, in his budget, the President has recommended a 21-percent decrease in funding. Last year, you may recall that there was a request of 60-percent decrease of funding, and it was only up to this committee that expressed its opposition to such a drastic cut that the administration relented and revised its request level. Therefore, for fiscal year 1998, we urge you to once again reject the President's reduced request of $25.5 million. Instead, we would respectfully urge you to approve $37 million as recommended in the pending Superfund authorization bill. In addition, we recommend that youprovide at least $23 million for the worker training program at NIEHS. Now, communities near hazardous waste sites want to know if hazardous chemicals are reaching their water or air supplies. They want to know if the low levels of these contaminants affect their health or the health of their children. They want it cleaned up. Our universities are responding with technology and research efforts which are results-oriented, economically feasible, and are scientifically credible with the public, and this is only possible because of the research effort funded through the Superfund basic research program. Again, I appreciate this opportunity to come here and talk to you today, and I will answer any questions that you might have. Thank you. [The statement of Mr. McClain follows:] [Pages 634 - 642--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Hobson. Mrs. Meek. Mrs. Meek. No, sir. Mr. Hobson. Well, I would like to make an editorial comment. Mr. McClain. Sure. Mr. Hobson. I think your work is very necessary because the problem that I have seen in a practical sense in trying to buy a property is that nobody can tell me with any degree of certainty what is there and how much it is going to cost me to clean it up, and I am not talking about a giant Superfund site. I am talking about a little 5,000-square-foot building on less than an acre of ground. Mr. McClain. And you could have a fuel tank in the back that has been leaking. Mr. Hobson. It has got one. It has got one, and nobody can tell you the sciences here. I have also got an aquifer in my district that they are trying to build a dump over, and there is a huge fight over the science involved in this and how fast water can get out of this thing and over there and what do you do when it gets out, and the sciences, I can tell you that the science and the engineering in this is not, in my opinion, very exact today, and so you will--from my position, if you are the right guys, I am going to be supporting this because this is very difficult in a community today or a State to try to figure out how you do this stuff, and an individual can expose their entire estate. If you buy a property today and you don't get all of the environmental stuff done or even if you try to do it, you expose yourself to tremendous problems, but the current owner just sits there and lets it continue on. Mr. McClain. And hopes to some day get rid of it. Mr. Hobson. And hopes that somebody else is going to wind up with the property, I think, or the State or somebody is going to come along and do it, but the problem is the exactness of trying to get this scientific data to where you can deal with these with more degree of certainty when you get into it. Mr. McClain. That is basically where we are coming from, from the Society of Toxicology. We are supporting the funding of the basic research that is required to answer some of these questions that are basic risk assessment questions. Mr. Hobson. Yes. Mr. McClain. I think over the last 5 to 10 years, there has been a big difference in the way that the regulatory agencies, such as EPA, have incorporated good science into the risk assessments, and I think this is now just beginning to filter down into some of the things and issues on risk assessment that might be involved in Superfund sites, but it is a matter of getting that information or these changes and direction that are currently ongoing at EPA from the Office of Research and Development down to the level that the people are actually managing and making decisions on the Superfund sites. We are definitely supporting or recommending the continued support of basic research to address these issues and would ask you to not accept the cuts in the current recommendation of the President. Mr. Hobson. In the past, we have funded. Mr. McClain. In the past, you have moved them right back up, and we sincerely hope that you choose to do so this year as well and maintain the funding that has been authorized for the next 2 years as well. Mr. Frelinghuysen. This gentleman is one of my constituents. Mr. Hobson. I was going to say, Rodney, you might want to ask him a question about that house that is in that---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. In the swamp? Mr. Hobson. In the swamp where you have got a problem. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Of course, the Superfund program is a program that is based on political science, not sound science. That is why we don't go anywhere. That is why we spend so much money. Mr. McClain. That is why I think there has been an enormous amount of money, particularly in the first 10 years of this program, which would be totally squandered. Mr. Frelinghuysen. You and I live in an area which has more of these sites than any other. A hell of a lot of money has been spent, and I must say, I think nine New Jersey sites have been cleaned up. $25 billion has been spent nationwide, public and private. It is a nightmare, but certainly, I know what you are looking for here, and I support it. Mr. McClain. Well, thank you very much. Mr. Frelinghuysen. You have a Louisiana background in there, too, I see. Mr. McClain. I was born in Louisiana during the war, so that is why. That is my Southern roots here. I have moved around since then. I was raised in Pennsylvania, the northwestern part, up in the boondocks there, and have spent my professional career primarily in New Jersey working for Hoffmann-La Roche, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies, one of our good representatives here. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Good. The Chairman, Mr. Hobson, is a good supporter of pharmaceutical R&D. Mr. Hobson. Okay. Well, thank you, Dr. McClain. We appreciate it very much. Mr. McClain. Thank you very much. I am sorry to be late. Mrs. Meek. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hobson. Sure. Mrs. Meek. Doctor, what is the meaning of teratology? Mr. McClain. Teratology? Mrs. Meek. Yes. Mr. McClain. That is the study of chemically induced birth defects. Mrs. Meek. All right, thank you. Mr. McClain. You are welcome. Mrs. Meek. I was trying to get the Latin root or something from it, and I couldn't get it. There is nothing there to tell me anything. Mr. McClain. Well, there are a lot of technical terms that probably come back and forth. Sometimes we don't realize it. We understand what we are saying, but don't recognize that others don't. Mrs. Meek. Thank you. Mr. McClain. Well, thank you. Mr. Hobson. Thank you very much, Doctor. Mr. McClain. Thanks. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WITNESSES RAYMOND J. CAMPION, PRESIDENT, MICKEY LELAND NATIONAL URBAN AIR TOXICS RESEARCH CENTER; AND JOSEPH GRAZIANO, PROFESSOR OF PHARMACOLOGY, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY Mr. Frelinghuysen [presiding]. Raymond J. Campion, president, Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics Research Center. How are you today? Mr. Campion. Thank you. My pleasure. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you very much for being with us. Mr. Campion. My pleasure. Mr. Frelinghuysen. A copy of your formal remarks will be included in the record, and if you could do your level best to emphasize and empathize and summarize, that would be great. Mr. Campion. Well, thank you, sir, and Members of the Subcommittee. I want to introduce on my right, Dr. Joseph Graziano from Columbia, who is a member of our Board of Directors, and this is the first time a member of our board has joined us here. Dr. Graziano is a professor of Pharmacology at Columbia. He is also head of the Department of Environmental Sciences and has done a lot of work on lead poisoning with inner-city children. As I said, he is one of our board members. In our testimony, we indicate that another board member was going to join us, Ms. Barbara Price, who is the Vice President of Phillips Petroleum and another board member. Barbara Price was unfortunately called away for business purposes, but having those two types of individuals on our board, I think, is one of the real strengths of the Leland Center which is a private-public partnership which is focused on doing research on air toxics. We have had the support of this Committee in the past, and we sure appreciate that. We have been working closely with Members of the Committee on the activities that we were involved in. I just want to make a brief report on where we are. As you mention, we have our statement in the record. We are beginning two major new initiatives this year that focuses on personal exposure to air toxics. This is a relatively new approach looking at indoor and outdoor exposures that people actually find at their body surface, and it is quite different than the kinds of things that have been done in the past relative to the outdoor monitors and that kind of thing that have been used to assess air quality. Dr. Graziano reminds me that much of the public debate now ongoing relative to air quality and EPA and the standards of it being revised are based on those outdoor monitors, and I think the personal exposure approach is going to be far more--be less controversial, let's say, in assessing what people are really exposed to. We have been working hard to build good relationships with the Environmental Protection Agency. We have just added recently two members of the EPA to our Scientific Advisory Panel. Our private sector support continues to increase. We have added two new members from the private sector to our support list, and each year now for the last three years, we have had an increase in private sector contributions. So I think that that private-public partnership is really beginning to work as people see the benefits that we are generating. In addition to the major research grant described in the proposal on personal exposure, we have just been notified by the Centers for Disease Control and the National Center for Health Statistics that they are going to incorporate some Leland Center activities into their new NHANES study. This is the major National Health and Nutrition Survey that they are beginning in 1988. So, having this personal exposure to environmental factors included in the NHANES survey, the first time that will be done, it will really add to our wealth of knowledge on how people's health are being affected by both the air toxics as well as the nutrition and the areas in which they live. Our request for fiscal 1998 is $2.0 million, and this will allow us to move forward with these programs and other initiatives described in our testimony. We have had some difficulties in the past with the Environmental Protection Agency in terms of accessing our grant monies. We are hopefully making progress in that area. They have been reluctant dragons in getting the money out. It took us about 15 months to finally access our 1996 monies. This only occurred in January. We are trying to access our 1997 monies. The 1996 situation seriously affected our ability to move research forward because we simply didn't have the money. Their attitude at the scientific level has been pretty good and proving, as we add our scientists to our panel. However, I would have to say that the administrative side is still balking at contributing this money that Congress appropriates to the center. So that is an area that we think really needs some improvement, and we are working hard at it. In summary, sir, we feel that the private-public partnership that Congress envisioned in this kind of center is beginning to work in the sense that these programs are going forward. We think they will make an impact as we go on, and having the two entities, private and public, working together in developing these programs and finally seeing the results from them, I think we will have less rancor and debate as we get those results than we have with the current situation. So that summarizes what I was prepared to say, and of course, the bulk of it is in the testimony. If Dr. Graziano wants to add anything, he is certainly welcome. [The statement of Mr. Campion follows:] [Pages 647 - 656--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Frelinghuysen. Dr. Graziano, welcome. Mr. Graziano. Thank you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Anything? Mr. Graziano. Yes, just to mention to you, sir, that---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. You didn't go to Rutgers or somewhere? Mr. Graziano. Well, I did, and I lived in Frelinghuysen Hall. The world is small. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Isn't this a great committee? Mrs. Meek. It is wonderful. Mr. Graziano. Yes. It is a pleasure to be here. Mrs. Meek. That is a great legacy you inherited. Mr. Frelinghuysen. It is. Mrs. Meek. Yes. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Isn't that good? Mr. Graziano. Well, moving from there, though, I think I am here to tell you that I am very proud to serve on the board of directors of a Leland Center. A Leland Center has in a very short period of time achieved an identity that is now national. I believe that the Leland Center now is seen as serving an important role in research and an important niche that has come to the fore more than ever, I think, in these past couple of months with the issue of amending Clean Air Act air quality standards. The idea of looking at personal exposure rather thanregional is very important. Right now, for example, in Manhattan, there are two air monitors, and if you live in Manhattan, you are either exposed to Monitor A or Monitor B, or that is how you are assigned. The unit of analysis is some large geographic region. Obviously, people in Manhattan, like people in this room, go home to very different places and are exposed to a very different thing. So the idea of now focussing, the Leland Center has put money initially into the technology to do the personal sampling and now is putting money into the field research with that. It is a terrific, terrific move in the right direction. Mr. Frelinghuysen. You have your own specific monitors as opposed to other governmental monitors, air quality monitors? Mr. Campion. Well, I would say, first, what Dr. Graziano referred to, we developed technology by letting contacts with the organizations to do so, the academic community primarily. Yes. These are personal monitors which are no larger than a credit card, little badges which don't involve you taking any serious measures to make sure they are in place or whatever, no pumps or that kind of thing. So they are very effective. Mr. Frelinghuysen. That is terrific. Interesting. Well, thank you both. Mrs. Meek. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes. Mrs. Meek. Mrs. Meek. I have a question. I heard Dr. Campion mention something which intrigued me. Your funding comes through the University of Texas? Mr. Campion. No, ma'am. The appropriation comes from this Committee, and then we try to access it through the EPA by an assistance grant. We are located physically at the University of Texas, in the Texas Medical Center, which is what the Clean Air Act requires. Mrs. Meek. I thought I heard something regarding your money coming down slowly to you. What did you say on that? Mr. Campion. Okay. We access the monies that are appropriated through this Committee via the Environmental Protection Agency. So we submit an assistance grant application to the EPA, and the EPA has been, in our opinion, quite slow-- -- Mrs. Meek. It is a slow process. Mr. Campion [continuing]. In getting that money to us, so that we can implement the research. Mrs. Meek. The Committee needs to be aware of that. Mr. Campion. Well, we are trying to make members of the Committee--and Mr. Cushing is quite aware of some of these problems, but we are trying to work on them. We would like to solve them collegially, and we think we are making progress, but it is slow and it is effective. I might add, Mr. Frelinghuysen, that I was born and raised in Harrison, New Jersey, and I have traveled Frelinghuysen Avenue quite often. Mr. Frelinghuysen. With that happy note, I think we are about to wrap this portion up. Thank you very much. Mr. Campion. Thank you for your time. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WITNESS STEVEN M. NADEL, ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR AN ENERGY-EFFICIENT ECONOMY Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Steven M. Nadel, Acting Executive Director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Hi. How are you? Welcome. Mr. Nadel. Hi. Thank you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Nice to see you. Your statement will be included in the record. Mr. Nadel. Okay. Mr. Frelinghuysen. If you would proceed with your remarks, and if you can do your best to summarize them. Mr. Nadel. Okay. I very much appreciate your taking your time to listen to our views. I am sure you must be tired, I guess, after several days of these hearings. I am here testifying on behalf of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. We are a nonprofit research organization based here in Washington, D.C., also with offices in the Bay Area of California. We have been in existence since 1980, working on research on technologies, programs, and policies to help improve the energy efficiency of the U.S. economy in order to help protect the environment, help protect our national security, and help promote economic development. I am here today speaking on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency's Climate Change Action Programs. As you are probably aware, these programs are an important component of the U.S. Climate Change Action Plan, which are the U.S.'s efforts to meet its commitments made in Rio in 1992 to help stabilize greenhouse gas emissions. Now, as you are probably aware, the Climate Change Action Programs have been funded at about $85 million annually for the last 2 years. This represents about a 40-percent cut compared to the Administration's proposal. This Subcommittee and the House in general are actually to be commended for supporting higher levels in the recent years. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to convince your colleagues on the Senate to go along with that, but we would like to commend you for your support in the past and urge you to full fund the EPA request in this important area. Now, there are four reasons I wanted to briefly mention why we think these programs deserve full funding. First, these programs are successful. They are some of the more creative and innovative Government attempts to use limited amounts of money to get very substantial environmental benefits. They involve voluntary actions by individuals, consumers, small and large companies to implement cost- effective energy saving and other measures that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and they are a very important alternative to more commanded control regulation. Many of you have probably heard about programs such as the Green Lights. What people may not be aware is there aremany other programs that have been equally, if not more effective. Our programs, such as the Energy Star Homes Program, that is already in just a year of operation recruited more than 200 builders and has commitments now for 14,000 homes and includes some very creative financing working with foreign national lenders to help get attractive financing for these efficient homes. Likewise, the EPA programs have been instrumental in helping to work with computer manufacturers, photocopy manufacturers, assembly manufacturers, to get their machines to basically go to turn into a very low-energy use state when they are not in use. The conventional computer, the conventional copier uses energy all the time, even when it is not in use, and they have developed these simple little software techniques to put them to sleep, essentially, resulting in very dramatic savings. At this point due to the EPA efforts, depending on the type of equipment, from 70 to 95 percent of the models now sold in the U.S. have these features, up from fractional levels before the program began. Overall, EPA estimates that in 1996, these programs have saved consumers here in the United States about $750 million, and then, if you look at the cumulative savings over the lifetime of these measures, it will be about $4 billion from measures that have already been implemented, equipment that has already been purchased, and improvements that have already been installed in buildings. These savings are about eight times greater than EPA's cumulative expenditures to date from these programs. So we are talking a benefit cost ratio of about 8 to 1, just really, I think, among the best on Government programs. Second, as I mentioned before, the Climate Change Programs are an important part of the U.S. environmental policy, particularly to address greenhouse gas emissions. As you are probably aware, there are negotiations now going on to prepare for an international meeting in Kyoto in December at which future commitments will be made about what the different countries in the world will commit to with greenhouse gases. The PRIART Treaty in Rio has not been very effective, meaning that just about every country is exceeding the targets that were set there, and now we are looking at ways to make the treaty more effective, but I think everyone agrees, regardless of their position about mandatory-type programs, the first-line defense seems to be voluntary programs. These EPA programs are the core of the U.S. voluntary efforts, and so we think that we should fully fund these voluntary programs, so we can do everything we possibly can with the voluntary programs before we get to the more difficult decisions about whether additional measures are needed. Third, the Climate Change Action Programs are good for the U.S. economy. They save consumers and businesses money, thereby freeing up money for them to spend on other goods and services, hoping to generate economic activity and increases in employment. For example, our organization has just completed a study on energy efficiency of economic development in three Mid-Atlantic States, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. We concluded that as a result of our strong policies in those three States to promote cost-effective energy efficiency investments, which the EPA programs would just be a part, that by the year 2010, 164,000 additional jobs could be generated in those three States. So, really, we are talking some fairly significant employment increases because of the energy bill savings and their impacts on consumers. Fourth and finally, I wanted to say how these programs make good economic sense for the U.S. Government as well. To some extent, U.S. Government facilities participate in the programs and save on energy. To the extent they promote economic activity, that is good for the U.S., but even directly, if you look at the $750 million in energy bill savings last year, if you look at the proportion of that, that is due to business as opposed to individuals, and then look at typical tax rates and also how much of the savings people receive in their bottom- line profits versus having to pay to implement these measures, if you multiply that all out, and I detail this in my testimony, this increase in taxes due to these programs last year was probably about $90 million. So we are talking greater tax collections about equivalent to the total expenditures. So, effectively, this program pays for itself. The energy savings are so great that is results in higher tax collections. Now, while these programs have widespread support, I know that a letter was submitted to Congress supported by more than 500 businesses, large and small, in support of these and other Government energy efficiency programs. There have been some criticisms of the program. In the limited time here, I am not going to go into them, but I will---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. We will closely read about those criticisms. Mr. Nadel. Right. To the extent you hear about them, I have tried to provide responses. In general, I think the criticisms have been pretty limited, pretty minor. EPA has done a good job of addressing them. There are one or two that probably continued work is needed, but they are not very major and can easily be addressed. In conclusion, I would like to say that the Climate Change Action Programs provide important benefits to the Nation, including avoided pollution, substantial financial savings to consumers and businesses, and also the direct benefits to the U.S. Treasury. These benefits are an important first step in addressing global climate change problems, and this becomes especially important in light of the discussions coming up in Kyoto. We urge this subcommittee and the House and ultimately the whole Congress to fully fund these programs and particularly to work on your colleagues in the Senate to encourage them to go along with your appropriations, and I would like to thank you very much for your time and attention. I would be happy to answer any questions you have. [The statement of Mr. Nadel follows:] [Pages 662 - 668--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. Nadel. Any comments, Ms. Kaptur. Ms. Kaptur. Thank you for your testimony and staying within the time limits. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you very much for moving right ahead. Mr. Nadel. Okay, you are welcome. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WITNESS PAUL A. HANLE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Paul A. Hanle, President and CEO of Academy of Natural Sciences. Good afternoon. How are you? Mr. Hanle. Good afternoon. Mr. Frelinghuysen. We are right on schedule. Mr. Hanle. I will keep you there. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Good. As you are coming up, the usual cautionary notes. Your comments will be included entirely in our report materials, and if you could be so kind as to summarize, that would be great. Mr. Hanle. I will be happy to do so, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for giving me the opportunity, and members of the subcommittee. I am the new President of the Academy of Natural Sciences, formerly was at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum for 13 years. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, congratulations. Mr. Hanle. Thank you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Are you happy you have been elevated? Mr. Hanle. It is hard to be elevated from the National Air and Space Museum. Mr. Frelinghuysen. I am sure it is. Mr. Hanle. And I was at the Maryland Science Center, also, and why I am here today, representing the academy, just to tell you first about the academy, and then, secondly, a little bit about the program that we are proposing for consideration for support. The academy is the oldest operating national history museum in the country. It was founded in 1812, and we have some of the most extraordinary collections, historical collections, such as those from Lewis and Clark and the Audubon birds that were actually painted in John James Audubon's Birds of America, but we are not just a dusty old place. We are also on the cutting edge of research, and in fact, in recent years, we have been one of the leading institutions in watershed research, led by the National Medal of Science recipient, Dr. Ruth Patrick, who has been a great inspiration to the institution and to the whole world of aquatic ecology. But today, I am talking about something else, which is that it seems to me it is very important for us to reach out to larger constituencies, the broader general public, and to have the research results that museums like ours do, be better appreciated because science is a very important thing for people to appreciate and become educated in, and we hope ultimately to develop interest in careers in science as well. Now, many natural history museums are dealing with issues that we are dealing with right now, which is how to balance the research and historical roots that we have with our public role. In fact, if you look out the window, you can see the dome of the Natural Museum of National History. It is an appropriate image right there. We work with them and with other natural history museums around the country to deal with that issue, and what we have come to is a mission. That is, we do research, we combine it with public dissemination of knowledge, and hopefully, we will change the way people behave towards nature; that is, we will help them to become better stewards of the environment. That objective is ultimately what we are in the business--our sense of purpose if all about. To pursue that, we are proposing to day a program which we call the Urban Streams Awareness, Urban Rivers Awareness Program, created as a multi-faceted program to combine research and education, focussing on the health of urban rivers and their watersheds, and our research would expand existing academy efforts that already monitor the environmental quality and the upper reaches of the watersheds, but it would go beyond that by bringing students, teachers, and families who visit the academy to explore the urban watershed with our scientists and actually engaging them to do hands-on science in the Delaware River Basin. We are requesting a three-year program. There are plans to serve at least 10,000 students, and in addition, we expect more than 100 teachers per year--and these are numbers per year--on field trips, in-service programs, and general public visitor weekends. And we believe, that like similar programs that the Academy has run, that this Urban Rivers Awareness Program will be a great success. We are seeking, with the assistance of the Environmental Protection Agency, to develop a program to continue to expand this outreach and put greater emphasis on the environmental stewardship objective that I have just described. Specifically, we are requesting that the subcommittee encourage the Environmental Protection Agency to demonstrate and evaluate the effectiveness of programs such as the Urban Rivers Awareness Program, and we are seeking support from the Environmental Protection Agency for that program. I thank you very much for the chance to describe that to you, and will be happy to answer questions. [The statement of Mr. Hanle follows:] [Pages 671 - 681--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, thank you very much for your testimony. I am familiar with some of that river. It hasn't been treated very well over the last couple of centuries. Let's see if we can do something to have people treat it a little bit better. Mr. Hanle. I hope so. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you very much for being here. Ms. Kaptur. Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much for your testimony, and good luck to you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WITNESS WALTER GAINER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL UTILITY CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Walter Gainer, president, National Utility Contractors Association. Good afternoon. Thank you for being with us. You have some formal remarks. We will include them in total in the record, and go right ahead and proceed with any summary you would like to give us. Mr. Gainer. We already gave you the formal remarks, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to represent the National Utility Contractors Association today, of which I am president. I have been building and repairing sewer and water lines in this country, mainly in the State of Maryland, for the last 28 years. I have seen what the EPA, their grants programs and the SRF program, has done to help relieve our streams. The waterways in this country are a dear thing to me, and I have seen it cleaned up a lot. For instance, the Potomac, the Hudson River and different places like that have come a long way. The Chesapeake Bay they are working on right now. But the problem is that we need a national organization to press these waterways because the States will never do it. They don't ever fund the money. They don't have it. They won't do it. They will all sit and wait for somebody else to fund it, and that is one of the reasons the SRF is so important. They can use that to fund most of the projects they have, if we can get enough money into it. For instance, with the Chesapeake Bay, the nitrogen and phosphorus loads that are coming from places that you don't even think about like West Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, that are coming in there, right now I think they are getting almost 28 million tons a year in there, and that is what causes the algae and the problems that they have in the Bay. They are just now getting started on that program. Whether it is this part of the country with the Chesapeake Bay, you know, the Atlantic, Pacific, Great Lakes, Cuyahoga River, the Hudson, whatever, everybody has got a Chesapeake Bay in their own back yard that will need some work done on it. I understand you are from New Jersey. You have got combined sewers up there that were put in before the turn of the century, when they just wanted to get it away from your house. They get it down to somebody else's house. That is expensive to replace them. They haven't even hardly started in these larger metropolitan areas, and they have no money, you know. Without that, without these programs, your growth is going to stop. I mean, people don't like to hear about that, but without a good infrastructure, and with the future of this country going, with the airports and such as this, they are going to have to have a good infrastructure for water. I mean, take D.C. I live around here. Seriously, you all drink bottled water here. I am pretty sure that you are not into the---- Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, don't say anything about the water system around here. I have got water running right down my street right now. Mr. Gainer. Yes. Mr. Frelinghuysen. That is not an endorsement. Mr. Gainer. Well, that is what I am saying. You know, this system in town here is over 70 or 80 years old. Mr. Frelinghuysen. You are lucky. You live in Maryland. Mr. Gainer. We are fortunate. Most of the stuff in Maryland wasn't built in public works days. There is an overwhelming capital investment that is needed. We don't understand why the Clinton Administration, with all the assessments that are needed, EPA says they need about $136 billion for what they have right now, and we are getting roughly $1 billion a year. We feel that the policymakers must address these questions and make a commitment to the future infrastructure of this country. NUC is currently working on a model, and we will have the information for you, we hope by the middle of the summer, on how we can use the SRF program right now to leverage and get more money out and what effect it will have. We have been working on this for several months and we hope to have this study out by July. I would like to leave you with one final thought. My father, who was a politician in West Virginia, said that politicians don't put brass plaques underground. But with clean water it is important that the basic needs are met, the funding is met for the SRFs, so we can clean up this country. Thank you. Any questions? [The statement of Mr. Gainer follows:] [Pages 684 - 690--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you very much. We appreciate your being here, Mr. Gainer. Thank you. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION VETERANS ADMINISTRATION WITNESS MICHAEL D. MAVES, M.D., EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ACADEMY OF OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY, INC. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Michael D. Maves--is that correct? Dr. Maves. Maves. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Maves, M.D., Executive Director, American Academy, and I will let you do the rest. I serve on a hospital board, but I can't get all that out at once. Dr. Maves. We appreciate this. This is wonderful timing. I am Dr. Michael Maves. I am the executive vice president of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. It is the specialty society that is concerned with the 11,000 ear, nose and throat doctors in the United States. And what I would like to speak to you about are really three agencies and programs under your jurisdiction with which our members have a great deal of interest. The first is to testify on behalf of the 90 million Americans who suffer from dizziness and disorders of balance. This costs our health care system an estimated $1 billion each year. Innovative research on the effects of microgravity on astronauts has taught us lessons about balance disorders and motion sickness that are helping to develop more sensitive diagnostic instruments and management approaches to our patients here on Earth. We consider these contributions so significant that last year, at our 100th annual meeting, we had a program cosponsored with NASA entitled ``Vestibular Dysfunction: Lessons and Legacies from Space,'' which was extremely successful. We had over 600 otolaryngologists who came in a day early to participate in this meeting and learn about the developments that are going on in the space program that relate to their patients back here on Earth. We plan on repeating this particular program at intervals, kind of reporting new and exciting developments each time. One of the things that we found particularly helpful has been the synergy among the many scientific disciplines represented in NASA's research programs as these advance the development of new products and procedures that will make a better world for us here at present and those who follow. We feel very strongly that the development of the Space Station will establish a platform for creating the knowledge and expertise that we need to explore and develop space, extended long-term research that will help us to plan a healthy, productive environment for future generations in space and also here on Earth. In particular I might add, parenthetically, the reason that we have become this interested is that every time individuals go into space they exhibit vestibular sort of dizziness because the otoconia that here on Earth are sort of gravity-bound, once we go into space are released. These patients have dizziness, and we find that that dizziness mimics very closely some of the conditions here on Earth. The recovery from that dizziness, the space dizziness that occurs as the astronauts come back, helps us manage and mirror many of the things that we see in patients here on Earth that come in to see us for dizziness. Similarly, we found that some things such as tissue culture research is closer to the day when injured or diseased body parts can be replaced with custom-grown tissues. The discovery that extended exposure to microgravity produces effects similar to those of aging has opened new avenues into improving the health and quality of life for our growing number of senior citizens. Finally, the technologies that NASA has developed for remote physiologic monitoring of the astronauts, particularly as they would escape Earth's gravity and go to other planets, is really technology that is directly applicable. It is the same kind of extended monitoring if I was in a hospital and we had a patient some distance away. So that one of the things that we have really found is that much of what goes on in space has a direct application here on Earth, and obviously what we would like to see is continued support from this subcommittee to NASA's continued approach to these problems through a generous appropriations recommendation. The second area that I would like to discuss is that of the Environmental Protection Agency. Again, as physicians who specialize in diseases of the ear, nose and throat and related structures of the head and neck, you might wonder why are we testifying about the Environmental Protection Agency. Well, actually we have been an advocate for a healthy environment for some time now, and it has been a core issue with our own members. A number of our own members actually founded the National Association of Physicians for the Environment, a very effective public advocacy group that takes physicians' interests in the environment and helps to harness those into useful programs. We have put on a number of seminars with co-participation of the Environmental Protection Agency, and we have been a real advocate for a healthy internal and external environment. We know that air pollution can cause problems not only with the lungs but also with other sensitive tissues, particularly those of the nose and the sinus as we inspire air, or in the trachea and bronchial tubes can cause problems with asthma. We have testified on a number of occasions that we support the EPA stratospheric ozone protection program, particularly the development of the national UV index, which we find is a very, very helpful way to let individuals in the public know that there may be particular exposure to sun which is going to be damaging for them. We have actually, just a few weeks ago, testified that we are encouraged thatthe military has used this same UV index to help warn the soldiers, sailors, marines and seamen of the problems that this causes. The last thing that we would like to talk about, though, with regard to the EPA is the real problem of noise pollution, and it is the area that I think probably got us into thinking about concerns of the Environmental Protection Agency. There are many forms of deafness that we can't do anything about. We see hereditary deafness, deafness that is due to aging, deafness that may be due to a variety of treatment conditions, but deafness due to noise exposure is a potentially controllable form of deafness. One of the things that we have had dismay is that the Noise Control Act of 1972 has been stripped of its budgetary support. We still feel that this is a very important contribution to alert the nation about the problems of noise pollution and to really try to emphasize to the public the importance of conserving their hearing. If you step outside, it is a beautiful day walking in today. You see lots of people with earphones on their heads and they have got the music turned up, and in a very, very real sense that may come back to haunt them, a little bit like the UV problems, later on in life, because I think a lot of our young people in particular are not aware of the noise problems. A lot of the systems, the programs that we see in industry, can have much of the noise pollution engineered out of them. The last thing, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to speak to you about is the program of energy efficiency. Community action to improve the environment consists of a number of individual actions. When I first became executive vice president of our academy, I wanted to identify primarily areas where we could save money and deliver good services for our members. One of the things that we found that was very easy to do was to establish a very vigorous environmental control program, a program where we looked at the resources in our building, made it more energy efficient by changing the florescent lights, by changing the reflectors. We were able to computerize our building so that at night when we go out the lights are all turned off, and things like this, small items, we have found that it makes good business sense. We are saving about $7,500 a year, and we anticipate that in about six years our investment in this will be paid off but the energy savings will continue. So we have been part of a feature story in American Medical News that highlighted our building. We have tried to have other associations join with us--and as you know, we are housed in Alexandria, where I think there are something like 300 or 400 associations now--to highlight to them and other small businesses the importance of energy efficiency in the work place. The last thing that I wanted to speak to you about was a small program in the Veterans Administration which is designed to increase the quality of life for millions of hearing impaired individuals. The NIDCD, the institute that is most closely associated with our own Academy, has been working with the Veterans Administration in a series of initiatives to improve hearing aids, to make them more functional, to improve the use, particularly under noisy situations. This is a technology that unfortunately is only exposed, really, to a small portion of our population. Probably 80 percent of the people who could benefit from hearing aids don't use them, and we would really like to explore new ways to make that technology more available. On behalf of our Academy, I want to thank you for the privilege and opportunity to present this before you, and I would be happy to answer any questions or have our staff provide any comment in follow-up. [The statement of Dr. Maves follows:] [Pages 695 - 699--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you for being here. Dr. Maves. Thank you very much. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Interesting testimony. Ms. Kaptur. Wasn't it? I agree. Dr. Maves. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you very much. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WITNESS LEN PIETRAFESA, DIRECTOR, MARINE, EARTH, AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Price, you have a friend you would like to introduce? Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would love the opportunity to say just a word of welcome to our next witness, Dr. Leonard Pietrafesa, who is a constituent and a long-time friend. He is director of the Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Science Program at North Carolina State University. Dr. Pietrafesa has appeared before the Commerce, Justice, State Subcommittee before in connection with a project he has headed for some years now in Raleigh, studying the pattern of storm formation in the Southeast, the so-called Southeastern Storms Project which has increased our understanding of how these tornados form very quickly and increased our capacity to predict storms by spotting those early formations. He is here today, though, in another capacity, as a spokesman for NASULGC, which for the uninitiated is the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, and he is appearing in connection with the EPA budget request, specifically the STAR program, Science To Achieve Results, and several other aspects of that budget. Dr. Pietrafesa is very well-equipped to speak to these matters, and I am honored that he is joining us today. I appreciate the subcommittee's hospitality in welcoming him and in allowing me to add a very personal welcome. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Doctor, welcome. Mr. Price, thanks for that wonderful introduction. And on behalf of the committee, thank you for being here. A copy of your formal remarks will be included in the record, and if you would like to summarize in some way for the committee's benefit, that would be great. Mr. Pietrafesa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, committee members, and thank you, Mr. Price. I want to thank you for this opportunity to present testimony to the subcommittee on the appropriations for fiscal year 1998 for the Environmental Protection Agency, and I want to commend you, the committee, for your outstanding leadership and for your continuing efforts to improve the environmental science and technology capabilities of the United States. I will focus my comments on EPA's Office of Research and Development, specifically its Science To Achieve Results or STAR program. I will also link this type of program to national needs in the broader context of mitigation. NASULGC strongly endorses the agency's $115 million request in fiscal year 1998 for STAR, $100 million for competitively awarded extramural research grants, and $15 million for 300 graduate student fellowships nationwide. In fact, we believe that the relatively small amount, less than 1.5 percent, which the agency invests in STAR in its $7.6 billion requested budget is one of the most important uses of its resources that it could make. Without sound science, the agency will not be able to correctly identify and develop sound management and mitigation strategies regarding emerging environmental problems, or deal effectively with existing ones, particularly those that have severe social and economic impacts. The STAR program is helping to restore credibility to the agency's research and science activities. It is proving to be a highly cost-effective way for EPA to provide a more balanced long-term capital investment for improving environmental R&D. STAR is also enabling EPA to build and maintain an adequate base of scientific expertise to address environmental and natural resource problems. The investigator-initiated research grants are significantly expanding the number of scientists conducting EPA-related research and enhancing the overall quality of scientific research at the agency. Additionally, graduate student fellowships are an investment producing the next generation of scientists and engineers. ORD should try to couple its programs, whenever possible, to other Federal and State agency programs such as the fledgling U.S. Weather Research Program, USWRP, and the proposed CSPAND program, the Center for Protection Against Natural Hazards, which would help the EPA better serve the citizenry of the United States in understanding the environment, in mitigating against hazards. NASULGC believes quite strongly that continuing efforts to balance the Federal budget present extraordinary opportunities for creative partnerships between the Federal Government and the Universities. These partnerships can contribute significantly to the national goal of a more efficient, productive Federal Government by providing policymakers higher quality research at lower cost to address society's most compelling issues. The country's investment in higher education continues to provide not only the incalculable dividends associated with a better-educated work force, but also the very tangible benefits that meet daily human and economic needs. Federally sponsored university research is cost-effective and advantageous for several reasons, including: University research funds are awarded through peer review, and that competition ensures that the best science is supported by tax dollars. Research by university faculty is supported by States' and universities' contributions to the scientists' salaries and to their research facilities, thereby leveraging tax dollars. The cost of university research or facilities operations to the Federal Government are sustained only for the duration of the grant or contract. They are not permanent entitlements, and they do not increase the size of the Federal work force. The need to support existing staff drives agency R&D funds to programs that utilize those staff even when Federal needs for new scientific results or new technologies should mandate otherwise. Conversely, university research provides the opportunity for rapid change and flexibility and for networking nationally. Sponsored research in universities supports the training of the next generation of scientists and engineers as well as policymakers. Federal agency programs are typically driven by a centralized Washington perspective, one seemingly more narrow than regional needs might dictate. Although problems remain within the area of peer review, EPA has made significant progress in developing a sound peer review system, and we support the agency's efforts to thoroughly integrate peer review in all scientific and technical products, including on-site reviews of in-house research similar to the NIH model, and an agency-wide reform peer review of scientific products and publications. EPA has also worked with NASULGC to greatly expand its base of qualified peer reviewers, and I might add that NASULGC consists of over 190 universities nationwide. The association utilized its extensive database of scientific expertise in its universities throughout the Nation to help EPA locate the highest caliber candidates across a wide spectrum of disciplines for its peer review program. The importance of a sound peer review system for EPA cannot be overemphasized. While peer review has been criticized as harboring hidden biases and agendas, it still proves to be the optimum means of recognizing quality academic achievement. NASULGC has also been working with EPA and other Federal agencies to ensure that scientific excellence is awarded regardless of size or type of institution. For close to a decade, NASULGC has tried in vain to develop a partnership with EPA, long before that term became fashionable. However, ORD became much more receptive with the arrival of its current Assistant Administrator, Dr. Robert Huggett. Over the past two years, EPA has reached out to universities and other important stakeholders. As noted above, NASULGC has worked with ORD on peer review and on its strategic plan. We have also sponsored an EPA seminar on its extramural grants program for professional societies and academic associations. We currently have underway initiatives which would expand EPA outreach to minority institutions, explore an exchange of scientists arrangement between universities and ORD, and provide fortopical symposia featuring EPA principal investigators and other researchers. In conclusion, in your efforts to balance the budget, we hope you will give due consideration to the contribution universities can make in achieving this laudable and necessary goal. EPA is now setting a course toward improving the balance of internal and extramural funding. NASULGC believes that EPA and its Office of Research and Development recognize the importance of developing a strong working relationship with universities and colleges in this country to accomplish their goals in science. We urge the committee to provide the necessary resources and the positive reinforcement to continue their plans. Federal agencies should partner with academia, particularly university consortia, State agencies and private industry, to develop strategies and tools to mitigate against the effects and the costs of natural hazards and disasters. Thank you. [The statement of Mr. Pietrafesa follows:] [Pages 704 - 708--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you very much for your testimony. Any comments by members? Mr. Price. Just one quick question having to do with Star. You know here there was some controversy, some questions raised when STAR was first started up but you then go on to say that you think it is helping restore credibility to EPA's research and science activities. Could you just briefly indicate what you mean by that? Mr. Pietrafesa. Well, initially there was some internal foment about actually appropriating monies for STAR which clearly had an extramural bent to them or they were clearly intended to partner with the university community. And there was concern that at a time when, in fact, budgets were under, Federal budgets were under attack and assault that, in fact, this could compromise EPA's ability to meet its mission, particularly its regulatory mission. But I believe that over this period of time STAR has shown that the scientific community, the university community has contributed greatly to the establishment or, at least, the investigation of the scientific problems addressing EPA so that they have been able to at least address the facts of the issues that need to be addressed properly. So, the scientists and the academic community their approach is, in fact, to measure the environment, to find out what is out there, to develop the tools for measurement, whereas EPA has not only that as part of its mission but also a regulatory component and the scientific community simply does not engage in that. They are out there to present the facts. And I believe that that has become a very nice complement between a mission driven agency, particularly one with a regulatory charge and the academic community which in some sense is cleaner in that its mission is to understand the environment and to measure the problems therein. Mr. Price. Thank you for your response. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you for being with us. ---------- -- -------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION WITNESS MICHAEL M. REISCHMAN, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION TASK FORCE CHAIR, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS Mr. Reischman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I represent, as you said, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME, for short and we would like to register our support for the 1998 NSF budget request and the NSF investment strategy in general, the engineering directorate in particular. That strategy includes a diverse set of investments for both mature and emerging research efforts, for research at the boundaries between the traditional disciplines that we have in our universities and through a variety of approaches, whether it is individual PIs, which still remain sort of the mainstay of our society as well as small or large groups of individual investigators that work in special laboratories or in laboratories that have particular industry interaction, where they get real synergy out of the cross- disciplinary research. The strategy also emphasizes partnerships. And those are fostered by the new programs that are growing right now, the GOALI program, the Grand Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry or the SBIR which I think everyone is familiar with. We applaud those kinds of government/industry partnerships as well as other non-NSF programs of that nature at the Department of Commerce or possibly ARPA. Let me concentrate now on just engineering research at NSF. Over 90 percent of that budget is focused on cross-cutting technologies, that is knowledge, for example, knowledge and distributed intelligence, civil infrastructure systems, nano technology, but there is a very strong central theme in that research and that theme is one of intelligent and information systems. ASME truly believes it is an outstanding approach. It is consistent with our national priorities and it is also a key to our future global competitiveness. We do have, however, a recurring concern with NSF's support of the infrastructure in our colleges, universities and major research laboratories. In Fiscal Year 1997, NSF discontinued a $100 million academic research infrastructure program. That program was made up, first of all, of $50 million that was a university laboratory facility renovation and improvement program. That was discontinued completely. The other $50 million was devoted toward larger scale laboratory instrumentation. For example, a mass spectrometer or a large scale laser doppler velocimeter system that really could not be part of an individual research project. And that money was moved to the research accounts in NSF and where it could be used in closer proximity to the actual individual projects that it actually benefits. In the shuffle I am afraid that NSF lost the identity of that program. Well, what was lost when that identity is lost? The identity being lost, lost an enormous amount ofleverage, the $50 or $100 million that NSF put in depending on how you look at it. Leverage two to three times that amount from the public and private sector. It also lost the ability for NSF to place NSF's priorities on that money. There is always the feeling that it is somebody else's responsibility to pick up the tab for the infrastructure. And ASME is strongly supportive of us addressing that crumbling research infrastructure by using partnerships and leveraging. We would encourage the reestablishment of a facility and instrumentation program. This time directed by directorate at NSF but tied closely to the research programs which makes it more identifiable and usable but most importantly, gaining that leverage on other people's money and their investment and especially by putting NSF priorities on that money. One more comment about education. Engineering at NSF has been a long time leader in education and training and human resource development. It is by far the largest investor of all the R & D directorates and they in conjunction with education and human resources have been really staunch supporters of K- 12, and undergraduate education initiatives, innovations, renovations, and we are fully supportive of that, of course, but I would like to talk a little bit about the graduate enhancements in the graduate program that are in the program for the 1998 budget. I think they are of particular note because the increases in NSF are directed at a new program. It is called the integrated graduate education and research and training program. It emphasizes multi-disciplinary training by way of fellowships that are offered through grants at universities. And they are directed at students who may be working at the boundaries between disciplines. For example, a manufacturing engineering that might be working with an agricultural sciences group in the area of food manufacturing. That interdisciplinary training, we are very supportive of and that is an excellent use of new funds in the fellowship support. However, we would like to caution against the abandonment of traditional fellowship programs that allows individuals to apply for the fellowships, they are awarded to high quality students to pursue graduate work at the institution of their choice. So, we would like to see some sort of a balance between those two continuing programs. In bottom line, we would like to support the NSF's strategy and we would like to support their research priorities and most of all we would like your support in their 1998 budget request. We, of course, appreciate the opportunity to be here and that concludes my comments. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you very much. [The statement of Mr. Reischman follows:] [Pages 712 - 717--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Thursday, May 1, 1997. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION WITNESS FRANK CALZONETTI, ASSOCIATE DEAN FOR RESEARCH AND GRADUATE STUDIES, EBERLY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES ON BEHALF OF THE COALITION OF EPSCoR STATES Mr. Calzonetti. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I am here to testify about the experimental programs to stimulate competitive research, EPSCoR, programs in the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Let me first thank Representative Mollohan for his strong support on behalf of this program. He has really made a great difference in West Virginia and we really appreciate his support. Until recently, West Virginia had not made great progress in expanding its research and development base. However, in recent years, the leadership in State Government and in Congress has recognized the importance of building a research and development capability for the long-term prosperity of the State. One of the most significant tools that has helped West Virginia the EPSCoR program, which began in the National Science Foundation in 1979 in response to Congressional concerns about the lack of Federal R & D support in certain areas. There is a core group of 18 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico that participate in EPSCoR. If our country is to maintain world leadership in science and technology it is important that all regions of the country have the opportunity to contribute to our research base. EPSCoR funds only high-quality, merit-based research that helps Federal agencies achieve their research objectives. Because EPSCoR provides research that fits within the Federal research agency mission, while at the same time relying on Federal, State cooperation, EPSCoR really is a model for Federal, State partnership. Let me first discuss the West Virginia NSF EPSCoR program. In West Virginia EPSCoR has provided leadership to the State in helping to articulate the role that a strong academic R & D capability has in the development of a diverse technologically sophisticated economy. Through the support provided by the NSF EPSCoR program, West Virginia EPSCoR brought together State leaders in higher education, industry and State government to form the West Virginia science and technology advisory council which is working on the development of a State-wide science and technology plan. One way to improve the academic research enterprise is through the development of university-based research centers in areas of State relevance. The NSF EPSCoR program has developed nationally recognized research centers at Marshall University and at West Virginia University. At Marshall University EPSCoR supported the development of a biomedical sciences program in the school of medicine and is now building a strong chemistry program and biological sciences program in the college of science. At WVU, EPSCoR has supported the development of a non- linear sciences research group and a computational materials-- Mr. Frelinghuysen. The chair would like to interrupt and recognize Representative Mollohan and he spoke very well of you in your absence and I did not have to say what everybody knows that you are a great Member of the Committee and maybe you would like to say a few words on behalf of our guest. Mr. Mollohan. I would like to welcome Dr. Calzonetti again to the hearing. He is doing great work throughout EPSCoR in West Virginia and we are making great progress and welcome again to the committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Please continue. Mr. Calzonetti. Thank you, very much. The materials research center at West Virginia University is working with INCO Alloys International in Huntington, West Virginia and with GE aircraft engines on the development of structural materials for aerospace applications. The NSF EPSCoR program has recently funded a chemical communications and biological systems cluster at West Virginia University which is working with Mylan Pharmaceuticals in Morgantown. In addition to the investment in research clusters, the NSF EPSCoR program has broader funding to allow West Virginia to strengthen its Internet ties to universities and research centers in the southeast. West Virginia now is a partner in a multi-state program that now has in place a 45-megabyte per second network to tie our researchers together with researchers in other southeastern States. On behalf of the Coalition of EPSCoR States, I urge this subcommittee to provide the budget request of $38.41 million for the NSF's EPSCoR program and to endorse the NSF plan to provide an additional $8 to $10 million in funding for linkages between EPSCoR and NSF-supported research activities. The NASA EPSCoR program is very important to West Virginia. NASA has recently located its computer software facility in Fairmont, West Virginia and West Virginia University, the West Virginia High Technology Consortium Foundation and West Virginia EPSCoR program have invested in the development of an Institute for Software Improvement to build a strong academic research program to support the NASA computer scientists at the center. Under the leadership of Congressman Mollohan, West Virginia has targeted software development as an area of investment. And the NASA EPSCoR program will provide the needed support to attract top computer scientists to the State and build a nationally recognized center of excellence in software engineering, of direct benefit to NASA. Congress has provided $4.7 million for NASA EPSCoR in Fiscal Year 1997and if NASA, the EPSCoR States and our nation are to benefit fully from this program additional funds are needed. I urge the subcommittee to provide $10 million for NASA EPSCoR in Fiscal Year 1998. Turning to EPA EPSCoR, for over 100 years West Virginia has supplied the nation with energy and mineral resources to support an advancing industrial economy. Much of this mineral wealth was extracted from West Virginia when there was little recognition or understanding of the long-term undesirable consequences of mining and processing on West Virginia's land, water and air resources. The State of West Virginia and our country need to develop local scientific and engineering capabilities to help address unique environmental problems. The EPA EPSCoR program is needed to give West Virginia and our country the opportunity to build scientific and engineering talent which can be directed toward finding solutions to long-standing environmental problems. EPA funds are particularly concentrated. Of the total amount of research contracts and grants provided by the EPA for Fiscal Year 1995 only 8 percent of funds went to all of the 19 EPSCoR States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico combined. As a result, I urge the subcommittee to appropriate $5 million for EPA EPSCoR in Fiscal Year 1998. Let me again emphasize that EPSCoR funds only high-quality, merit-reviewed research that fits within agency research priorities. Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, Congressman Mollohan, again, thank you for this opportunity and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. [The statement of Mr. Calzonetti follows:] [Pages 721 - 725--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Dr. Calzonetti. Any questions or comments from Members? Mr. Mollohan. I would just like to thank Frank, again, for his testimony. It was very succinct and very good. Thank you. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION WITNESS RICHARD HERMAN, CHAIR, JOINT POLICY BOARD FOR MATHEMATICS Mr. Frelinghuysen. A copy of your entire statement will be made a part of the record and if you will be good enough to summarize, and keep it in the five- to six-minute range, we would appreciate it. Mr. Herman. I definitely will endeavor to do so. Mr. Frelinghuysen. We know if you are a mathematician, you know how to count, so, if you could keep within that range, we would appreciate it. Mr. Herman. I get faulted regularly. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Richard Herman, Dean of the College of Computer Mathematical and Physical Sciences at the University of Maryland and Chairman of the Joint Policy Board for Mathematics, on whose behalf I speak today. JPBM, as we are referred to, is a collaboration of three mathematical organizations with a combined membership of over 50,000 mathematical scientists and educators. Our members' concerns span fundamental and interdisciplinary mathematics, research, the applications of mathematics and mathematics education at all levels. I thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NSF budget today and while I suppose it is always dangerous to make lists, I would like to thank Mr. Frelinghuysen and Mrs. Price for being at the CNSF exhibit last night. Mr. Frelinghuysen. It was great. Mr. Price. We went around all the different exhibits from all over the country, it was most impressive. Mr. Herman. I know there was someone from Wake Forest. Mr. Price. There was a Wake Forest exhibit and also one from UNC-Chapel Hill. Mr. Herman. All right, I hope it serves its purposes. I would like to discuss two things with you today. First, is that the NSF's budget needs to grow at a sufficient pace to maintain existing excellence and pursue promising new directions. And, second, is the importance of NSF's program for undergraduate education. Mr. Chairman, JPBM and its member societies strongly endorse the recommendation of the Coalition for National Science Funding calling for a 7 percent increase for NSF in Fiscal Year 1998. We urge your Subcommittee to seriously consider this proposal which would barely bring the NSF's budget back up to the Fiscal Year 1995 level in terms of purchasing power. I would also note that this is consistent with the budget the House agreed to authorize for the NSF last week. We recognize the need to balance the Federal budget and admire the persistence this Congress has shown in pursuing this goal. But we also believe that with the lack of real growth in the NSF budget we are short-changing the future. Too many promising opportunities for discovery, innovation, and educational improvement are being left unexplored. The national impact of the NSF's basic research and education programs--our core investment in the mining of these opportunities--warrants this level of growth in its budget. Let me elaborate a bit. The fruits of basic research often include the development of entirely new and unforeseen areas of exploration, like biotechnology if we go back some 25 years. The challenge for us as these new areas emerge is to support that progress without diverting so many resources from the parent fields. This is something that the folks at NSF struggle with daily as they strive to support the most promising ideas for research, education and infrastructure among the many excellent proposals that come from the nation's colleges and universities. While we cannot support every promising opportunity, we also cannot afford to forego addressing the unprecedented number and scope of challenges we face today. Let me give you another example of an increasingly fertile area of research that I am more familiar with, again, as a mathematician. Computational science is the area. In fact, computational science is not just a new area but a whole new approach to research that has the potential to catalyze progress in many fields and technologies. Computation is now playing a major role in scientific and engineering research akin to theory, observation and experiment. Discoveries in many fields are being made because of our newly enhanced ability to analyze large data sets and provide complex numerical simulations. Hence, meteorologists are increasing the lead time in the prediction of severe storms, astrophysicists are now able to model galaxy formation, and chemists are able to model more accurately macro-molecular behavior. My point in both of these examples is that Federal support for research can stimulate whole new areas of research with, as I hope will be apparent, substantial economic benefit for the country. Certainly this has been the case with biotech and I believe the same will be true of computational science. Let me move over to my second point on undergraduate education. The programs in NSF's division of undergraduate are essential to collegiate educators with innovative ideas for expanding student access and learning in mathematics, science and engineering. The core programs of that division are especially important as they provide the raw material, so to speak, for strengthening the foundations of undergraduate education. Over the past couple of years, the NSF has initiated support for larger scale efforts to expand and unify, across institutions, many of the individual projects that have proven successful, if you will, building on best practice. This two-pronged approach, developing the raw materials and reinforcing the framework is designed to leverage the revitalization of undergraduate education throughout the United States. Accordingly, we urge the subcommittee to fully fund the requested increase for the division of undergraduate education. Mr. Chairman, we are not asking you to stray from your commitment to balance the budget by 2002. We know that you and your colleagues are in the business of choosing between competing goods. But it is my strong belief that the 7 percent increase for the National Science Foundation is for the common good. [The statement of Mr. Herman follows:] [Pages 729 - 734--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you for making a good case. We appreciate, Mr. Herman, your being here. Any questions for this witness? Mr. Price. No, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr. Herman. Thank you very much for the opportunity. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION WITNESS HOWARD J. SILVER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CONSORTIUM OF SOCIAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATIONS Mr. Frelinghuysen. How are you, Mr. Silver, nice to see you and welcome. Mr. Silver. Good to see you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. A copy of your full statement will be made a part of the record and if you can do your level best to summarize, we would appreciate it. Mr. Silver. I am Howard Silver, the Executive Director of the Consortium of Social Science Associations or COSSA. I am also currently serving as the Chairman for the Coalition of National Science Funding, an ad hoc umbrella organization of about 80 groups in the social behavioral, physical and natural sciences, engineering, higher education, and the industrial world. As has already been mentioned last night, CNSF sponsored an exhibition at which 34 scientific societies and universities displayed the results of NSF-sponsored research. The event demonstrated the importance of how support for basic research has produced important knowledge that has been translated into many successful products and policies. We have already heard expressions of delight with it. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Next year we are going to make sure that the temperature is 35 and it is snowing so that we can get a few more people there. Mr. Silver. And there is no playoff game. Mr. Frelinghuysen. You are right. Mr. Silver. I want to express COSSA and CNSF's appreciation for the subcommittee's past strong support for NSF. We know these are difficult times for appropriators as they balance competing demands within the constraints of seeking a balanced budget by 2002. Nevertheless, let me add my voice to the chorus. COSSA believes that investing in the research and education efforts funded by NSF is vital to the future of the country and we strongly endorse the CNSF call for a 7.1 percent increase for NSF's Fiscal Year 1998 appropriation. This would make NSF's Fiscal Year 1998 total budget $3.502 billion which is quite similar to the authorization bill that passed the House and is also close, as we heard in testimony on April 10th in this room, to NSF's original request to OMB. The 7.1 percent increase would allow NSF to support more excellent research projects to pursue important new discoveries and enhance the scientific literacy of the nation's students and general population. The increase would permit NSF to augment the number and size of its research and education grants. In the last three years, inflation has eroded NSF's power to support outstanding and innovative research and this increase would provide NSF real growth in Fiscal Year 1998. We are three years from the 21st century. If the next 50 years are to produce similar advances that we have allenjoyed during the past half century, the nation must invest in science and engineering now. If we had not made the investment 50 years ago, the great scientific and technical achievements would not have occurred. We have the choice to delay investment and stagnate or make the investment and reap the economic and social rewards well into the next century. We believe the subcommittee understands this well and we hope that it will act accordingly. Let me say a few words about the social behavior on economic sciences and its directorate. As you know, the director came under attack and was threatened with elimination by the then-chairman of the House Science Committee over the past two years. COSSA would like to express its appreciation to the subcommittee for its unwillingness to support these attempts to return these disciplines to second-class status at NSF. We understand that we had some help from the speaker and the majority leader and we appreciate that, as well. The current chairman of the National Science Board, Stanford chemist, Richard Zare, argued last year in an editorial in Chemical and Engineering News that although the social and behavioral sciences are a small fraction of what NSF does, ``it behooves us to support the best work in this field and pay attention to what it can tell us.'' He further noted, ``I am wondering whether some problems that are limiting society's benefit from advances in the physical sciences might not be answered by the social and behavioral sciences.'' He also suggests that the most fascinating fundamental questions of science to be faced in the next half century will involve complex systems that will include human problems. The social and behavioral sciences, he said, ``Will be the light'' that will reveal the best paths for solutions ``for many other critical problems.'' Let me quickly provide a few examples of attempts to provide that light. As NSF prepares to participate in the development of the next generation of the Internet, the Science, Technology and Society program in the SBE directorate has continued to support work examining the impacts of the advances in communication technology. This work also raises questions addressed by Representative Frelinghuysen during the hearing on April 10th concerning the implications these new developments have for national security. As the nation continues to focus attention on children and their development, SBE supported research has played a vital role in this area. The memory and cognition program has funded long-term studies of cognitive development that have examined many topics including the acquisition of knowledge underlying the understanding of math and science. The NSF's Science and Technology Center for Cognitive Science in Pennsylvania has been a major player here. In addition, SBE continues to support the large historical social science data collection such as the panel study of income dynamics, the general social survey and the national election studies. These data sets are, in many ways, the infrastructure of the social sciences and must be protected. They have been utilized in college classrooms all over the country. The national election study data sets are distributed to over 200 institutions of higher learning in all 50 States for both instruction and survey methodology and data analysis. One last thing before I conclude. COSSA strongly endorses the new NSF integrated graduate education and training grants. The forerunner of this new program provided significant help to distinguished sociologist William Julius Wilson, who is now at Harvard, to conduct his major studies of poverty in Chicago and to train many scholars who have succeeded in producing their own important works in this area. In conclusion, let me say that when CNSF first proposed the 7.1 percent increase for NSF it was thought to be somewhat bold and audacious. We now know that this is what NSF believed it needed in Fiscal Year 1998 to take advantage of what Director Lane refers to as this new age of discovery. It is the amount needed to ensure that, as NSB Chairman Zare told the subcommittee, there will be fewer missed scientific opportunities because of the lack of an adequate budget. The House Science Committee and the full House of Representatives have now endorsed an increase of this magnitude for NSF. COSSA and CNSF again urge the appropriation committee to do the same. Thank you very much. [The statement of Mr. Silver follows:] [Pages 738 - 747--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Dr. Silver. Any comments or questions? Mr. Price. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add a word of congratulations to Dr. Silver for the fine exhibition that the Coalition for National Science Foundation organized yesterday-- an impressive array of the results of NSF's supported research. Also, as a political scientist I am perhaps in an especially good position to appreciate the contribution that Dr. Silver makes to the support of the work of the National Science Foundation and the place of the social sciences in that work. So, we appreciate your being here today and we will pay careful attention to your testimony. Mr. Silver. I appreciate that, thank you. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you very much. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WITNESS DAVID NEMTZOW, PRESIDENT, ALLIANCE TO SAVE ENERGY Mr. Frelinghuysen. Welcome, David Nemtzow, President, Alliance to Save Energy, welcome. Mr. Nemtzow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Frelinghuysen. As you are coming up, the cautionary word is your entire statement will be included in the record and we have got sort of a five- or six-minute time period here that we would love to have you summarize your statement. Mr. Nemtzow. Thank you, sir, I will do that. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Welcome. Mr. Nemtzow. I am David Nemtzow and I am President of the Alliance to Save Energy. The Alliance is a bipartisan coalition of 80 companies dedicated to promoting energy efficiency. We are chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman and co-chaired by Senator Jeffords and your colleagues, Congressman Markey and Congressman John Porter. We work in a bipartisan fashion to promote cost-effective energy efficiency. We have been doing that, Mr. Chairman, since we were founded by Senator Chuck Percy, 20 years ago, and in our 20 year's of experience on energy efficiency I would say there are very few programs as successful as the energy Star program that is run by the Environmental Protection Agency. Let me just say by way of brief background, the Energy Star program, which has been around since the Bush Administration, is quite simply a labeling program to educate consumers. I brought a copy of the label. And it is a very simple label, very easy for consumers to understand. And what the EPA does in conjunction with the Department of Energy is work voluntarily with manufacturers to put this label on products that are energy efficient. And they are very successfully going through a series of products, refrigerators, air conditioners, computers and setting standards and allowing the manufacturers to voluntarily use this label so that consumers will know which products are energy efficient. Why do we care? I brought two windows which are otherwise, I think, impossible to distinguish what they are. They both look the same to the average consumer. You have no way of knowing. They are double-paned. This is an energy inefficient window and this is an efficient window. The reason this is energy efficient are things that are invisible. This is a cutaway, of course, and it has an invisible film that blocks heat loss, and it is filled with an invisible gas called Argon. So, this window is 50 percent more efficient than this one, it saves consumers $2.5 billion if it was used nationwide. It reduces pollution by 30 million tons. The problem is that they look the same. The only way the consumer has any idea is from the Energy Star label. And it is really that simple. We are trying to turn the nation into energy and pollution experts by giving them access to this information. Without it, they do not stand a chance. Having said that, let me just briefly state the reasons why I think this is such an important program and deserves the support of this subcommittee. You may remember the advertisement many years ago of the car mechanic who said you have two choices. You can pay me now or you can pay me later. That is exactly what these voluntary programs are about. They are a way to help our economy avoid pollution, to save energy, so that we can make those investments now and not have to make them down the road in the form of flooding and other disasters from climate change. And they offer an insurance program. The public is very committed to energy efficiency and the public does not always realize that energy efficiency is an environmental program. And by promoting energy efficiency as part of our environmental agenda we have an insurance program against climate change, at the same time we are saving consumers money. I think it is also important to note that these programs have been very successful working voluntarily and I brought a chart, if I might, of the savings that the programs have yielded so far and are projected to yield in the future. And this graph has two components, dollars, or tons of carbon dioxide. These are the two goals that are simultaneously met. And you can see this program which barely existed in 1992, produced zero savings, already is saving about a billion dollars a year to the economy and reducing carbon emissions by two million tons annually and this growth is very quick, very steady as these products are used more and more throughout the economy. Our goal, quite simply, is for this simple label, this Energy Star label, to be as common place as the UL label that is on electric products or the recycling logo that we see. We are not there yet, and EPA needs your support to do that. The program produces enormous returns. And again, let me just say in conclusion, that I think it is as the subcommittee evaluates the various programs that you have before you and the various funding requests that you have I think it is logical for you to ask is this really something that the EPA should be doing? Is this part of their core mission and something that we need them to do? And the answer, I think, quite emphatically is, yes. By reducing energy, we reduce pollution from a number of sources and a number of air pollutants, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide in a cost effective way without resorting to mandatory controls. In that way it is very much a part of EPA's core mission and a very high priority as much as any other program they do--clean air or Superfund or solid waste. Number two, can the private sector do this alone? I am afraid it is not the case. This window, this example is made by Anderson Windows and only Anderson or only private companies can make energy efficient windows. We do not want the government to make energy efficient products, certainly. But the problem is even the most committed company cannot label accurately because they have competitive disadvantages. Anderson might have one standard and Pela has a different standard and Marvin Windows would have a third one. And they might use that to their own advantage. So, we do need government to be an impartial arbiter to set up some standards for the companies to follow; to work with the companies but to set up an even standard and then allow the companies to put the labels only on those products that meet that standard. We have seen that in a variety of fields-- appliances, windows, computers, lighting--it has been very successful and I respectfully encourage the subcommittee to continue to support the Administration's requested increase for these programs. I thank you very much for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Alliance to Save Energy today. [The statement of Mr. Nemtzow follows:] [Pages 751 - 757--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Mollohan [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Nemtzow, we appreciate your testimony and it has been very informative and the subcommittee will certainly take it under advisement as we consider this bill. Mr. Nemtzow. Good, I appreciate it. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. HOPWA WITNESS HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Mr. Mollohan. The Subcommittee next would like to welcome to the hearing our colleague, distinguished colleague, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Mollohan. I am sure that all of us begin this by saying we certainly appreciate your time that is taken through this process and the courtesies extended by listening to all of us. Mr. Mollohan. You are very welcome and we want you to know that your written statement will be made a part of the record. Ms. Jackson Lee. I certainly appreciate that. And with that in mind, I will attempt to highlight. It is interesting the timing of this since the housing bill is now on the floor of the House and one of the first issues that I wanted to begin speaking about is an emphasis on the need of Section 8 housing and particularly as it relates to the 18th Congressional District. The flexibility that Section 8 allows is a very important aspect and very important part of my community's needs. We would hope that the dollars on Section 8 housing are held and I am arguing for, obviously, for an increase. So, generically let me just simply say that I am asking for the increase in dollars particularly in communities where there is a waiting list. The waiting list for Section 8 housing in Houston is 20,000 and, in fact, it has remained that number for a number of years. Some would argue, have you gone through the list and some of these individuals are no longer in need. That is not the case. These are 20,000 fresh names that we have not been able to handle because of our allotment based upon appropriations process. And, clearly, if we use New York as an example I understand it has a waiting list of 250,000 people. But communities like Houston, which are considered southern cities, are unique because overall we have approximately 3,500 to 4,000 public housing units. We really rely upon the Section 8 process to assist us in housing individuals who need. I happen to have the highest number of public housing tenants, if you will, or those in need of public housing in the 18th Congressional District in Texas. And the fact that we have had 20,000 on the waiting list truly impacts our district and I guess I am really pleading for some personal relief, frankly. I know this comes as general appropriating allotment but with the 20,000 that I have on the waiting list I am asking for particular notice and concern and I do that as a southern city. So, I want to emphasize the Section 8 funding that I have requested based upon a 20,000-person waiting list in the 18th Congressional District. Mr. Chairman, how are you? Mr. Lewis [presiding]. Fine, thank you. Ms. Jackson Lee. I will offer again to the Subcommittee what I mentioned as I came in, and you have already heard this, we thank you for your patience and we thank you for your courtesies extended to those of us who have an interest in this area. Mr. Lewis. We appreciate your, first of all, from my perspective, your total presentation and the brevity. We have had about 100 people here but your's has been the shortest for me. Ms. Jackson Lee. And I am almost finished. [Laughter.] I am almost finished. I will summarize just for you. My first mention was the Section 8 and I said in my district I have 20,000 that have been on the waiting list now for, I will say, 10 years. And Houston is a southern city, we do not get a lot of attention on this area and I am now pleading for particular attention but particular attention to Section 8. Let me quickly just emphasize and ask, as well, to be noted in the record for my interest and concern with funding on housing for the elderly. Again, the arguments are the same as it relates to the 18th Congressional District. I have a high elderly population. According to the formulas that have been used southern cities have fallen short of sort of the formulas that are used in our more urban northeastern communities and respecting the needs that they have. But we are finding more and more that we are piling up on our need. We are not being able to bring it down. And I mentioned before you came that overall I have between 3,500 and 4,000 public housing units and, so, we have a low number, we do not have the 50,000 or the 25,000. And with that in mind, our elderly suffer along with our need for Section 8. That is one of the utilizations that we are in great need of because we might be able to spread out the need. Let me conclude by emphasizing the need for HOWPA monies and those are the funding for those living with AIDS. And I would hope, again, I guess I am citing the 18th Congressional District uniquely out of Texas, Houston was, in 1990, number 13 with HIV infected and affected. We are increasing the numbers of infected and affected particularly in the minority community of which I have 49 percent minority. We have an increased number of those both Hispanic and African-American. The housing problem is particularly sensitive to them because, again, we have concerns as we would have in every community of where do you put housing for people with AIDS. We face that with respect to residential communities and so we are looking to be more creative in our housing options for people living with AIDS, make it attractive but, again, not trying to create the havoc of residential established communities. So, I guess what I am trying to suggest is that it is very important that we balance the dollars in helping people living with AIDS to live in communities but also if communities are creative and want to create housing areas--and I seem to be saying isolated--but new housing is what I am trying to say, that they should have the ability to do that with the funding source. I think we have done quite well in Houston and I think we have done quite well in the recognition of people living with AIDS, the faith community, the local government and others working together, but I think we can do more. And, again, I would emphasize and have you look at the numbers particularly in my district as to how we are impacted. And with that, I will close. [The statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:] [Pages 761 - 770--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Okay, Congresswoman Jackson Lee, we appreciate your being here and I must say that this Committee has been very sensitive to the AIDS issue for many, many years. And if I am recalling correctly, and I believe it was the National Science Foundation in my freshman term on this committee, 17 years ago, we put the early money in for preliminary looking at what research might do and with HOWPA we have been responsive. The Section 8 I might suggest to you that you could be very helpful by encouraging the authorizing committees to please move forward with the fix on this problem for it is a huge, huge difficulty that has the potential of driving out all the rest of the housing programs around unless we do get a handle on it. Ms. Jackson Lee. I appreciate that greatly. Might I ask an administrative or procedural question. My statement has been submitted for the record may I be allowed to amend it with some particular numbers that would be helpful to you? Mr. Lewis. Sure. We will include your statement for the record and if you produce additional material, we will be happy to include it. Ms. Jackson Lee. I appreciate it very much, thank you. Mr. Lewis. Okay, any questions? Mr. Price. No, Mr. Chairman. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION WITNESS FELICE J. LEVINE, PH.D., EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION Mr. Lewis. Dr. Felice Levine. We very much appreciate your entire statement for the record and it will be included and if you would help us with our time problem by way of summarizing and highlighting, it would be very helpful. Ms. Levine. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee here today. I am the Executive Officer of the American Sociological Association and the ASA is the national scientific society for over 13,000 sociologists. We urge support for the National Science Foundation as you mark up the agency's 1998 budget. We value the NSF investment in basic research and its tireless effort to produce knowledge capable of withstanding the most rigorous scientific scrutiny. Across the physical, biological and social sciences, NSF's investments have already reaped important dividends. As we look to the future, I want to concentrate particularly on encouraging recognition of the importance of basic research in the social and behavioral sciences. Today, the Federal Government spends billions of dollars in such areas as childhood education, law enforcement welfare and employment training. Sound policy, however, requires a sound foundation of basic knowledge. Fortunately the National Science Foundation especially through its directorate in social, behavioral and economics science provides that important infrastructure. The ASA is gratified by this committee's long-term recognition of the importance of NSF and, indeed, of the social and behavioral sciences. We agree that the administration's proposed increase of 3 percent for NSF in Fiscal Year 1998 does not get the job done. As a member of the Coalition for National Science Funding, we support a budget increase of $232 million or 7.1 percent above Fiscal Year 1997. We recognize, I think I said this last year, that the 7.1 percent increase may appear to be large but it is a modest investment in building the knowledge in real dollars that our country needs. This allocation will increase the likelihood of scientific breakthroughs, provide for essential funds for necessary training and enable essential projects and most, in particular, it will also enable the important continuation of very significant basic work in the social and behavioral sciences. And today I want to focus really on two highlights. One, work on children and the other work on violence where this committee has had an historical and important interest in encouraging NSF's presence. In the coming week the highly distinguished interagency committee under the auspices of OSTP will issue a report Investing in Our Future and National Research Initiative for America's Children for the 21st Century. This report underscores the importance of Federal research for the future well-being of our nation's children. Indeed, the report urges basic research in such areas as the relationship among biological, cognitive, social and emotional aspects of development and on the influences of families, peers, schools, communities, media and other social institutions. This is exactly the type of social and behavioral science research that NSF now funds and has had a very important pattern of funding. With one example, Professor Ho, a sociologist at the University of Iowa is examining extended family networks, parent involvement in the schools, immigrant and ethnic culture and parent-child interaction such as supervising homework and discussing materials learned in class as this relates to educational attainment. Studies like these are important in terms of building fundamental knowledge but they go beyond in their applications and implications purely significance from a scientific vantage. I mentioned violence, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee. And the key role you have played in encouraging the NSF to pursue support for a broad-based initiative on how science informs our understanding of violence. The eventual outcome of the work encouraged by this committee was the funding for the National Consortium of Violence Research located at Carnegie Mellon University. Your desire for a fuller scientific explanation for the causes of violence has borne fruit. We are really now putting together a coalition, a center without walls that is bringing a multi-disciplinary team of investigators together in ways that we could not have envisioned had not this center developed and really gotten off the ground. I am a member of that advisory committee and attended the second meeting of that advisory last week and I was struck with how the initial plans are really beginning to do very important fundamental work in adding to our knowledge about why some individuals engage in violence, others do not, some communities engage in violence, and others do not, and, indeed, some situations escalate violence and others do not. I would love to regale you with, I think, the important work that basic science is doing at NSF in the human capital initiative and the intelligence systems initiative but as the red pencil indicates that is detailed in the written testimony. I do, also, want to emphasize the importance of NSF's leadership role in investing in the data resources over long periods of time, the large-scale data resources and what they have meant both for sound science and sound policy. These are important and essential to the study of societies as, although some might think it is a cliche, as observatories and accelerators are to the investigation of the physical world and, indeed, at far less cost. These data permit monitoring critical social, economic and political developments. They are continuing programs that permit cumulative and systematic knowledge. These data sets expand, extend and change over time to keep pace both with changes in our social and economic systems and also in our need for new forms of knowledge. Most importantly these data are accessible to a broad-based scholarly and policy community and they have been instrumental in the training and education of undergraduate and graduate students, a real side payoff that has incalculable value. I will not go into detail about them but let me just highlight the general social survey, the panel study of income dynamics, the national election study, the integrated public use micro-series which uses the United States census data going back to 1850 and really puts it in a form that can be used for both science purposes and policy purposes in ways that otherwise would not be accessible to all of us. Recently we did a congressional briefing on welfare and work and a sociologist and an economist presented important new analyses from the panel study of income dynamics collected over long periods of time that now permit us toexamine the impact of limited time, term limits on welfare and give us some real knowledge about what those consequences would be for different sub-populations. So, it is a real investment not only in science but in the understanding of our social and economic well-being. The third area I want to just highlight in conclusion very briefly is the importance of NSF's commitment to education and training and recognizing that training and science really go hand-in-hand. I am pleased to note that increasingly NSF has recognized that these initiatives must be inclusive of the social and behavioral sciences. And NSF recently announced a graduate training program known as the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Training Program. Affectionately we call it already as IGERT. It sounds kind of like a robot. It seeks, though, to do things in a new way, to integrate education and research, provide training relevant to both academic, industrial and research settings, and facilitate the development of a diverse work force. An integrative training program across disciplines and work settings holds promise for all fields of science. Lastly, I just want to make a brief mention of the importance of the directorate of education and human resources emphasis on the alliance for minority participation. And also its inclusion of the social and behavioral sciences. For almost 25 years now, the American Sociological Association has had experience in operating, funded primarily by the National Institute of Mental Health and the Ford Foundation, major research and training programs for minority students, both directed to undergraduate and graduate programs. It is programs like AMP that the National Science Foundation wants to innovate with that really ensure that the best students across all groups are pursuing scientific careers. In conclusion, I want to stress that the ASA really applauds this subcommittee for recognizing the important role of science and the social and behavioral sciences in America's future and to that end we urge you to give serious consideration to the CNSF request of the 7.1 percent increase for Fiscal Year 1998. [The statement of Ms. Levine follows:] [Pages 775 - 787--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Dr. Levine. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Mollohan. No, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much. We do appreciate your being with us, the Committee feels very strongly about the need for research and the role that this Committee plays and the NSF in particular. So, we appreciate your expressions and your testimony will be part of our record. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION WITNESS DAVID JOHNSON, PH.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FEDERATION OF BEHAVIORAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL AND COGNITIVE SCIENCES Mr. Lewis. You see, I can tell that Dr. Johnson already came prepared to be brief. Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I am here today to talk about the fiscal year 1998 request for the National Science Foundation. This year, my organization is joining with the wide spectrum of scientific associations and with the House Science Committee to ask that the Subcommittee recommend a 7.1 percent increase for NSF for fiscal year 1998. NSF is unique among Federal agencies, in that it is charged with assuring the health of U.S. science. For three years, the NSF budget has remained almost flat in real terms, growing by about eight-tenths of one percent. The desire in calling for this 7.1 percent increase is to re-establish a trend of modest growth for the Foundation. Those of us who represent science claim to you each year that you should support NSF because, even though NSF is in the business of supporting basic science, that basic research underlies U.S. economic competitiveness. I want to bring to your attention a study soon to be published that offers hard evidence for that claim. It was conducted by CHI Research, which has the largest database on patents outside the U.S. Patent Office. The study is an analysis of all U.S. patents in the years 1993 and 1994. Among the questions asked was how important has publicly- supported research been to the development of these inventions. The question can be asked because the cover page of a patent cites the most important influences on the development of that invention. The single most important influence on these patents was federally-supported basic research. Its importance exceeds industrially-supported research, as well as non-U.S. research. Among sources of public support, NSF-supported research was most frequently cited. This study offers perhaps the best evidence yet that public support of science in general is crucial to our economic competitiveness, and that despite it's relatively small size, NSF supports much of the research that is a prerequisite to technical and economic advances in this country. That is why we often say that the appropriation for NSF is an investment. Its dividends exceed its cost. While this new study gives us a glimpse of the power of NSF research, I don't want to imply that NSF's only utility is the contribution it makes to the economy. There are at least two other services NSF provides that are of equal importance. The first is that NSF supports research that is responsive to national needs. It was, for example, under the leadership of this Subcommittee, as Felice pointed out, that NSF funded a research center on violence. Poll after pool makes clear that violence is among the top concerns oftaxpayers. It is fitting that NSF uses tax dollars to bring research to bear on problems that the American public most wants to see solved. By the same token, NSF supports research on problems that may not be of conscious concern to taxpayers but that, nevertheless, have as profound impact on the quality of their daily lives. The new Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence initiative is an example. We say that we live in the information age, but it is probably more truthful to say that we are trying to figure out how to live in the information age. Those of us who are fortunate literally have the information of the world at our fingertips through the Internet and other on-line services. Yet, many of our citizens are unable even to read, let alone to use computers to access information. NSF can help find ways to make access to knowledge more available for all citizens. At the same time, those with access to information are finding that there are so many information sources that they can flounder in it. KDI will help improve the creation, organization, storage, dissemination and use of knowledge. While these issues may not keep citizens awake at night, they are among the most pressing practical problems we face today. For all these reasons, NSF should have your generous support. Thank you. [The statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] [Pages 790 - 793--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Dr. Johnson. We appreciate your support as well, so thank you. Mr. Johnson. Thank you. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION WITNESS ALAN G. KRAUT, PH.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIETY Mr. Lewis. Alan G. Kraut, American Psychological Society. Dr. Kraut. I'm getting my sociologists and psychologists all together here. [Laughter.] Mr. Kraut. And we're glad to be associated with one another. Well, I want to make just a couple of points today, but I would ask that my complete written statement be placed in the record. Mr. Lewis. It will be. Mr. Kraut. Let me begin by giving you a sense of what research psychologists do. American Psychological Society members are scientists and academics in universities and colleges across the country. Many are NSF funded, and they are representative of virtually every distinguished academic group imaginable, from members of the National Academy of Sciences to winners of the National Medal of Science, our own version of the U.S. Nobel Prize. Last year, by the way, this was awarded to, among others, a noted California psychologist, Roger Sheppard, and just today it was announced by President Clinton that Harvard cognitive psychologist Bill Estes would be the recipient. Psychologists conduct basic research in cognitive science, including perception, attention, learning, memory, and artificial intelligence. We conduct basic research in the fundamental social processes that influence behavior, such as looking at the effects of groups on individual behavior and how individuals behave in groups. We also study how development occurs, how the child grows physically, emotionally, and intellectually, and we conduct basic research in the biological bases of behavior, the relationship between brain and behavior and the interaction occurs between genes and the environment. These areas of basic behavioral research, plus many more, are a part of the NSF mission, and have been for some time. The common threat is behavior, whether at the level of a single organ, an individual, or the behavior of groups and organizations. For fiscal year 1998, in keeping with the recommendation of the Coalition for National Science Funding, that you have heard from many of us presenting this testimony, we're asking for a 7.1 percent increase for NSF. Now, within NSF, we're primarily concerned about the activities of the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate, known as SBE. This Subcommittee has had a history with the SBE Directorate, for which we're most grateful. Your support was crucial in establishing the Directorate five years ago, and more recently, in enabling the Directorate to pursue something called the Human Capital Initiative, which I will discuss in a moment. We are also grateful for your support of the Directorate in the face of attempts of the last two years to remove it from the NSF structure. Fortunately, we have not seen any further efforts to undermine NSF's important mission in behavioral science, and that's a situation that we credit in large part to your resistance to those earlier efforts. Any increase in the 1998 budget for SBE will support the Directorate's Human Capital Initiative. This is a program that has received funding from this committee. Originally, human capital was a behavioral science research agenda developed by representatives of more than 70 behavioral and social science organizations. It described the contributions of behavioral science research to our understanding in several broad areas of national concern which have behavior at their core. They included education, substance abuse, violence, productivity, problems of aging, problems of health and others. Each of these areas involved a significant basic behavior science component. The Human Capital Initiative also pinpointed priorities for future research in these areas, and was intended to guide federal agencies--not just NSF, but also the National Institutes of Health and the Departments of Labor and Education--in making research funding decisions for psychology and related sciences. And now NSF, with this subcommittee's backing, has embraced and expanded the Human Capital Initiative to include other topics, such as poverty and community and family processes-- again, aiming at what the basic research questions are that underlie these issues. As part of that expansion, we're currently working with NSF to develop a report on basic research in psychology. When completed, that report will be used to identify priorities in cognitive science, in social and developmental psychology, organizational psychology, and interdisciplinary research that cross-cuts with biology, physics, education, and engineering, among other areas. I bring this to your attention in the hope that you will continue to encourage NSF to use the report in basic research in psychology in setting priorities for the Human Capital Initiative in 1998. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee. [The statement of Mr. Kraut follows:] [Pages 796 - 806--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Dr. Kraut. I noted with interest that you managed to get about as much out of two pages as Dr. Levine got out of seven pages. [Laughter.] It must have been the size of the type. Thank you very much. Mr. Kraut. Thank you. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION WITNESS NORMAN ABELES, PH.D., PRESIDENT, THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION Mr. Lewis. Dr. Norman Abeles, the American Psychological Association. Welcome. Mr. Abeles. Thank you, Chairman Lewis, Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Lewis. One more time, if you would summarize, this will be included in the entire record. Mr. Abeles. Very briefly, I'm going to summarize. I represent the other psychological association, the American Psychological Association, which is a scientific and professional organization of 151,000 individuals all over the United States, and some in Canada and some overseas, too. I want to speak briefly about the fiscal year 1998 budget for the National Science Foundation, NASA, and the Veterans' Health Administration. Let me talk first about NSF, to summarize that we endorse the 7.1 percent increase requested by the Coalition for National Science Funding, for a total NSF appropriation of $3.5 billion. One example of research that psychologists do comes from studying psychology as it applies to the criminal justice system. Each year, more than 75,000 people become crime suspects in the U.S. based on identification from lineups and photo spreads. Some IDs will be false and lead to mistaken arrests and imprisonments. Just two weeks ago, Ricardo Guerra was released from prison after serving 14 years on death row, falsely accused and convicted of murdering a Texas policeman. The research of Gary Wells, a psychologist at Iowa State University, shows that an objective question such as ``how certain are you that the person you identified is the person you saw commit the crime?'' elicits a similar response, regardless of whether the eyewitness's testimony is accurate or not. This suggests that the witness's memory may be confounded very quickly by their own misperceptions. Further, once an eyewitness's memory has been distorted in this way, a straightforward cross-examination often fails to produce an accurate recollection. Wells' data suggests that stronger steps are needed to ``inoculate'' eyewitnesses' memories, especially over the weeks and months that may stretch between the crime and a courtroom trial. Let me move on quickly---- Mr. Lewis. What I'm going to do is have you suspend for just a moment. I have one minute before I go vote. So I will be right back. Mr. Abeles. Okay. Fine. I'll wait for you. [Recess.] Mr. Lewis. The meeting will come back to order. Proceed, Dr. Abeles. Mr. Abeles. As to NASA, APA supports the fiscal year 1998 administration request of $214.2 million for the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications. Let me give you a couple more examples. Human factor psychologists track decision-making processes that affect aviation safety and have played a critical role, it is our understanding, of why mistakes happen when humans are required to operate in a complex environment. Even as more technology finds its way into the cockpit, human beings still make the critical flight decisions. Continued research on the complex interactions of flight crews with ground controllers, with cockpit technology, and with the aircraft, will provide the insight needed to design error-tolerant systems. So the bottom line on this, we support the $418.3 million for the Research and Technology Base within the Office of Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology. Lastly, coming to the end, I would like to turn your attention to the Medical Care account of the Veterans Health Administration, used to fund the education and training of health care professionals. As a veteran myself, and consultant to the VA, I am very interested in this. Within this program, and of direct interest to the American Psychological Association, are apprenticeship opportunities for psychologists. In fiscal year 1996, 1,400 psychologists were involved in the program. As the health profession most focused on behavior, psychology is an essential partner in providing health care in the VHA. We serve as vital members of VA primary care teams as the VHA shifts to interdisciplinary outpatient services. Moreover, because of their extensive research training, we play a critical role in evaluating the effectiveness, the outcome, of the VHA health services. We have provided essential patient care for five decades, including such services as the diagnosis and treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, substance abuse prevention, and wellness programs, stress management techniques, vocational assessment and rehabilitation, cardiac rehabilitation, smoking cessation, and weight reduction. Further, psychologists are providing critically needed services to the 40 percent of veterans who suffer from mental disorders. So it is important that they're highly productive. Mr. Chairman, psychology has been a vital discipline in the Veterans Health Administration for the past 50 years. The foundation for this role is the VHA Psychology Internship and Postdoctoral Fellowship program, which continues to train the future leaders. On behalf of APA, we would urge the committee to fully support the VHA education and training program and, within that context, maintain the strength of the VA psychologist internship program. In conclusion, I would like to express my appreciation to present my testimony before the subcommittee. Psychologicalscience addresses a broad range of important issues and problems confronting our Nation. As the Subcommittee considers funding requests, I urge you to place a high priority on those issues outlined in my testimony.] Thank you. [The statement of Mr. Abeles follows:] [Pages 810 - 820--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Dr. Abeles. I was going to say to all of my friends, who are interested in the field of psychology, that two things have occurred regarding the research processes here. First, Dr. Neal Lane, the Director of NSF, took me to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean in a deep submersible, to try to make sure I got the message. Dr. Abeles. Wonderful. [Laughter.] Mr. Lewis. Later he called my son, who is a professor of psychology in one of these small, little colleges in Southern California---- Mr. Abeles. I talked to Neal yesterday at the science exhibit. It was delightful talking to him. Mr. Lewis. Thank you for being here. Mr. Abeles. Thank you. I appreciate it. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION WITNESS DAVID BRANDT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE NATIONAL SPACE SOCIETY Mr. Lewis. Mr. David Brandt, the National Space Society. Mr. Brandt, you've heard the pitch---- Mr. Brandt. In fact, and I'll be as brief as I can. On behalf of the board of directors and 25,000 members of the National Space Society, I want to take this opportunity to thank you for the privilege of testifying. NSS is an independent, space advocacy organization founded 20 years ago. Our strength comes from a diverse group of members, doctors, lawyers, teachers, police officers, as well as scientists, space explorers, and even a handful of former Members of Congress. While they come from many different backgrounds, our vision is of creating a spacefaring civilization. They're all firm believers in that. This is a vision not only for the purpose of further expanding human knowledge, but forever advancing our knowledge. The great explorers and historians of the future must know that at the end of the 20th century, the United States of America did our part to advance the noble cause of exploration. As an independent organization, we're not bound to any specific goals of NASA. Rather, our members speak out on programs and funding issues as they relate to our agenda. It is against this touchstone of seeking to open outer space as a next frontier for commerce and ultimately settlement that we weigh our policies and budget priorities. Members of NSS are deeply worried about the continued decline in real spending for NASA, especially as we look to proposed budgets in the next century. Americans have been writing to you to show their support for a stabilized budget over the years, and some of them have sent copies to us. Since they view NSS as their voice in Washington, I would like to read just one of those real quick. A 61-year-old programmer-analyst explains that our Nation invests too little in scientific research and development. He says that NASA funding should be maintained at the current level of spending, for the following reasons: One, NASA has already been cut, as you're well ware, contributing its fair share to balancing the budget. It is a long-term investment in the future, and NASA is central, both symbolically and materially, to this Nation's commitment to leadership in science and technology and, therefore, to our economic health. As you can hear in this statement and others, that, of course, will be in the record, the space frontier is important to the lives of many Americans. Allocating funds and setting priorities at NASA can obviously be a very arduous process. There are many worthwhile programs that compete for financial support. We have posed this dilemma to our members over the years, and as advocates, we give them a mythical $100 to spend. The way they have broken it up is--it's interesting to note just the top three. Our members would spend $14 on the international space station, about $13 and a half on launching a mission to return to the Moon and establish a permanent settlement there; another $13 to develop reusable launch vehicles to help lower the cost of access to orbit. So it's a across the board. They would like to see many things. Of course, we're limited in what we can do. However, it is interesting to note that the Administration and Congress agree on two of these three. Where the public's desires and the government's plans part is in the Nation's commitment to human planetary exploration. We understand Congress' hesitancy to support these programs until the costs can be reduced dramatically--of course, especially the cost of getting to orbit--but these goals can't be achieved unless we adequately fund research and development programs. To this end, the National Space Society urges Members of this Subcommittee to fully support the development of advanced technologies for exploration. By investing now in research, we can achieve our dreams and affordably send humans to the Moon to establish a permanent outpost, and we can set the stage for a series of international cooperative human missions to Mars early in the next decade. Mr. Chairman, NASA deserves the full support of Congress. The House recently passed the Civilian Space Authorization Act, which increases NASA's spending from $13.7 billion this year to $13.8 billion next year, and then $13.9 in 1999. These spending levels still do not stabilize the space agency's budget into the early years of the next century, but they're a step in the right direction. In fact, these levels don't even really keep pace with anticipated inflation. Our membership strongly urges the United States House of Representatives to fund NASA at the full authorization level. In conclusion, if the Administration succeeds in cutting NASA's budget in each of the next five years, as is now proposed--about $2 billion when adjustments are made for inflation--America's space agency will begin to lose its vigor, in effect dulling our Nation's competitive edge. Alternatively, if NASA's budget can be stabilized and the space agency is allowed to reinvest savings in new programs, a dynamic future of exploration and commercial development will become a reality. America's spirit will take flight, as will our dreams and our hopes. Thank you once again for the opportunity to appear, Mr. Chairman. I'm available for any questions that you might have. [The statement of Mr. Brandt follows:] [Pages 824 - 828--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Brandt. Your statement was very much to the point of those who are concerned about man's role in space, and NASA's work is very important to the committee, as you know. Mr. Brandt. Indeed. Mr. Lewis. We really do appreciate it. Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Mollohan. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much for being with us. Mr. Brandt. Thank you. Mr. Lewis. We have about another three or four minutes, and then we'll go up for two votes. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION WITNESS ELISABETH GANTT, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLANT PHYSIOLOGISTS Mr. Lewis. Dr. Gantt, hello. Ms. Gantt. Hello, Mr. Chairman. My name is Elisabeth Gantt and I'm a Professor at the University of Maryland. I am here representing the American Society of Plant Physiologists, which I served as President in 1988 and 1989. We appreciate the opportunity to discuss the valuable research and education opportunities supported by the National Science Foundation in plant sciences. Of course, we support any increase. Let me give you just a few examples of plant research done by scientists at the University of Maryland and at several other institutions who are receiving support for research on plants from the Foundation. At our university, Steve Wolniak is investigating the fundamental mechanisms of how plant cells divide and how these mechanisms lead to the development of roots, shoots and stems. Such knowledge is necessary for future enhancement in plant productivity. Research in my own laboratory centers on identifying the genes involved in the synthesis of red and yellow pigments that provide color to many vegetables and fruits and, very importantly, as sources of vitamin A, which we all require. Such pigments also play important roles in absorbing light energy from the sun for photosynthesis, while also protecting plants from too much light. These are key elements for photosynthesis--a process by which plants convert the sun's energy into chemical energy and without which plant growth and food production would not exist. By investigating the origin of chloroplasts, one of my young colleagues, Charles Delwiche, with collaborators from Indiana University and the University of Pennsylvania, have made a discovery which holds great promise for designing drug therapies to control parasites that currently cause great loses in the U.S. livestock industry. This discovery was just published in the March 7, 1997 issue of Science. Research supported by the National Science Foundation in the plant sciences makes significant contributions to major sectors of the economy. Throughout the world, plants are, of course, major sources of energy. But molecular approaches to plant research are giving us plants that are sources of industrial lubricants and detergents, and plant biodegradable plastic. Mr. Lewis. I'm going to have you recede for just a moment while we run up and vote. We'll probably be gone for two minutes on this one. We have this one and another vote following it, so we'll be back right away. [Recess.] Mr. Lewis. Please proceed. I'm sorry. Ms. Gantt. That's quite all right. I was just leading into the molecular approaches and about the biodegradable plastics. Breakthrough research which brings us plastic-producing plants was done---- Mr. Lewis. You've already intrigued me enough. I was thinking in the early part of your testimony, that I've actually being trying to figure out what I want to do in my ``next life''. I believe in multiple careers. Yours may be a prospect. [Laughter.] Ms. Gantt. Well, it's in your home state. On the plastic- producing plants, the work was done by plant physiologist Chris Somerville from the Carnegie Institution in Stanford. One of the many reports on his research is found in the cover story of the March 10, 1997 issue of Business Week, entitled ``The Biotech Century''. Thanks to his research, supported by NSF, Somerville reports that farmers will actually be growing plants producing plastic for American and international consumers by the year 2003. Plant technology is also propelling us into a new era of plant-derived pharmaceutical therapy. Now, we agree, of course, with the Business Week article-- and I quote--``Thanks to fundamental advances in genetics, biology will define scientific progress in the 21st century. It's all happening faster than anyone expected.'' As a scientist and teacher involved in teaching hundreds of nonscience students, I recognize the value of the scienceteacher enhancement program funded by the NSF in Maryland and other states. The enhancement has benefitted secondary school science teachers in several counties, and has increased the interactions among science teachers and faculty at the University of Maryland. School districts have been cost sharing a portion of the total cost of this program that ensures improved science teaching and introduction of meaningful research methodology to the classroom. These are but a few examples of the key support that NSF provides for science education and research. We recognize the strong record of support by the chair and this subcommittee for the NSF results, and the vital knowledge needed to provide for the welfare of present and future generations of Americans. I thank you for your attention and for the opportunity to appear before you. If you have any questions, I shall be glad to try and answer them. [The statement of Ms. Gantt follows:] [Pages 831 - 833--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Miss Gantt. I must say that in 2003 we'll be growing plastics by way of plants, and maybe at that point in time we'll be able to use that plastic to wrap the balanced budget and hope that it's biodegradable. [Laughter.] Ms. Gantt. That's right, especially considering its size. [Laughter.] Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WITNESS RONALD A. ATLAS, PH.D., CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY, AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR MICROBIOLOGY Mr. Lewis. Dr. Ronald Atlas, American Society for Microbiology. Mr. Atlas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lewis. Welcome. Mr. Atlas. Thank you. I would like to ask that our full statement be included in the record. Mr. Lewis. Your full statement will be included, and around here, generally speaking, the briefer you are, the more attention we pay to the full statement. [Laughter.] Mr. Atlas. Anyway, I am from the University of Louisville. My name is Ronald Atlas and I'm representing the American Society for Microbiology. On behalf of our 42,000 members, I would like to offer comments on both the research appropriation request for the Environmental Protection Agency and the one for the National Science Foundation. With respect to the EPA appropriation relative to other agencies, it is a fairly small research component of their budget request. Yet, it is a very important one for meeting our national environmental needs. We are particularly supportive of the Science To Achieve Results program, or STAR program, even though we have not yet seen it in franchise microbiology. It is focused largely in the chemical area, which is important, but we are urging that in the language of the appropriation that the Congress also urge the EPA to include research on the microbiological sciences. These are extremely important in terms of public health and environmental quality. The EPA needs to focus more, in our opinion, on issues like the Safe Drinking Water Act relative to microbiological safety. We note that last year this Appropriations subcommittee added on the Safe Drinking Water side $5 million in the research budget, which EPA, being earmarked, has removed from this year's request. So they're actually asking for $3.5 million less this year to support research, despite the fact that with the passage last year of the Safe Drinking Water Act, or its enactment, that there really is a much greater mandate on the EPA to develop the science base that will support the regulatory and enforcement side of safe drinking water. So we are again asking that you consider adding an appropriation increase to cover safe drinking water aspects. We really need to avoid future outbreaks of things like the Cryptosporidium outbreak in Milwaukee that felled many individuals from the municipal water supply. We are also supportive of the EPA's request to fund fellowships within the STAR program. We note that this is not always been favored by this committee. There have been cuts in the past. EPA has asked to restore their appropriation request within fellowships. We think it important that we continue to train scientists to meet the future needs of environmental research in the Nation and urge that you do fully support their request for the STAR fellowship program. Turning to the NSF appropriation, we note that the NSF is the key agency funding basic science within the Nation. The President's request of only a three percent increase will just keep us at or just above the inflation rate. It will not allow us to expand the basic science mission of the Nation in the way that we think it needs to be done. Compared to Japan, for example, which is putting forward over the next five years a 50 percent increase in basic science research funding, if we only fund a three percent increase, we're going to start to lose ground internationally. I think the NSF has a long-established record of providing the basic research needs that we build the applied aspects upon later, so we begin to lose international competitiveness, in our opinion, if we do not adequately fund the NSF. We are in support of the request by the National Coalition for the National Science Foundation to increase the NSF appropriation by some 7.1 percent, and we urge this committee to consider doing so, so that we can keep pace with the Nation's needs in terms of research. With those brief comments, I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. [The statement of Mr. Atlas follows:] [Pages 836 - 850--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Well, we do appreciate your being here to testify. We will include your entire testimony in the record. I don't think we have any questions, but we have discussed the NSF for a very, very lengthy period in a number of circumstances, and we do appreciate your support. Thank you for being here, Mr. Atlas. Mr. Atlas. Thank you. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION WITNESS RONALD W. ROUSSEAU, CHAIR OF THE COUNCIL FOR CHEMICAL RESEARCH Mr. Lewis. Dr. Rousseau, welcome. We will be happy to include your entire statement in the record. Proceed from there. Mr. Rousseau. Thank you. I am Ron Rousseau. I am Chair of the School of Chemical Engineering at the Georgia Tech. I am here today, though, as Chair of the Council for Chemical Research and to present the Council's views on the fiscal year 1998 budget for the National Science Foundation. Our message is that producing the kinds of advances witnessed in the 20th century requires research and development. Our Nation is supreme today, in both defense and nondefense related technology, because similar investments were made by our predecessors. The current competitive global environment has forced many to focus on the short term. The National Science Foundation, however, is our Nation's insurance against the consequences of such limited vision. That insurance comes at a cost, and if those who inherit our legacy are to be strong and competitive in a profoundly global and technological world, we must sustain and even grow our base in engineering math and science. To achieve these goals, we feel we must reverse the erosion of funding for the National Science Foundation. Since fiscal year 1995, the purchasing power for NSF's research dollars has shrunk by more than six percent. The Council for Chemical Research urges you to support a level of funding for fiscal year 1998 that both restores the ground lost since fiscal year 1995, and provides some growth. Accordingly, we hope the fiscal year 1998 NSF budget will be increased by at least 7.1 percent over the 1997 appropriation. The U.S. chemical industry represents ten percent of all U.S. manufacturing. It employs more than a million Americans, and it's the number one exporter. It also contributes the largest trade surplus of any nondefense related sector in the United States economy. The Council for Chemical Research is a nonprofit organization that advances a competitive, efficient research base for the Nation's chemical enterprise. It does so by fostering collaboration among the industrial, academic and government sectors. Our member organizations include most of the major research universities, chemical companies, and government laboratories that conduct research in chemical sciences and engineering. As leaders of the Nation's chemical research enterprise, CCR understands the extraordinary impact NSF has had on both American scientific discovery and on education. It is the only federal agency with responsibility for research and education in all scientific and engineering fields. It is the heart of the Nation's science and technology enterprise. Since it was established in 1950, NSF has served the Nation by investing in research and education in science, mathematics, and engineering. Not only has NSF consistently served as the guarantor of basic research for the United States, it has worked hard and well to make its efforts strategic and visionary, efficient and results-oriented. Today, NSF's role as a leader and steward of the Nation's science and engineering enterprise faces new tests: namely, promoting new approaches to research, education, and workforce training that reach all Americans; responding to the increased importance of science and engineering in many aspects of daily life; and modernizing the Nation's research infrastructure. Of particular interest to CCR's multi-sector membership are NSF's efforts to advance integration of research and education. NSF has focused on this as a central theme of its strategic plan and is pursuing objectives through programs such as Research Experiences for Undergraduates, the Faculty Early Career Development program, and Gant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry. The budget decisions you must make are not easy. The case for investing in the future by funding NSF must stand up against concerns about spending for individual health and security. NSF is only 0.2 percent of the federal budget, but it supports about 25 percent of the Nation's academic research. Rather than an expense, we believe R&D is an investment that has proven to yield a high return to our society. We urge you to invest in the National Science Foundation with a 7.1 percent increase for fiscal year 1998. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your attention and the opportunity to present these views. [The statement of Mr. Rousseau follows:] [Pages 853 - 857--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Dr. Rousseau, we appreciate both your patience and your willingness to be here. Let me say one more time that your entire statement, if you want to adjust it a little--I notice you crossed out several or most of the pages there. [Laughter.] We would be happy to receive it, and we do appreciate your support. We have just a few minutes left on a vote, and then we will have Dr. Paul Anderson of the American Chemical Society and Dr. David Applegate, American Geological Institute, those two being our last two witnesses of the day. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION WITNESS PAUL S. ANDERSON, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, AND SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES, DUPONT MERCK PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY Mr. Lewis. Dr. Anderson, why don't you come right on up here. Welcome. Mr. Anderson. Thank you very much for the opportunity. I also assume our full statement will be entered. I would like to point out that I do represent the American Chemical Society and its 152,000 members across the Nation. Also, I am a senior vice president for chemical and physical sciences at DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Company. Today I would like to begin my testimony by giving you a chemist's view of the value of NSF as a strategic investment in the quality of life and continued economic competitiveness of America. Chemists are proud of the contributions that they have made to the understanding of life processes, and to improving agricultural yields, the clothes we wear, the cars we drive, the food we eat, the homes in which we live, and many other everyday items. We are also proud of our efforts to preserve and protect the environment and the contributions of the chemical and allied products industry to our Nation's economy. We believe that NSF has played a major role in making all of these accomplishments possible, in the sense that they have been behind many of the discoveries which have, in fact, led to new businesses, because the essential ingredients are long-term fundamental research, well-training individuals, and a sustained emphasis on science and math education as a way of acquiring the resources and tools that are needed to make scientific discoveries and advances. In our judgment, there is no question that the Nation's future prosperity--indeed, our world leadership--depends on a rich and diverse scientific knowledge base. NSF is not only uniquely equipped with the ability to enable that, but within the Federal Government, the foundation is uniquely charged with that responsibility. To do this, NSF partners with universities and industry to ensure that federal investments are sound and leveraged. Using the merit review process, NSF supports the best university- based research opportunities that exist. The products of these efforts--new knowledge and well-educated, highly skilled graduates--are intellectual capital for U.S. industry. Industry, in turn, through the sales of products developed with this intellectual capital, generates revenue and tax dollars that ultimately flow back to the federal and state governments. The chemical and allied products industry, for example, has produced a positive balance of trade for more than 40 years, and in 1996, posted a $16.9 billion surplus on total exports of $61.7 billion. With this relatively small federal investment in chemistry, the returns of this investment to the Nation are enormous and vital to the economy. Science and technology, without question, are long-term investments. To develop the cadre of individuals capable of pursuing cutting-edge research requires many years of up-front investment. Students already in their elementary school years need to be exposed to the richness and excitement that science offers. The Foundation, through its Education and Human Resources Directorate, supports a host of creative science and mathematics education programs that seek to ensure a scientifically-literate workforce and to develop capable scientists and engineers. The Foundation acts as a catalyst for innovative ideas and methodologies for teaching science. Through its efforts, students across the country are becoming excited about science and mathematics. These investments are developing the future researchers and they, in turn, will help ensure our Nation's future prosperity. We as a Nation, as noted by the administration and by this Congress, need to remain committed to science education. To continue progress and to ensure our Nation's future, the American Chemical Society believes that NSF should be funded in the range of seven percent above the fiscal year 1997 levels. Few agencies within the Federal Government contribute more to the future vitality of America than does the National Science Foundation. We recognize that the financial resources of the Federal Government are limited, yet there is a real need to invest now so that we can have a healthier tomorrow. Therefore, the Society's recommendation reflects a balance between investing in a healthier America while curtailing federal spending. The Society contends that strengthening the National Science Foundation will stand as an important achievement of the 105th Congress, for both its foresight and its commitment to a better standard of living for all Americans. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have at this time. [The statement of Mr. Anderson follows:] [Pages 860 - 873--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Dr. Anderson. We appreciate your being with us. I'm sorry about the votes. But your entire statement will appear in the record. Mr. Anderson. Thank you very much. ---------- Thursday, May 1, 1997. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION WITNESS DAVID APPLEGATE, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN GEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE Mr. Lewis. Our last witness for today is Dr. David Applegate. It's the end of the day. Mr. Applegate. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mollohan. Thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of fiscal year 1998 appropriations for the National Science Foundation. I am Dr. David Applegate, and I am here to represent the American Geological Institute, which is a nonprofit federation of 31 societies in the geosciences, that represent over 100,000 geologists, geophysicists, and other earth scientists. I'm a geologist myself, and so I particularly appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of NSF funding. I received funding as a graduate fellowship from NSF, as well as to do geological research in the Death Valley region of California, looking at the structures there. I believe a year ago you were trying to get the ranking member to come out and visit Death Valley in the summertime, and he was not very interested in doing that. Mr. Lewis. Death Valley is in the heart of my district. Mr. Applegate. Yes. The structures and the faults there, as well as further west, pose a continuous threat to the citizens, although perhaps not quite like they show it in the movies. Mr. Lewis. I hope not. Mr. Applegate. I hope not as well. Natural hazards reduction is just one example of a national priority issue in which geoscience research and information enhance society's ability to make wise policy decisions. The earthquake tremors that shook California this past weekend, as well as the rushing floodwaters of the Red River of the North that struck Grand Forks, ND--and earlier floods in California, as well as the Ohio River Valley--are powerful reminders of the havoc that natural hazards cause. In the past decade, earthquakes and floods have resulted in tens of billions of dollars in losses. If recent history is a reliable guide, then federal investments in R&D on geologic hazards will be repaid many times over by reduced losses, reduced loss of tax revenues, and reduced expenditure for federal emergency and disaster relief funds. NSF has an ongoing initiative in active tectonics research to improve our fundamental understanding of earthquakes, volcanoes, and other geologic hazards. Natural disasters, global climate change, the need for energy resources, and water quality issues are reported daily by the news media, and tackling these issues requires a firm knowledge of earth sciences and of the Earth and its processes. Both the Federal Government and the Nation clearly have a stake in maintaining the health of the basic science on which these policy decisions ultimately must be based. NSF is America's premier agency for basic research and science education, and it plays a pivotal role in maintaining our preeminence in science and technology. Past investments in NSF-supported research have paid off handsomely, affecting almost every sector of American life. This subcommittee has shown a great deal of leadership in protecting NSF's budget in recent years, for which we're very grateful, and that leadership will be even more critical in the coming year. In this time of fiscal constraints, it is imperative that we do not starve scientific research that fuels economic growth and improves our health, safety, and quality of life. The NSF Directorate for Geosciences is the principal source of federal support for research in earth, oceanographic, and atmospheric sciences conducted at U.S. universities. AGI urges Congress to reaffirm its commitment to science by fully funding the President's fiscal year 1998 budget request for this directorate as part of NSF's overall request of $3.27 billion. AGI further urges that funding for the agency be increased to $3.5 billion, an amount consistent with authorizing legislation that recently passed the House, as well as the call by the Coalition for National Science Funding, for a 7.1 percent increase. These proposed increases I hope represent a modest investment in the future of our Nation and our planet at a time when we can ill-afford not to make that investment. We also encourage the subcommittee to fully support the NSF Directorate for Education and Human Resources,which plays a crucial role in improving the Nation's scientific literacy. Because most human activities involve interactions with the Earth, our citizens need a basic understanding of our planet in order to make informed decisions about the delicate balance between resource utilization and environmental protection. Improved teaching methods and new educational technology, combined with curriculum improvements in the new national science standards from the National Academy of Sciences, may help to capture and hold the curiosity and enthusiasm of students and better prepare them for the workplace of the 21st century. I appreciate this opportunity to testify before the committee, and would like my full statement included in the record. [The statement of Mr. Applegate follows:] [Pages 876 - 886--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Dr. David Applegate, of the American Geological Institute. It was a pleasure to be with you. Mr. Applegate. Thank you. Mr. Lewis. We anticipate a very difficult year, but in this subcommittee there is a commitment to NSF's work, as well as both our responsibility for applied and basic research. So we appreciate your appearance. With that, Miss Meek, the Committee will be adjourned until 10:00 a.m., Friday, May 2nd, at which time we hope to conclude our public witness period for the 1998 fiscal year. You have been more than helpful, and I appreciate it. Mrs. Meek. Thank you. Mr. Lewis. We are adjourned. Friday, May 2, 1997. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS WITNESSES RICHARD SURRATT, ASSISTANT NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS JOHN BOLLINGER, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA JAMES MAGILL, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WAR VERONICA A'ZERA, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AMVETS Mr. Lewis. The meeting will come to order. First on our agenda is the Independent Veterans Budget Group. Mr. Richard Surratt and your guests, whomever you want to have up, you can introduce them. But, remember, your testimony must be brief. Disabled American Veterans, Mr. John Bollinger; Paralyzed Veterans of America, Mr. James Magill. Mr. Magill. I am with the VFW. Mr. Lewis. Okay. Legislative Director. Okay. The way this is outlined here is difficult for me, because I am not thinking about it individually. I am thinking about it as a group. Anyway, would you--proceed as you would like. Your entire testimony, as you present it, will be included in the record. We have maybe about 50 witnesses today, so I am going to ask people to summarize their statements as much as possible. Okay. Mr. Surratt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing the Independent Budget to come before this Subcommittee and testify again. This is the 11th year that we have published the Independent Budget. As you probably know, the responsibilities are divided among the four coauthors. DAV handles the benefits part and the general operating expenses part. PVA handles the medical care part, VFW handles construction, and AmVets handles national cemeteries. With your permission, I would like to proceed and testify on behalf of the DAV and then have Mr. Bollinger testify on behalf of the PVA on medical care and Mr. Magill on the construction part and Mrs. Veronica A'zera on the national cemetery system. Mr. Lewis. Please. Mr. Surratt. As I said, I am Rick Surratt with the Disabled American Veterans. My remarks today will focus on the general operating expenses appropriation. As an organization of more than one million service- connected disabled veterans, DAV has a special interest in the effectiveness of the benefit programs and their delivery. Over the past several years, the effectiveness of the compensation and pension program has been diminished because of large claims backlogs and resulting long delays in benefit decisions and awards. This has been an area of major concern in the Congress and in the veterans' community. We have been critical of VA's failure to take decisive and meaningful action, but we believe VA now has a good preliminary plan to correct the problems. We, therefore, support VA's concept for reengineering its business processes to achieve more efficiency in the claims adjudication system. We believe VA's plan follows from an objective, thorough analysis of its performance and a candid acknowledgment that the current situation is primarily the product of an emphasis on quantity, rather than quality, and the absence of incentives and accountability for quality. VA has identified the deficiencies and strengths of the current system and formulated a plan to correct its deficiencies while maintaining and building on its strengths. VA will do this through simple but effective work process and procedural changes, complemented by a new culture of quality decision making and improved service to veterans. To overcome poor quality, VA will introduce new training programs, more meaningful quality measurement standards and better quality enforcement mechanisms with individual accountability. A new integrated claims process will replace the current segmented or compartmentalized assembly line process. Under the current process, each employee in the sequence is responsible for only that one step that is and is not concerned with the completion or quality of the whole and final product. The new process places all activities within a decision team that will more closely work with the veterans to achieve the proper result. Also, under the new process, mistakes and decisions can be remedied much more promptly and efficiently. These process changes do not involve the trial-and-error approach of the untested, unproven and disruptive redesign measures advocated by others, such as the Veterans Claims Adjudication Commission. We do caution that the success of this new plan depends on many of the details of implementation yet to be formulated, and I want complete dedication and full resolve to change the current culture in claims processing. The concept, as presented, is a sound one, however. We urge you to support VA strategy for improving claims processing. VA must be provided the necessary resources to accomplish this plan. This leads to a concern we have about the administration's budget request. The administration proposes to make more deep cuts in Veterans Benefits Administration staffing during fiscal year 1998--543 FTE overall and 100 in Compensation and Pension Service alone. It is logical to conclude that long-term efficiency obtained through qualityimprovements will require an investment of resources initially. It is difficult to see how the more individualized, personal interaction with veterans envisioned in the new plan can be accomplished with fewer employees. Even VA does not project that it will realize these new efficiencies in the first year. VA does not expect to attain its goals until the year 2002 when the plan is fully implemented. The Independent Budget recommends that current staffing levels be at least maintained in the Veterans Benefits Administration. Similarly, we note that the administration proposes a reduction of 26 FTE in the Office of General Counsel at a time when appeals to the Court of Veterans Appeals are on the rise. The Court of Veterans Appeals has on several occasions reminded the VA that it is obligated to devote sufficient resources to its representation of the Secretary before the Court to comply with the time limits in the courts rules. The Court and appellants have become impatient with VA's repeated motions for extension of time which delay veterans' appeals for months. Mr. Chairman, we ask that you give careful attention to our recommendations in the Independent Budget for all VA programs. Of course, I would be happy to answer any questions you have today about our views. In closing, I would like to thank you and the other members of this subcommittee for your interest in a budget that will be fair to our Nation's veterans. That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much. [The information follows:] [Pages 892 - 898--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Why don't we proceed with the individual presenters and move from there. So, Mr. Bollinger. Mr. Bollinger. Thank you, sir. I am John Bollinger with Paralyzed Veterans of America; and I obviously am very much aware with the President's recommended budget and what has happened on the House and Senate committees, the authorizing committees. I guess it is troubling enough when you consider the Congress has rejected the legislation that the administration has asked for in the past, and it is troubling enough when you consider that these proposed cuts are going to be extended through 2002, as well as the fact that the VA is going to be treating an increasingly elderly population, and the fact that money is going to shift from the Northeast to the Southwest, and it comes at a time--just when Dr. Kizer and the VA are beginning this restructuring process that I think, if implemented properly, will be a good thing for the VA. But now the current status of the budget negotiations has placed veterans in our worst nightmare. It is a real worst-case scenario. If VA does get legislation to keep those third-party payments, veterans are now being asked to cover that loss to the deficit reduction by agreeing to accept $2 billion in permanent cuts to other programs for disabled veterans and for very needy veterans. Even if the authorizing committees agreed to let VA keep third-party collections, the amount collected will represent very little in terms of what the VA really needs to provide quality health care to veterans. Further, we know that the cost of collection remains exorbitant. I would like, if I may, to submit for the record a chart that comes from the administration's fiscal year 1998 budget. It shows that collections have actually fallen between 1995 and 1997 and costs to collect have increased steadily. So there is no question in our mind it is a real gamble to bank on this as the sole source of improving VA health care over the next five years. [The information follows:] [Page 900--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Bollinger. There is a lot of talk going around that VA can do more with less. The Independent Budget panel has always believed that, through eligibility reform and through restructuring, that the VA could attain increased efficiency; and it can. But, eventually, you come to a point of no return when efficiency turns into cutting or denying needed medical services for eligible veterans. The proposed budget cuts, coupled with untested legislation which may not, in fact, pass, will soon, in our opinion, devastate VA's ability to provide quality health care to veterans that need it. Both House and Senate Committees on Veterans Affairs have recognized the risk of the administration's budget and have replaced the MCCR collections with the real appropriated dollars. Although this is less than what the Independent Budget panel has recommended, we believe it is definitely a more reliable proposal than gambling on the MCCR funds; and, to be clear, the Independent Budget has always promoted the use of third-party medicare payments for VA, but it has always been as a supplement and not to replace real appropriated dollars. You know, we have heard lately that the administration has requested billions--in fact, I think it is $32 billion for new programs. At the same time, we read in the paper yesterday that the Treasury is going to be able to pay back in the amount of $65 billion to the deficit, and the deficit is the lowest it has been in 16 years. And while all this is going on, veterans health care funds are being frozen and the veterans community is really being almost blackmailed into accepting significant cuts and programs for service connected to veterans and poor veterans. We believe that this is most definitely not in the best interest of veterans; and if there are any winners here, it surely isn't going to be veterans. We believe that Congress should ensure that previous commitments are honored before new programs are entertained. Finally, I just want to--and it bears repeating, and I know you know it, but many of our members truly rely on the VA for their health care services. It is not like going down to your corner doctor and getting treatment. We rely on specialized service for prosthetics, for over- the-counter supplies that we use every day to get up in the morning and come to work and go about the business of living every day. From wheelchairs to pharmaceuticals, prosthetics, blind rehab, spinal chord injury care, amputations, these are oftentimes largely unmatched in excellence in the private sector. The VA does this sort of thing well, and for many disabled veterans and for our members it is truly the only game in town. So we would encourage you to restore the appropriated money to this budget. Thank you. Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Bollinger. [The information follows:] [Pages 902 - 907--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Let me call on James Magill, Legislative Director for the VFW. Mr. Magill. Thank you, sir. The VFW, of course, is tasked with the construction aspect. We are very concerned about the administration's request for construction in light of the eligibility to perform. We believe that the construction budget request falls way short in addressing VA's new role. We believe that new outpatient clinics need to be established, we believe that existing ones should be modernized, and all of this will only improve VA's ability to care for veterans at what we believe a reduced cost. With respect to long-term care, we have real serious concerns. VA needs to convert more hospital beds over to long- term care beds, they need to acquire additional nursing homes, and they must increase the access to community home-based care. With respect to major construction, we believe that VA must consider acquisition and conversion as an alternative. Leasing is a viable alternative for outpatient clinics and nursing homes. With respect to minor construction, most of the VA hospitals were filled in the 1950s. They need to be modernized, and they need to be repaired, actually. They are very--they are an aging facility. Something that we think is also very important is, with the minor construction, there is a ceiling that is put on the amount of money that can be spent; and we believe that, while we would strongly recommend that, consideration be given to adjust that annually only for the inflation rate. This doesn't include my construction program. I didn't go into the numbers and details because you have those. Mr. Lewis. We have those, right. Thank you. Mr. Magill. If I could just take a short amount of time to reemphasize what John said. With the reliance of additional or pending legislation to provide funding levels for health care, we believe that if they need the money, they should ask for it. It should not be contingent on a bill that, in all likelihood, is not assured of a passage. And I think, when you see the chart that John brought, it is a serious problem; and it is a gamble; and we also are very much opposed to it. That concludes my statement. Mr. Lewis. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Magill. [The information follows:] [Pages 909 - 914--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Next, let me call on Veronica A'zera, National Legislative Director for AmVets. Ms. A'zera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are very grateful for this opportunity to testify about the National Cemetery System, which is our part of the Independent Budget. You have my written testimony submitted, so I will just highlight a couple points. America's National Cemetery System has a long and proud history of service to Americans veterans and their families. Despite NCS's continued high standard of service and despite the administration's proposal for a $7 million increase in budget authority over fiscal year 1997 levels, the system has been and continues to be underfunded. The current and future requirements of NCS are simply not being adequately funded to meet the demands. Based on the 1990 census, annual veteran deaths are expected to peak at 620,000 in 2008. NCS will fall short of requirements to provide spaces for the veterans to seek burial in a national cemetery. Currently, only 57 of the 114 national cemeteries remain open with in-ground burial plots. By the year 2000, it is projected that only 53 cemeteries will be accepting full caskets. The independent budget is a factual analysis of the realistic funding required by the VA to carry out the many roles and missions designed to meet the needs of America's veterans. We urge the Congress and administration to support the VA's efforts to a reorganization and refocusing of its health care delivery system but spare the agency and the veterans from funding reductions in order to balance the budget. In order to accomplish this, here are some of our recommendations: The VA should at least add 60 more FTEs over the 1997 level to cover the NCS's incremental work load increases and maintain current services. There will still be a shortfall of nearly 270. The VA should provide at least an additional $4 million in funding to reduce NCS equipment backlog. The VA should aggressively pursue an open cemetery in each state. VA should actively expand existing national cemeteries wherever possible. And our Independent Budget recommendations cost out at approximately $85,550,000, which represents a little bit over a million increase over the fiscal year 1998 VA budget request. This concludes my statement, but I want to reemphasize what John said before. Mr. Lewis. I appreciate that. Miss A'zera, I have two spellings of your name. Is it A'zera? Ms. A'zera. Zera. Mr. Lewis. Okay. I have zara on one and zera on the other, so I apologize. [The information follows:] [Pages 916 - 921--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. I want to make sure the record is clear. I think that the commentary regarding the NCS is understood by all of us, but some careful attention and focus by the authorizing committee as well as oversight is not only helpful but necessary. But let me just kind of throw out a postulate and have whatever reaction you would like. It comes from my own experience in my district and commentary coming from colleagues of mine on both sides of the aisle. Over these past several years, the authorizing committee has generally been very supportive of the veterans' organizations and their advocacy; and the appropriations committee has been reasonably certain and comparatively responsive overall. Nonetheless, there has persisted in districts like mine an environment where, as a result of our aggressively working with our veterans' groups in our community, we have come to have the sense that within a major veteran's hospital, a major medical complex, the average veteran has grown to anticipate long waits for service in spite of the fact that there is a pretty substantial level of personnel available, at least in that facility, attitudes on the part of personnel that almost would put numbers on the foreheads of veterans, rather than an interhuman response and, from time to time, I must say something less than the high-quality level of service that you described being available--at least potentially available-- within veterans' organizations, the medical assistance. I am very disconcerted about that. If the Congress passes authorizations that suggest that we have this long-term obligation and responsibility and appropriations are made and--for example, within the cemetery system, the percentage of dollars that go to administration in Washington causes me to scratch my head. So I am looking for general commentary and reaction. So I would like to have a sense if these impressions are a reflection of your impressions or not. Mr. Bollinger. Well, Mr. Chairman, there is no question that in many facilities you will find long waiting lines, there are some management problems. I know, myself, when I go out to 50 Irving Street here in Washington, D.C., for the VA hospital, you get there at 8:00 o'clock in the morning and you can see the tension kind of grow over the morning between the people behind the desk and the veterans waiting to be served. No question, that is a problem. I am not so sure that is a problem that doesn't exist in the private sector as well many places you go. I can tell you without question--and I speak for PVA here; I don't know across the board--but I can tell you that between--around 70 percent of our members use the VA health care system. As far as the multi-disciplinary care that spinal chord injury veterans need, it just isn't out there in the private sector, with very few exceptions. And we know that these specialized services, including blind rehab and amputations and just the AIDS population that the VA treats, is incredible. We know that in the case of these specialized services, our members can't get them elsewhere; and, for the most part, the VA does a very good job providing this unique kind of care. And it can't exist in a vacuum and coupled with all the tertiary care services the VA offers, we think it is a resource worth preserving. You know, when you look at all the incredible research that has come out of VA over the years, this is another thing where the administration's budget has come up way short. We believe that, without the continuity, the consistency that research money provides, that all Americans, not just veterans, are going to be losers in this one. So we would--in addition to the appropriated money, we think research is an awful important element of this whole thing that needs your support. Mr. Lewis. Any others? Mr. Magill. I would just suggest that we also--and I have heard problems, but I don't think it is throughout the system. We have got some good hospitals, and we have got some good employees--and others-- we may have some that aren't quite up to the standard that we would like. The VFW has numerous volunteers that work in each of the VA medical centers, where we rely on them, that if there is a problem, they can get the attention of the medical director. We also send our professional staff out to all hospitals, not every year, of course, but I think they average at least every 2 years. And that is one of the things that we try to find out right away: Are the veterans being served in a timely fashion? And---- Mr. Lewis. If I could interrupt. I must say, the volunteers have been very helpful in terms of working with my own staff in my district location. But it is through that joint effort that we not only brought some of these problems to the highest level of attention within the local administration--indeed, we brought it all the way to the Secretary because we were not getting the response down where people are. And it is very disconcerting to this Member that we have a commitment here--I don't want veterans' medical care systems to be a reflection of the worst of that which people in their minds eye fear about socialized medicine. We often say, my God, you don't want to be in England and get your health care. But in our veterans systems, too often-- at least we get feedback that indicates our veterans are getting the worst of that. Some would rather go to Canada, on the other hand. It is disconcerting, at least in terms of our experience. And this is not the newest hospital, but it is certainly not the oldest, the Jerry Pettis Memorial Hospital, which was a replacement after an earthquake loss. Nonetheless, I am interested in that feedback and on-going communication from you and your organization. Ms. A'zera. Just to tag along with what Mr. Bollinger said, there are also the good stories; and research alone came up. The VA came up with the cat scan, the nicotine patch. I mean, a lot of good stories come out of it also. There can be an argument, too, that with less funding that is going to make them even worse at the hospital; and services would go down after that. So I guess the answer is to keep it up there so we can improve on services and keep it where it should be and, hopefully, improve it. Mr. Lewis. Miss Meek, do you have any questions? Mrs. Meek. No, I don't have any questions. First, I wondered about how this panel is constituted, but they are coming in with the viewpoint from the veterans themselves. Mr. Lewis. That is right--and represent a mix of the groups' interests as well. We want to have an on-going communication beyond theformal meeting. Sometimes I wonder if personalized communication is better than formal meetings; but, from time to time, we need to have it on the record as well. I must say I spent a lot of time reviewing that of which Dr. Kizer is about, and the desire to reorganize in a fashion that provides more flexible response to veterans' needs is a very worthy objective and some of the goals are very healthy. But they can't go forward effectively without adequate funding. That is for certain. We do have questions that are difficult to deal with. But you live in the Midwest, and you see populations moving to the Southwest and to the West, and you see vacation movement to Florida during the right weather, et cetera. Often that is on the part of veterans who either planned well or have more than others. In the meantime, you scratch your head about these huge palaces of bricks and mortar that are now no longer shining palaces but, rather, run-down brick and mortar often. How you deal with that, whether the clinical movement to clinics and so forth has more logic---- I can tell you this. The veterans who drive from Bishop, which is four and a half hours, at 70 miles an hour, to Pettis Memorial would do better with a clinic; and you are not going to be able to serve the deserving where you can put four Eastern states easily, you know, without that process. I think we have to be willing to look but, at the same time, look with great care. With that, I thank you; and I appreciate you being here. For the record, I wish we all were together at the Franklin Delano Roosevelt dedication today. Mr. Surratt. I think we can all agree with that. ---------- Friday, May 2, 1997. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS WITNESS SVEN BURSELL, SCIENTIFIC DIRECTOR, JOSLIN VISION NETWORK, JOSLIN DIABETES CENTER Mr. Lewis. Let's see. We are just about on schedule, aren't we? I can see that you have a summarized statement already, and you know you can supplement it for the record, so please proceed. Mr. Bursell. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, and staff, I would like to thank you very much for the opportunity to present a program which could be of immense value to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Mr. Lewis. For the record, this is Dr. Sven Bursell, who is the scientific director of the Joslin Diabetes Center. Mr. Bursell. And just in parenthesis, Joslin Diabetes Center is one of the Harvard medical institutions in Boston. Mr. Lewis. I can almost tell by your accent. Excuse me. Mr. Bursell. Now I am totally off my script. Mr. Lewis. That was my intention. Mr. Bursell. At Joslin, our research and patient care teams have been involved in new advances in diabetes care for nearly 100 years and have developed methods of diabetes care which will improve the health status of the 26 million veterans and significantly reduce the cost of providing health services for them. Diabetes, among veterans and their families, mirrors the effects of this common and devastating disease in the overall population. There are over 26 million veterans whose health care is covered by the Department of Veterans' Affairs; 786,000 of them are known to have diabetes, and an equal number have yet to be diagnosed. In dealing with diabetes, people often forget it is a chronic disease, because of insulin therapy; it allows most diabetic patients to lead normal lives. However, even with insulin, the complications of diabetes can be devastating. For example, nearly all diabetic patients will develop eye complications at some time in their life. At a certain stage of diabetic eye complications, data shows that 70 out of 100 of the patients, if they are not treated, will go blind within 5 years. If the 100 patients are accessed into appropriate and timely treatment, only 1 in 100 will go blind. So, basically, Joslin Diabetes Center is the largest and most comprehensive diabetes research inpatient care resource in the world, and we would like to join with the Department of Veterans' Affairs to address this largely hidden, yet devastating, costly problem of diabetes, and we hope that with the implementation of our proposed program, that we can assure that we stop the 70 in 100 incidents of blindness and potentially reduce that to 1 in 100. There are three major components in the type of programwe are proposing. The first is the detection of undiagnosed diabetes, and diabetes--this is what I am talking about, type 2 diabetes--is largely asymptomatic. And I think it is asymptomatic because when you start to feel run down and tired, you attribute it to old age and you don't think about diabetes, so that is why it can be a chronic problem. Recently, we have developed a noninvasive method for detecting diabetes in the general population, a method based on shining a low-intensity blue light into the lens of the eye and measuring the light that comes back to the measurement instrument. In diabetes, where blood sugars are high, it affects the nature of the proteins in the lens of the eye, and that, in turn, affects the characteristics of the light signal that we measure. So using the changes in light signal, we can detect diabetes without having to take a blood or urine sample. The measurement itself takes about 4 seconds, and you will know whether or not a patient has the risk for diabetes. Mr. Lewis. And the level of accuracy? Mr. Bursell. The level of accuracy is around 80 to 90 percent specificity and sensitivity for detecting diabetes, screening for diabetes in the general population, and that is at least as good, if not better, than the glucose tolerance test, which is a 3-hour blood test for detecting diabetes. Mrs. Meek. Is this procedure in current practice? Mr. Bursell. The technology for this procedure is currently undergoing a commercialization. The company essentially licensed the technology from us, and it is currently going to be marketed by Beringer Mannheim. I have been in contact with the company, and they said because of my association, they will provide some instrumentation that will allow us to access the veterans population to screen for diabetes. Mrs. Meek. Okay. Mr. Bursell. So---- Mr. Lewis. If I could, to follow up on Mrs. Meek's question, what you are suggesting here is that the technology is developed, it is in the process of commercialization; that means that it would be--that the technology, as well as the technique itself, would be promoted among optometrists. Mr. Bursell. It could be, or you could set it up in a mall. Mr. Lewis. In a clinic setting? Mr. Bursell. In any clinic situation, Lens Crafters or any place that has access to the general population of the patients that may have diabetes. Mr. Lewis. For my staff, I would like to have us look at an evaluation of the increased costs of medical care delivery to veterans that are directly linked to adult onset diabetes--I think they are very substantial numbers--and then relate that to the technology like this. Mr. Bursell. I think in--I know that in the general care arena, it costs about 14 to 15 thousand dollars per year in medicare/medicaid patients, for diabetic patients who have gone blind. So if you can prevent them from going blind, obviously, you can realize those savings. Mr. Lewis. It is certainly obvious the potential impact upon quality of life is important. But beyond that, if you are looking at appropriations and oversight, the added expense has to be very real. Mr. Bursell. The second component of this proposal is a telemedicine strategy which we call the Joslin Vision Network. As I said, it is a telemedicine application, uses industry standard protocols, and the platform itself consists of three basic components. The first is what is referred to as the remote exam station, and that facilitates a video image capture of eye images, entry of relevant medical record information, computerized medical record system, and the transmission of these images, medical information, over phone lines to central sites, where they can be interpreted by skilled opthalmologists or trained readers, the philosophy being that the eye exam should be as routine as a blood pressure measurement, so that when a diabetic patient comes into the clinic, they have the blood pressure taken, they have the blood test done and the eye exam. And the eye exam, the way we designed it, takes about 5 minutes to acquire the correct images. The training is minimal, even though it is high-tech computer equipment. The computer equipment is transparent to the user, so it is very easy to use. We have trained noncomputer people in about a half an hour to use the system. Mr. Lewis. I must say that this is being very simplistic, I know, but we have gotten to enjoy in many ways, even though I am disconcerted by the time waiting in the lobbies of hospitals, but these guys--and I use the term largely; it is guys--they get to know each other and their buddies, and they are playing cards and whatever they do, but while they are doing that, they could also wander over to a unit in the lobby, and a nonskilled, high-paid person could easily--to make sure people got the tests. But beyond that, it seems to me, it isn't a far stretch to have a computer connection between that machine and that patient's records, and automatically somewhere there would be a flash to indicate there is a problem here. Mr. Bursell. Exactly. And that is the second component of our telemedicine application, is the images are automatically transmitted to a central site, be it telephone line, two-one connections, ISDA connections. And at that site, the images are read by a trained reader, and what is generated automatically from those findings is a diagnosis with respect to the level of retinopathy. And to go with the other medical record information, we can send immediately back to the remote site in a position what the diagnosis is, what the recommended treatment plan is, and recommend plans for future treatment. Mr. Lewis. Very interesting. I appreciate that. Essentially, you have taken me to the heart of what you wanted to say; I can see that. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Mr. Bursell. You are quite welcome. [The information follows:] [Pages 928 - 933--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Friday, May 2, 1997. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS WITNESS R. DALE WALKER, M.D., CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY, OREGON HEALTH SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, PORTLAND, OREGON, AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION Mr. Lewis. Dr. Dale Walker. Dr. Walker is Chairman of the Department of Psychology at Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland. He is here representing the American Psychiatric Association. I would like to welcome you. Dr. Walker. Just a correction. I am Chair of the Department of Psychiatry. Mr. Lewis. Did I say ``psychiatry''? Dr. Walker. You said ``psychology.'' Mr. Lewis. That is because I have a son who is a psychologist. Dr. Walker. Well, we are friends in our department, so we work well. It is an interesting time for me to be here with you. In some sense, I am asking you to support and spend money and prioritize money that sometimes you probably wonder if you have. And, indeed, we are trying to figure out some way to provide good care. You made an interesting comment earlier about a long-term obligation, and that certainly strikes true to me. I have worked in the VA for 20 years, directing the alcohol/drug programs and the Seattle VA, and we had the first center of excellence for substance abuse treatment and education in addictions in Seattle. I have worked long and hard in that. I am also a veteran. So I come to you with a great deal of feeling about a need to maintain that obligation and in some way that makes sense for the patients that we all see and take care of. Now, as representing the American Psychiatric Association here today, I am speaker in the assembly, which is a little bit like Congress, in the House of Representatives, and your life, and in that process of representing 41,000 psychiatrists, I wanted to let you know a little bit. We certainly advocate for more health care funds for the VA system. We also want special attention, though, to be spent on what is happening with the chronically ill patients in the VA. Again, the spokesperson before me talked about chronic illnesses. The VA is one of those important facilities in the world that looks at illnesses over time. It is the largest health care system in the world that manages patients for long- term illnesses, and as this country is being redirected, in managed care, to look at acute illnesses, a lot of concern should be spent looking at these patients and their access to care and the kinds of things that can help them in better ways. Now the important thing I wanted to share with you is that chronic mental illnesses, including addictions, are treatable, diagnosable, they are cost-effective, and if one develops prevention and stabilization strategies, over time you do reduce health care dollars for these individuals, you do help and assist in housing for homelessness and working with acute medical problems that are the indirect relation to alcohol and drug problems, for instance. And I wanted to let you know a little bit about the need to pay attention to the specialized programs and some safeguards to protect those programs which Congress, by the way, has supported and advocated over the last two decades. The posttraumatic stress disorder program is clearly a high priority within the VA system. However, it needs to develop better day hospital and treatment programs for patients who are seeking help. The interesting conflict is, if you develop day hospital and longer-term-care programs, by definition you are seeing those patients in an intensive way. That is in conflict with the funding mechanism of seeing more individuals, if I might say, in some of the less desirable ways, more social security numbers. It is the funding mechanism process. Chronic illness care means more than a social security number, and we need to develop a special mechanism for funding these groups. One looking at substance abuse programs has to examine, first of all, the stabilization of care. You all know that lots of impatient programs in alcohol and drug treatment have changed as the emphasis has been going to outpatient care. The problem, though, is that in 1996 the VA saw fewer veterans in treatment for alcohol and drug than it saw since 1990, when the original expansion proposals by Congress were recommended. So there is a transition and a redirecting of funding from programs that needs to be looked at and, I think, needs to be a major concern. The other issue for substance abuse is the importance of having training programs provide skilled people to give the care to the veterans. This is a national issue, not just a VA issue, of providing training for skilled, experienced people to work in this area. The VA, I would say to you, has the best program around, and I hope that it will continue in its training. That leads me to another issue I would like to tell you about, and that is the important relationship of VA's to medical schools. They are absolutely directly related and dependent upon one another in training. If the VA system is destabilized in its training system, the medical schools are affected, and vice versa. That partnership of deans, committees, hospitals, is, I think, unique. It has provided wonderful building blocks to provide training and good care across the country. We are very proud of that process, I think both the Seattle and Portland area, where I have trained and done my work, and I would like to see that continued as well. Mr. Lewis. As we are at Loma Linda. Dr. Walker. Yes, indeed. I have done some work at Loma Linda as well, as a matter of fact, and saw the hospital open originally. Mrs. Meek. He is a scholar, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lewis. Let me take a moment, if you will. I am interested in maybe a specific illustration. Let me describe an individual in hopes that it might reflect a broader need. Somewhere in the 1940s, that person found himself in the Pacific, maybe a corpsman, in horrendous circumstances, seeing associates slaughtered. It impacted enough to come back as a result of a nervous breakdown. It goes on with his or her, quote, normal life, raises a family. But over all those years, let's assume that the person might be a Marine and he meets another Marine, and the Marine wants to talk about the war. This is a Marine who is on active duty, let's say. And that person reacts in a fashion that absolutely causes him to close down. He does not want to discuss that history, never discusses that history. This is 50 years later. Is that a pattern? Dr. Walker. I am familiar with those kinds of stories. In looking at posttraumatic stress, there is an acute process that one might look at the first 3 years, but there are also two other pieces to think about. There is a long-term process, which is what you are suggesting, and, indeed, there is documentation, and I have seen people from the Bataan Death March who have had these experiences and play those tapes back and, indeed, you are there. The same is true intergenerationally, that families who have suffered great tragedies pass that information to their next family, and, indeed, they too can experience the loss and the incredible pain of that horror, that tragedy. Clearly, psychiatric care works in those kinds of situations, and it is very, very useful. One of the problems is how--we have to overcome the stigma of dealing with these issues in an open and honest way, as opposed to somehow having to feel the shame as well as the pain. And that, for me, is the uncoupling that we have to do. And I think that, again, the VA has opened up the whole posttraumatic stress process that is existing everywhere else in every other medical care center, but here, because of the tragedy of war, it is allowed to be something to be talked about. Mr. Lewis. Very interesting. Maybe this FDR memorial syndrome has me asking these questions today, but nonetheless. Dr. Walker. Well, I have appreciated your sensitivity. And you made another comment about, patients are more than just numbers and something about long waits, and having been on the caretaking side, in a system that barely manages the staff, I would tell you that is a serious problem, and those of us who have worked in the VA need to remember the importance that these patients need to be followed through individually, not as numbers, not in lines; they are no longer in the military. Mr. Lewis. That is right. Dr. Walker. And that is something we need to do more effectively. Mr. Lewis. Dr. Walker, I appreciate you being here and for your formal testimony. We welcome you being with us. Thank you. Dr. Walker. I greatly appreciate it. Thank you. [The information follows:] [Pages 937 - 941--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Friday, May 2, 1997. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS WITNESS HENRY FERNANDEZ, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS IN HEALTH ADMINISTRATION Mr. Lewis. Mr. Henry Fernandez, President and CEO of the Association of University Programs in Health Administration, welcome. Mr. Fernandez. Thank you. Mr. Lewis. My staff is chiding me quietly. I am kind of rambling around today. Mr. Fernandez. Well, I certainly have enjoyed this morning's meeting, Mr. Chairman, and I am delighted to be here with you and Mrs. Meeks. I am the President and CEO of the Association of University Programs in Health Administration. By way of background, the AUPHA represents every world class higher education institution that contains an accredited graduate or undergraduate health management educational program and prepares new practitioners for health management, as well as more seasoned managers. We are very much involved in the field as a whole. Besides our 109 university programs, we have over 200 affiliate members, which are primarily health care institutions and providers of service on health care. We also have over 120 international members in 150 countries. So it is really an international consortium. In California alone, we have nine members, including your alma mater UCLA. In Florida, we have seven members; the University of Florida and the University of Miami are outstanding members of our collaborative, graduates on every level of the health care system. They administer some of the Nation's largest and most complex and most successful health care institutions. We have historically had a really good working relationship with the Federal Government through HRSA, the Health Resources and Services Administration. We support the training of graduate students in health management. We work through AID in improving the health care delivery systems from the Newly Independent States all the way through and to Latin America. AUPHA and its member university programs are resourced to our Government and represent part of a solid practical investment and a cost-effective health care system. Indeed, in the past year this resource has been playing a substantial role in improving the managerial infrastructure at the VHA. Mr. Chairman, you recall last year I shared with you a new venture that we were engaging in with the Veterans' Health Administration that we both believed would result in substantial improvements in management and functioning of the VHA. It was a modest project, one that put together some of the Nation's outstanding health management educators to work with senior administrators at facilities and networks within the VHA to train them in the management methods, techniques, and practices. The program was targeted specifically atchief planning information and financial officers and other senior managers with significant line responsibilities. We also crafted a really unique feature in the membership, one that created opportunities to link the higher ed case institution as a whole with the VHA in a new and dynamic way, and it provided a mechanism for the mentors, the faculty, to continue to work, not just simply within workshops that were episodic, but throughout the entire year with seasoned managers. You were responsive to this effort, Mr. Chairman. In your 1997 appropriations bill, you expressly supported the continuation and expansion of the relationship. I want to report to you on the success of this past year, Mr. Chairman. We are now engaged in a broad-scale partnership with the VHA at both the national and even the VISN levels, where we are providing considerable management training to addressing the needs of administrators throughout the system. We are conducting a second national program for senior executives at the VAMC and VISN levels, building on last year's success, and, equally important, we just concluded a new and specially tailored program for VISN 8 which includes Florida and Puerto Rico, Mrs. Meeks, and we are drawing on the success of that national program. We hope to expand these types of learning relationships to the advantage of the VA and the veterans population it serves. These efforts have exposed VHA managers to the best practices in the private sector, and it will help them and their clinical leadership to deal more effectively with their private sector counterparts as they develop a role in comprehensive systems of care within the evolving and restructured VHA system. We think very much so that what we are doing is going to ensure the vision for change and prescription of change that the leadership of the VHA have defined in the recent past. You concluded last year that there are other areas for potential savings that included management and coordination of medical centers, and we agree, we will be working in that regard. And last year we found sound management training at the VHA senior managers, conducted by these leading academic experts and practitioners in the country, is critical to this important reform effort at the VHA if it is going to meet its future challenge. We want to continue to work with the committee, Mr. Chairman, in fashioning a strong program that will turn the VHA system into a model for the efficient delivery of health care, and we think we are starting in that direction. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and share with you the success of the past year. We look forward to working with you and your staff and certainly the VHA in meeting your goals of fine quality, cost-effective services for all veterans. [The information follows:] [Pages 944 - 956--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Fernandez. This all comes under the title or the topic of, ``Physician, heal thyself.'' Very interesting. Mr. Fernandez. In large measure, sir. Thank you. Mr. Lewis. Mrs. Meek. Mrs. Meek. That is fine. I don't have any questions. ---------- Friday, May 2, 1997. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS WITNESS CHARLES L. CALKINS, NATIONAL EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION Chairman Lewis. Mr. Charles Calkins, National Executive Secretary, Fleet Reserve Association. You know the standard pattern here. Your entire statement will be included in the record, and we welcome your testimony. Mr. Calkins. I will try to make it as brief as possible, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for allowing us to be here. I am accompanied today by Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy, Joe Barnes, retired, and Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, Mack McKinny, retired, and, of course, Master Chief Tom Snee, also retired. Our membership is more than 162,000 active-duty, retired and Reserve members of the Navy, Marine Corporation and Coast Guard veterans, and, of course, that is why we are here. I know you have seen our statement, and we have quite a shopping list in there. I will try to condense it as much as possible. The fact is that Joe and I worked on this a few days to try to get it down to a summary. I will even make that a bit briefer. We do support the request for the $19.7 billion for compensation and pensions and we also request the additional funds from the oversight committees. We believe it is unfair to deny reinstatement of dependency and indemnity compensation to widows whose subsequent spouse has either passed away or divorced. The Fleet Reserve Association does not support a decrease in COLAs based on the presupposition that the CPI is inflated, particularly when it is not supported with sufficient scientific data. We strongly support the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs request for an additional $175 million to improve the Veterans Educational Assistance Program. The Montgomery GI bill is sorely in need of improvement, and with current benefits running far below the costs of the undergraduate program. Legislation was enacted last year authorizing military personnel to switch over to the Montgomery GI bill from VEAP. However, the interpretation of what constituted an active VEAP account left out thousands of service members since they no longer had the funds in their accounts, and they were advised by the respective counsels in their respective services to take their money out, to close their accounts. Of course, the result is they have no accounts and they can't transfer. We urge Congress to halt the discriminating practice of requiring military retirees to waive retirement pay in order to receive VA disability compensation. We would like to see that passed through. Hopefully, military retirees will soon be placed in a higher priority for the VA medical facilities. Health care is really quite an issue, and, of course, we would look for your support on military subvention when it starts to work its way through the House. I think that is a much-needed program. Of course, the VA subvention plan will also help. We, again, urge support for the requested funding for the national cemetery systems and form our State cemetery systems. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the opportunity to be here before you and your committee, and we wish you a lot of luck. There is an awful lot of things out there, and we must not forget the veterans. Mr. Lewis. We appreciate the input of the Fleet Association. We know of your support in general, but the specifics are very important for us. Your statement, as I indicated, will be included in the record. I appreciate your being here. Mrs. Meek. Mrs. Meek. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much. [The information follows:] [Pages 959 - 966--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Friday, May 2, 1997. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS WITNESS JOHN VITIKACS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, VETERANS AFFAIRS AND REHABILITATION COMMISSION, AMERICAN LEGION Mr. Lewis. John Vitikacs, Assistant Director of Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission. Mr. Vitikacs. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members and staff. The American Legion is deeply concerned with the President's fiscal year 1998 budget proposal for the Department of Veterans Affairs, especially for the 5-year medical care projections. Planned discretionary funding for medical care will not allow VA to meet the demands of an aging veterans community without rationing care, restricting access to the vast majority of veterans, and jeopardizing the quality of care provided. The House Veterans Affairs Committee also recognized the shortfalls of the President's budget and took actions to restore needed medical care and research dollars to reflect a $600 million increase over fiscal year 1997 levels. The American Legion believes this is still shy of the funding needed by VA to adequately care for its current patient population. For the fiscal year 1998 fiscal year, the American Legion requests, as a minimum, $18.2 billion in medical care, $280 million in medical research, and $75 million in State home grants programs. In medical construction, the American Legion requests $225 million for major projects and $200 million for minor projects. It is extremely important that the VA Hospital system maintain its infrastructure. The American Legion is concerned that the proposed fiscal year 1998 budget for the Veterans Benefits Administration will lead to a reduction in staffing that will ultimately impede the regular engineering and improvement process that is currently underway. The American Legion strongly recommends that no cuts be made in VBA's funding until this critical stage is completed. Staffing and resource reductions will also negatively impact the compensation and pension service, as well as vocational rehabilitation and counseling services. Mr. Chairman, the American Legion developed a plan called the GI bill of health, which outlines major changes for VA to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. This initiative opens access to VA health care to all veterans, establishes new revenue streams, and creates new health care access points across the country. All new patients would bring their health care dollars with them to pay for services and treatments received. A recent study mandated by Public Law 103-455 entitled, ``Feasibility Study; Transforming the Veterans Health Administration into a Government Corporation,'' arrived at many of the same conclusions and offered similar recommendations as does the American Legion's GI bill of health on the future of VA health care. Strengthening and maintaining the Veterans Health Administration is a major goal of the American Legion. It is necessary to test and evaluate various strategies to enhance the veterans health care system for current and future generations of veterans. The American Legion supports a Congressionally appointed commission to study, evaluate and recommend future directions for VA health care. In this regard, we support H.R. 335, a bill to establish a commission on the future of America's veterans. This commission would evaluate various studies and proposals and design and establish demonstration projects at various VA medical centers for evaluation and modification before system-wide implementation. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony. That concludes my remarks. I will be glad to respond to any questions. [The information follows:] [Pages 969 - 976--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Well, first, I very much appreciate being present and representing the interests as well as the view of the American Legion. I would be interested in, separate from your formal testimony, any reaction to my relatively off-the- cuff comments about veterans medical care and the way veterans oftentimes seem to be treated in our hospital system. Were you here for that? Mr. Vitikacs. No, I wasn't, unfortunately. Mr. Lewis. It is one thing to have money flows, and the committees have tried to be responsive, especially in this environment we have been operating in in the past several years. In the meantime, in our hospitals, oft times it is presumed veterans will wait for long periods of time. Often they have a number on their forehead, et cetera. And I am wondering if the American Legion has views regarding this and if you would like to speak to it, besides just the money. Mr. Vitikacs. Well, we believe that the reform enacted last year will help in enabling veterans to receive earlier preventive health care services, that the shift from the inpatient base care to ambulatory primary care is definitely long overdue. But we are very concerned that the increase in the eligibility will lead and is leading to an increase in costs, where you have more individuals today who are eligible for services on an ambulatory basis that heretofore were not able to receive those services, and our observations are at various medical centers. This is increasing the costs across the board. Mr. Lewis. You brought yourself immediately back to costs. I was much concerned about attitudinal questions. Maybe you can think about that and, if you want to expand for the record, I would appreciate it. Mr. Vitikacs. I am not sure I fully understand. Mr. Lewis. I am concerned about at the top level in the Veterans Administration, within the hospitals and otherwise, they want to do ``this is business as usual,'' instead of a commitment we have long-term to veterans that makes them human beings, rather than numbers. And that has almost nothing to do with money. Mr. Vitikacs. Absolutely. Absolutely. And that is why this organization has made its own proposals for reforming and restructuring the system well into the 21st Century. Mr. Lewis. I appreciate that. Mrs. Meek. Mrs. Meek. Thank you very much. Mr. Lewis. Thank you for being here. Mr. Vitikacs. Thank you. Friday, May 2, 1997. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS WITNESS GEORGE RUTHERFORD, PROFESSOR OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-BERKELEY NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF VETERANS' RESEARCH AND EDUCATION FOUNDATIONS Mr. Lewis. Mr. George Rutherford, Professor of Epidemiology and Health Administration at the School of Public Health, in beautiful downtown Berkeley. Dr. Rutherford. It is indeed. Mr. Lewis. Today, speaking on behalf of the National Association of Veterans' Research and Education Foundations. Dr. Rutherford. Mr. Chairman and Mrs. Meek, thank you for the opportunity to present testimony this morning. I am here at the invitation of the National Association of Veterans' Research and Education Foundations, or NAVREF, an association of Medical Research Foundation's affiliated VA medical centers. Mr. Lewis. You know, Dr. Rutherford, we will have your entire statement in the record, so as much as you can summarize? Dr. Rutherford. Yes, sir, I would be absolutely happy to. A year and a half ago I was the Chair of the committee that the Veterans Administration called together on how their research programs are structured and run, and my background, I am a pediatrician and teach in a public health school. Mr. Lewis. You are a pediatrician and you teach in a public health school. Dr. Rutherford. Yes, sir. Mr. Lewis. Do you know Dr. Fred Hodges, by chance? Dr. Rutherford. I do indeed. He is my counterpart in the State Health Department where I used to work as well. I saw him last night actually. Mr. Lewis. Is that right. Last night here? Dr. Rutherford. No, last night in Berkeley. It is those night flights. Mr. Lewis. Next time you see him, say hello for me. He was my college roommate in my freshman year at Berkeley. Dr. Rutherford. Oh, you are kidding. It is really a small world. Mr. Lewis. It is on the record, as a matter of fact. Dr. Rutherford. Yes. So I came to this with absolutely no knowledge of the Veterans Administration, since I was a medical student. So it was long ago and far away. This committee I chair had a mix of people like myself who had little contact with the Veterans Administration, people from inside the VA, and then non-VA stakeholders, like the Paralyzed Veterans and Veterans of Foreign Wars. I was absolutely astounded by what I learned about the VA research program. I had the opportunity to do a number of site visits up and down the West Coast and one in Pittsburgh, of all places. I can't remember why we happened to be there that day. And it was really a phenomenally valuable program. We produced this report called ``Final Report of the Research Realignment Advisory Committee,'' and there are several conclusions within that which I think are salient to your deliberations today. One that, ``research is an essential component of VA's mission,'' but we also felt in the current funding climate, if VA research rested on its laurel and accepted the status quo, that its entire enterprise would be jeopardized. We made a series of recommendations. Just to touch on some, that the VA should strengthen the alignment of the VA's research mission and scientific discovery with its mission of patient care. So what they are spending their money on matches up with what the people have that are in the system. Secondly, we felt that career development had been widely underfunded over the last several years, and the new generation of clinician researchers was not coming in to the system. Thirdly, we also felt, sort of akin to the NIH structure, that VA should appoint a federally chartered National Research and Development Advisory Committee to oversee an entire portfolio of research to make sure that it was adequately targeted to the needs of veterans, especially now moving from a largely inpatient system to a largely outpatient system. We made a number of recommendations, as you might imagine, but there are several that touched on funding, and I would just like to go over those quickly. First, we thought that following realignment of the VA research enterprise, how it is administratively structured and how monies are passed out, additional funding may be sought from the Congress to increase the overall VA research investment. We felt that we were--that the Nation was getting very good value for the dollars spent in VA research, and that once a lot of sort of the redundancies were ironed out of the system through this realignment process, that it would be worthwhile of future investment. The new research and development officer at the VA, Dr. Feussner, is pursuing these recommendations we made, and, in fact, has pushed ahead with many of the recommendations, and I suspect they will adopt them all. Some of the things that are now happening is there are three new diabetes centers of excellence, two new centers for rehabilitation medicine, focusing on sensory loss and traumatic brain injury, a substance abuse research initiative related to nicotine and smoking behavior, and cooperative studies comparing surgical and medical treatments for heart disease and for prostate cancer, which are very big questions in the practice of medicine with 60 and 70-year-olds. However, what I wanted to talk about today mostly was the need for additional resources. As you are aware, the President's fiscal year 1998 budget requested a $28 million cut in the program. A cut of this magnitude, almost 11 percent, would halt these initiatives and many others and in many ways would be a fall back from the recommendations that the Committee made. Mr. Lewis. If I may interpose a comment, Dr. Rutherford, many of the witnesses pointed to this recommendation by the Administration that is considerably below the charters of most who look at the values of these research programs. I think it is fair to say, however, that there are many a window as well as a mirror in the budget process game, and there is little doubt that there are people within the Administration who know full well that you can recommend a reduction here because you know absolutely what the Congress is going to do over here, and that sort of thing is a part of the process. So I am not so sure how serious they really are about that recommendation. Dr. Rutherford. I will trust your judgment on this. Anyway, the plea I wanted to make was to ask that you and your colleagues on the Subcommittee approve full restoration of the funds cut in the President's budget, and an additional $18 million in new funding for fiscal year 1998, for the fiscal year 1998 VA research appropriation, to get it up to $280 million, a number you heard today. There are various reasons. You can see in my testimony that these monies are needed. I think that the bottom line is that the system now is doing the kind of research that is going to really help its patients. There needs to be some additional monies brought into the system so the pay lines, the percentage of grants that are actually funded, gets above 15 percent. That is viewed as very discouraging by a number of clinician investigators. We certainly heard a lot of testimony about people leaving the system. NIH is paying 20 percent. In the academic medical school life, you get a little bit farther than that, and there is not a lot of reason to hang on with the VA. Anyway, we request additional money for the career development award, and also new funding to target, to increase research in the areas specifically targeted towards veterans needs, as I mentioned before. Let me just end there. I would be happy to answer any questions. I am sorry I tried to read this. [The information follows:] [Pages 981 - 985--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Dr. Rutherford, we appreciate not only the thrust, but the quality of your comments, and appreciate what you have to say. The Committee has addressed the same issues themselves over time here, and very much are empathic. The difficulty is this huge problem of competition within our subcommittee, but also the pressure to move towards being responsible about the budget as well. In the meantime, I was semi-curious, I guess I might as well for the record, that means I have met two pediatricians of quality who went into public health instead of practicing pediatrics. What is this all about? Dr. Rutherford. You sort of get the feel for it, and after I did my residency at the U.C. San Diego and then went to the Center for Disease Control, I never looked back, and I have had a wonderful career. Mr. Lewis. You have to have at least additional questions about a witness who had a chance to live in San Diego and moved away. Dr. Rutherford. Well, I grew up there. Mr. Lewis. Mrs. Meek. Mrs. Meek. No questions. Mr. Lewis. Thank you. ---------- Friday, May 2, 1997. COURT OF VETERANS APPEALS WITNESS DAVID B. ISBELL, CHAIR, ADVISORY COMMITTEE, VETERANS CONSORTIUM PRO BONO PROGRAM Mr. Lewis. With the Veterans Consortium Pro Bono, David B. Isbell. Did I pronounce that right this year? Mr. Isbell. Isbell, that is right, sir. Just two syllables. People want to submit an extra syllable. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Meeks, I am grateful for this opportunity to appear, however briefly, before the Committee, to speak in support of our request for an appropriation for next year. The court has, as you know, left that responsibility to us starting last year and continuing this year, and it is one we are happy to have. As you know, the program has been in operation since late 1992, and before the end of this fiscal year, we will have placed 1,000 cases, that is, provided free representation to 1,000 appellants, mainly veterans, sometimes their survivors, before the Court of Veterans Appeals, with a success rate very close to 80 percent. I might also call attention to the leveraging or multiplying factor of the appropriations that have been in support of the program. We get free help of a value that is between three and four times as much as the money that is spent on the program, so that we calculate that is something like $10 million worth of free help that has been provided through the program during the period of its existence. I might call attention also to something referred to in the written statement I submitted, which is that we have started receiving contributions from firms and lawyers who have taken cases under the program and have applied for equal access to justice funds. They do not amount to substantial sums yet. They certainly ought not to be counted on as an offset to the need for Federal funds, but they do provide a little extra fund that we are putting to use for separate purposes, to extend the program beyond the Washington metropolitan area. Now, so far there have been contributions by four law firms on six occasions totaling some $40,000. We hope we will continue to get those and be able to make the same sort of special use of them. Now, I don't propose to repeat what is in our written statement or in the basic justification for our appropriation request that was included in the court submission, but I would be glad to do so, if you wish. I think the best way to use my time would be to answer questions. [The information follows:] [Pages 988 - 992--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. I think you know we have had more than one discussion regarding the pro bono program over the years. Your submitting the justification for the record is appreciated, and your very brief statement is very appreciated, and it has been moved forward here. Mrs. Meek. Mrs. Meek. This is the second time we have heard from you. Have we heard from you before about the program? I asked you questions before. Mr. Isbell. Not this term, no. Mrs. Meek. Someone came and preceded you. Mr. Lewis. He is appearing in a different capacity at this point. Mrs. Meek. I know. Did you testify before this committee before this particular term? Mr. Isbell. Not in this session of Congress. Mr. Lewis. Last year. Mr. Isbell. I did last year. Mrs. Meek. I recall asking questions about it, because I wanted to know if the veterans were getting a good recourse in terms of when they come up for appeal. Mr. Isbell. Ms. Meeks, you asked my predecessor who frequently appeared to testify. Mainly the questions have to do with the Pro Bono Program. Mr. Lewis. Mr. Isbell is associated, a partner, I presume, but I don't know, with Covington & Burling? Mr. Isbell. Yes. Mr. Lewis. Anyway, I have no further questions, but I do appreciate being here to present the testimony. Mr. Isbell. Thank you very much. ---------- Friday, May 2, 1997. SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM WITNESS RAYMOND J. TONEY, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INTERRELIGIOUS SERVICE BOARD FOR CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS Mr. Lewis. Next on our list of witnesses is Mr. Raymond J. Toney, Associate Director of the National Interreligious Service Board for Conscientious Objectors. Mr. Toney. Mr. Toney. Mr. Lewis, thank you. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before this distinguished panel. The organization I represent, the National Interreligious Service Board for Conscientious Objectors, NISBCO, has been monitoring military conscription and national service since the inception of the organization in 1940. Since 1984, we have been working at the international level advising governmental and nongovernmental organizations on issues of military service, conscription and rights of conscience, and also attempting to develop international human rights standards regarding military conscription and the treatment of military personnel. Our primary concern today is the Selective Service System, and we first want to address the question of funding for the agency's proposed mission expansion. As you are aware, in September the Selective Service System quietly announced their intention to become, in their own words, a ``national clearinghouse'' for opportunities to ``serve America today.'' The opportunities they plan to advertise are with AmeriCorps and the Department of Defense. This proposed expansion leads me to ask the following question, which I would like to leave with you today: Shouldthis committee allocate $23 million so that the government can register young men for a nonexistent and unforeseeable military draft, severely punish those who fail to register, all so that the Selective Service System can serve as a recruiting agency for AmeriCorps and the DOD? In an internal memo recently obtained by NISBCO, the select service system states, ``with the downsizing of the Federal Government, and its survival periodically threatened by detractors in Congress and the media, the Selective Service System can no longer dwell upon its proud past or bet on the threats of tomorrow. The system must be of proven value to America today and every day.'' The reasoning employed here by the Selective Service is quite curious. First, they are, in fact, recognizing the legitimate governmental and public interest in terminating draft registration and the agency itself. They do not argue that the agency is a viable and necessary institution if judged by objective criteria. In fact, they concede, as did the Pentagon in 1994, that there is no military draft in our Nation's future. Second, the argument continues that since they are no longer viable as is, they must seek out additional programs in order to justify their funding. The Selective Service System, a governmental agency, is essentially marketing itself to the Congress and the administration as though it were a for-profit enterprise with a new product to sell, or perhaps as a corporation in need of a bailout. I believe that most Americans would agree that when governmental agencies become obsolete, they should be closed, especially when the agency in question burdens the free exercise and enjoyment of civil and religious liberties to the extent that draft registration and the Selective Service System do. In regard to the linkage of the Federal Conscription Agency and AmeriCorps, I submit to you that this effort should be headed off immediately here in this subcommittee. NISBCO's concerns about linking the Selective Service System with national service go far beyond the scope of this hearing, though I do wish to state for the record that NISBCO is unalterably opposed to any such relationship between national service and the military conscription system. I do wish to submit for this committee's review a copy of our publication, ``National Service and Religious Values,'' prepared by one of the Nation's foremost authorities on issues of national service and conscription, Mr. William Yolton, which you have, Mr. Lewis. The second issue I wanted to address is the broader issue of the continuing requirement of peacetime draft registration. Mr. Lewis. Just to interrupt you, I must say the $23 million question, your simple answer is, no. Mr. Toney. Yes, that is correct. To be very brief, do not fund the expansion and end this project. Mr. Lewis. We have tried that, you know. Mr. Toney. You have tried that, and we want to congratulate you for trying it. We encourage you to continue to try it. There is a General Accounting Office study that is being conducted right now which will address the remaining issue which Selective Service raises basically, which is that basically what they are going to look at is alternatives to active registration and develop a standby on-the-shelf program that would meet the DOD's stated goals without having to register people, without having to punish the nonregistrants, et cetera. We expect those findings in June, and perhaps we will see some action on the floor of Congress. We wanted you to be aware that that is going forward. So I will conclude. I wanted to pose one other question, which relates to the religious freedom issues: Do we really find in draft registration a compelling governmental interest that can justify burdening the exercise of religious and civil liberties to this degree, and when the Pentagon said the draft registration is not needed? The last issue I want to raise, which is an important one, is that nowhere in the registration process can conscientious objectors state that they are unwilling to perform military service. For many youth, this is reason enough not to register. About 20,000 a year, in our estimation, refuse to register because they are conscientious objectors or they are civil libertarians. They incur severe penalties for this. They can't get student loans, for example, Pell grants; they can't get Federal job training; and in some States, they are not even allowed to attend institutions of higher education. The youth are, in fact, criminalized, judged and sentenced with no chance for a personal appearance before any competent authority. There is no appeal process for the youth who fail to register. In conclusion, I would say that a decision by this committee in particular to approve the $500,000 budget increase requested by the Selective Service System for their AmeriCorps recruitment program would have negative and perhaps unforeseeable consequences not only for religious and civil liberties, but for the values of community service as well. Service to others is laudable and necessary from a religious viewpoint, yet we must view any national service program with great suspicion, especially one that relies on a conscription agency for identifying and attracting participants. Mr. Lewis. I think you have made your point very well. I think you and I could have an off-the-record discussion of this and probably we wouldn't be too far apart. I appreciate very much your being here. Mr. Toney. Thank you for allowing us. [The information follows:] [Pages 996 - 1001--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Friday, May 2, 1997 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY WITNESS BRAD IAROSSI, P.E., VICE PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF STATE DAM SAFETY OFFICIALS, INC. Mr. Lewis. Okay. Mr. Brad Iarossi, the Association of State Dam Safety Officials. Your entire statement will be in the record, so you can present it as briefly as you like. Mr. Iarossi. I will do it as briefly as I can. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Brad Iarossi, and I am the vice president of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, and I am the chief of the Dam Safety Program for the State of Maryland. I want to speak to you today about the safety of non- Federal dams and to request your support for additional funding in FEMA's budget to implement the National Dam Safety Program Act of 1996. Last year, Congress clearly recognized the need for a strong Federal role in preventing dam failures and passed the National Dam Safety Program Act of 1996. The act authorizes $2.9 million in fiscal year 1998, yet the administration's budget proposal only requests $432,000. This falls far short of the funds needed to implement the act. We respectfully oppose the administration's fiscal year 1998 proposal and request that this subcommittee appropriate $2.9 million to fully fund this program in accordance with the act. To fully fund the act, we are requesting $2.5 million for emergency management and planning assistance for the following initiatives authorized in the act: $1 million in grants to States as an incentive to improve their dam safety programs; $500,000 for training of State dam safety engineers; $1 million for research into more effective techniques and equipment for inspecting and monitoring dams; and an additional $400,000 and 4 workyears in salaries and expenses for FEMA to administer the program and to coordinate the efforts between Federal agencies and States. There are 75,000 dams on the national dam inventory. Ninety-five percent of these are regulated by the States. This is an overwhelming task for many of the States. Many States are understaffed and underfunded. Many States do not have adequate regulations or laws to effectively assure safety of dams. The national dam inventory lists 9,200 high-hazard dams, meaning that their failure will likely cause loss of life or tremendous property damage. A survey of the States lists 2,100 dams as being unsafe, which means that they have deficiencies that leave them susceptible to failure. We have included in our written testimony a table listing dam statistics for each State. The survey includes 450 unsafe dams in Ohio, 452 unsafe dams in Texas, and 49 unsafe dams in West Virginia. The Federal Government has an important leadership role. Dam failures do not respect State boundaries, and the recovery costs comes from the National Flood Insurance Program and the Disaster Relief Fund. We see dam failures every year. This past March in southern Ohio, the failure of two dams caused considerable damage to downstream homes in Lawrence and Adams Counties. One dam was illegally constructed, while the other was a failure due to lack of maintenance. Luckily, no one died. A year ago this April, a 38-foot-high privately-owned dam in New Hampshire failed. That caused $5.5 million in damages to a downstream town, and it cost one woman her life as her truck was washed in the Merrimack River. Dams provide us with enormous benefits, such as flood control, hydroelectric power, irrigation, water supply, recreation and navigation. Yet as part of this country's aging infrastructure, dams also create potential catastrophic disasters should they fail. It is tragic that historically dam safety only receives attention after a disaster. The Federal Government needs to provide leadership and assistance to States, which is what the National Dam Safety Program Act provides, if fully funded and if implemented. We need to be out in front of these disasters through predisaster mitigation, rather than postdisaster mitigation. The benefits of prevention through predisaster mitigation are obvious. It is more cost-effective, and it saves lives. Mr. Chairman, we strongly urge this Subcommittee to recognize the benefits of this very modestly-funded program and to appropriate an additional $2.9 million earmarked for implementation of the National Dam Safety Program Act. It is an investment in public safety. If the program should only prevent one dam failure, it will pay for itself even before you include the cost of the loss of life. Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to working with you and your staff on this very important program. I would be happy to answer any questions you have. Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Iarossi. [The information follows:] [Pages 1004 - 1015--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Are you familiar with the problems that we faced in northern and central California with the endless miles of levees and dams---- Mr. Larossi. Yes, sir. Mr. Lewis [continuing]. Recently affected? What is the major problem with that and that largely private network? Mr. Iarossi. I think what we have seen for years and years is the Federally-owned and maintained levees, as in the case of dams, are well-maintained and in good shape. The privately- owned ones are not well-maintained. There isn't the financial support that the Federal Government has to put in their dams, and privately-owned levees just don't enjoy that funding. Mr. Lewis. There have been proposals that at least we consider in that instance mapping and getting a better measure of the relative quality and the problems of those literally hundreds and hundreds of miles of levees. Mr. Iarossi. Well, I have heard there is interest in having the Corps of Engineers do a similar study of levee safety across the country like they did for dams in the late 1970s. Mr. Lewis. Have you all addressed that question yourself? Mr. Iarossi. The levee question? Mr. Lewis. Yes. Mr. Iarossi. We are here about dams. We think levees are certainly a legitimate concern. The bill that was passed by Congress last year in support of Senator Bond, levees were excluded from the act. The act was not to regulate levies at all. But there are similar concerns with levees, yes. Mr. Lewis. We could very well be addressing some of those questions as we move forward here. In the meantime, I very much appreciate your presence. The questions you raise are important ones, and we will try to be responsive. Mr. Iarossi. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. ---------- Friday, May 2, 1997. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY WITNESS JERRY UHLMANN, CHAIRMAN, NEMA LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Mr. Lewis. Next on our list is Jerry Uhlmann of NEMA, the Legislative Committee of the National Emergency Management Association. Mr. Uhlmann. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lewis. Nice to be with you. As you know, we accept your entire testimony for the record, and you can summarize it as you wish. Mr. Uhlmann. Thank you very much. I am director of the State of Missouri--director of the State Emergency Management Agency, and also am here as the Chair of the Legislative Committee for NEMA. Of course, NEMA is the organization made up of all the State emergency management directors of the States. It is a real honor to be here today. I am happy to have your time. Of course, I have submitted the detailed report. What I would like to do is just hit some of the things that are important to us as State emergency managers as far as this. Mr. Lewis. We would be very interested in your highlighting your remarks. Mr. Uhlmann. Thank you. For the past several years Congress has looked at ways to reduce the costs of Federal disasters. NEMA supports all of these efforts in reducing the cost of the disaster, and we feel the best way to do that is through a strong State and local program to address the preparedness, mitigation and response and recovery. We feel that is the solution to that problem. Now, the State and local assistance allocation in the FEMA budget provides the basis for the comprehensive emergency management program. These matching funds come through FEMA, through the State, down to the local officials, and this is the basis for our emergency management program. There is currently a $124.5 million shortfall in the program, and on top of that, States receive a $2.9 million shortfall in this program. In addition to that, FEMA did not include in their budget $4 million that Congress had put in in the last two sessions. So basically what we are confronted with is less preparedness, and a lot of States are having layoffs, both at the State and local level. These reductions, of course, come at a tremendous critical time when we are dealing with disasters throughout the Nation. FEMA's request of $103.7 more State and local falls tremendously short. NEMA requests that Congress allocate an additional 8- to $10 million to supplement this program. This could either be through redistribution of existing funds or, of course, reappropriation of funds. We feel that this is probably the States' greatest concern as far as the budget is concerned, because this is what really keeps the emergency management system nationally going. Another program of great interest and benefit to the States is establishing a predisaster mitigation fund. FEMA is requesting $50 million for this effort. NEMA strongly supports that. Until we truly embrace mitigation, we have the cycle of destruction, rebuilding, and so forth, and we feel that mitigation is certainly the answer. One of the greatest concerns expressed by the subcommittee during the March 6th hearing with FEMA was the length of time it takes to complete the mitigation projects under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. It takes many times as long as 6 months to a year for this to run through the process, and that is certainly too long when we are interested in getting things back not only for the communities, but also for the individuals. Now, other Federal agencies, such as HUD and the Department of Transportation, allow States to conduct environmental assessments, their own environmental assessments. We feel that is one of the reasons that a lot of delays in those programs exist. If it could be lowered down to let the States do it, we have the capability in many States to do that. We could do it expediently and with a lot less cost. As we said, a number of States, of course, and communities are struggling to recover from disasters. These events continue to point out the need for an emphasis onlong-term loss prevention and recovery activities. Successful long-term recovery from disasters may require access to resources, both within and beyond the authority of FEMA. Other Federal agencies can and should bring resources to the disaster area. These include Department of Labor, the CDBG from HUD, the Resource Conservation Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, NOAA, and there are many others. Unless State emergency management officials know how to secure these funds, know the eligibility, the time frames and the matching requirements, many of these funds go unused just because we don't know how to manage them. So we need someone to really coordinate the Federal response in the recovery phase. Now, NEMA requests the subcommittee to provide FEMA with the authority and resources to coordinate Federal programs for long-term recovery. They do a tremendous job in their response phase, but when we get into the recovery phase, there is really no one there to coordinate all of these assets. And, as I said, the States do not have the capability and are not familiar with the programs. They do not know how to deal with all that. So we need the same authority for FEMA from the response phase, going on into the recovery phase. In closing, I would just say NEMA strongly encourages the subcommittee to support the FEMA budget. The Agency under James C. Witt has done a tremendous job, and we really think it is crucial to the safety and welfare of all the citizens of the country. [The information follows:] [Pages 1019 - 1025--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. I must say, Mr. Uhlmann, I appreciate your testimony. I think it is very important for this Committee by way of our appropriations oversight responsibilities to take your comments regarding regionalizing and transferring responsibility to the States, in other words, appropriate to save money as well as to expedite the process--that is very worthy of consideration. I wonder if NEMA has addressed language that apparently is going to be part of the natural resources bill that comes to the floor that would, as a part of the mitigation effort, where there is a need to evaluate and improve the condition of levies and other flood control mechanisms that may have been affected by way of emergency circumstances--I believe the language calls for temporary waiving of the Endangered Species Act. Are you familiar with that? Mr. Uhlmann. I am somewhat familiar with that. Mr. Lewis. For this Member it would be very valuable to have input from NEMA regarding how they react to that. Mr. Uhlmann. We would be happy to do that, because we think that is critical. It kind of goes along with the environmental assessments that I have explained here, and I think it is something that definitely needs to be looked upon. We would be happy to provide that. Mr. Lewis. If you could survey your members so it could be part of our record here, I would be very interested in that. Mr. Uhlmann. I would be glad to do that. [The information follows:] [Pages 1027 - 1028--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Direct Use of CDBG Funds for Persons With Disabilities There are three specific activity codes under which entitlement grantees report the direct use of CDBG funds to benefit persons with disabilities. These are: expenditures for centers for the handicapped; expenditures for public services for the handicapped; and removal of architectural barriers. Dollars reported spent on each of these three activities grew over the 1989-1993 5-year period: Funds expended for Handicapped Center grew from $7.9 million to $11.1 million, an increase of 41 percent. Funds expended for Services for the Handicapped grew from $6.3 million to $9.8 million, an increase of 54 percent. Funds expended for Removal of Architectural Barriers grew from $15.8 million to $34.2 million, an increase of 138 percent. In general, historical data show that five out of eight entitlement communities funded at least one activity providing benefit specifically directed to the disabled. Morris County, New Jersey, reported seven activities which specifically benefited people with disabilities for a total of $97.644. Allocation of Preservation Funds to the Jacksonville Office There are 146 eligible projects in the State of Florida, but only 54 owners applied. Many of them either did not apply in time, or their offers did not meet program requirements, despite repeated efforts by HUD Jacksonville to bring the submissions of the owners, and in some cases of non-profits and owners, into compliance. If the owner did not apply in time to have an approved plan of action by September 30, 1996, HUD could not make a grant. Jacksonville's processing time from Initial Notice of Intent to Plan of Action approval (695 days) is actually below the national average (740 days). For 1997, HUD has allocated $5,669,323 for two Resident Homeownership Grants handled by the Jacksonville Office from Preservation funds. One project had already been approved from 1996 funds. Five projects were given extensions in previous fiscal years. Mr. Lewis. Mrs. Meek? Mrs. Meek. I just want to be sure I understand this. NEMA is recommending monies for management purposes to improve the management of disasters on the State level. I notice you asked for funds; is that correct? Mr. Uhlmann. Yes, that is correct. Approximately $8 to $10 million. Mrs. Meek. Yes. Could you explain that to me? Mr. Uhlmann. Yes. There has been a reduction in the last two sessions of money that goes from FEMA down to the State and local level due to the Emergency Management Assistance Program. What we want to do is restore that back so that we can continue our programs. In many States at this point, they are now having to lay off staff members at the State and the local level, and we feel that is really the strong fiber of emergency management is having a good program at the State and local level. Mr. Lewis. Am I correct in assuming that NEMA, in their mitigation efforts as well as work on recovery programs, is aggressively addressing at the State level improvement of building codes, looking to earthquake kinds of structures, improvements, et cetera? Mr. Uhlmann. Yes. The big interest, of course, now from FEMA and the States, it is kind of a coordinated effort, is that mitigation is really the key to success. We have got to improve our mitigation. We are doing that on all hazards. Of course, the earthquake has been around for a long time. Mr. Lewis. But other hazards as well? Mr. Uhlmann. And floods. Of course, in Missouri we had the buyout program, where we moved about 12,000 people out of the most frequently flooded areas. So there has been a lot done, but there really needs to be a lot more in that regard. Mrs. Meek. I have an off-the-record statement. Mr. Lewis. Off the record. [Discussion off the record.] Mr. Lewis. Back on the record. I understand why Mrs. Meek wanted to discuss that item off the record, but in the meantime the commentary is an important part of our discussion here. You have essentially addressed it by way of your testimony as well. Thank you very much. ---------- Friday, May 2, 1997. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION WITNESS ANJAY ELZANOWSKI, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ANIMAL RESEARCH ISSUES, HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES Mr. Lewis. Our next witness and our last witness for the morning session is Dr. Elzanowski; is that correct? Mr. Elzanowski. Yes. Mr. Lewis. Assistant Director for Animal Research Issues, the Humane Society of the United States. Mr. Elzanowski. Good morning. Mr. Lewis. It is nice to be with you. Mr. Elzanowski. As you said, Mr. Chairman, I am Assistant Director for Research at the Humane Society of the United States, which is the Nation's largest animal protection organization, representing more than 4.7 million members and constituents. Mr. Lewis. Your entire statement will be placed in the record. We attempt to control the time as best we can. At the same time, we want to have exchange. Mr. Elzanowski. Sure. I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am going to limit my testimony to the controversy surrounding appropriations for NASA's participation in the Bion space flights. The Bion missions have been launched approximately every 2 years since 1974. The most recent flight, Bion 11, alone cost the U.S. $13.6 million, and the Bion 12, to be launched in 1998, will cost Americans $19.6 million. Last year, the House of Representatives voted 244 to 171 to slash the funding for animal experiments in Bion 11. Unfortunately, Bion 11 passed by a narrow margin in the Senate. Fortunately, NASA has just suspended its participation in primate research on the Bion 12 mission. However, this announcement does not guarantee that primates will not be used by the other participating countries, Russia or France, or on subsequent missions. NASA is gearing up to use other unidentified animals, referred to as ``appropriate models'' in NASA's news release. Therefore, it is important to avert any further escalation of the unspeakable harm done by NASA and its partners to the most sentient of animals over the last 22 years. Bion 11 caused acute suffering of Rhesus macaques sent for over 2 weeks to space. One of the two monkeys did not survive the surgical procedures to which it was subjected just one day after the landing. Bion 11 was only the most recent episode in a history of mistreatment of animals by NASA, especially the Ames Research Center, which provides veterinary support to Bion. Long before Bion 11, the Ames Center has repeatedly raised public concerns, especially after the resignation of Dr. Sharon Vanderlip, Chief of Veterinary Services at the Ames Center. In addition to being inhumane, NASA's Bion program is remarkably ineffective. Animal experimentation in space is of highly questionable relevance to human beings, to the astronauts. The known pitfalls of extrapolating information from one species to another are aggravated by the fact that large animals that may in some respects simulate human conditions have to be immobilized, which leads to distress and interferes with research, and small animals, such as rodents, are too dissimilar to provide relevant data. Twenty-two years of flying rats and monkeys into space aboard Bion has yielded a morass of conflicting information that generates more animal research rather than helping understand human medical problems in space. It is obvious that human studies are much more relevant to human health problems than animal studies. The details of Bion 11/12, 11 and 12, which is going to be launched, are specified in two proposals, the musculoskeletal proposal and regulatory physiology proposal. All of the tests required by the musculoskeletal proposal can be performed, with modifications, in humans. Out of nine parameters listed in the regulatory physiology proposal, the second one, only one, the deep brain temperature, cannot be measured in unrestrained humans. We strongly believe that measurements of eight out of nine parameters in unrestrained humans is by far more reliable and useful than measuring nine out of nine measurements in animals, especially if animals are under acute distress. Bearing all this in mind, it is astonishing that the entire voluminous proposal for Bion 11/12 does not contain a single assessment of the proposed research in terms of its feasibility in humans. Overall, the proposal for Bion 11/12 is clearly substandard. According to Dr. David Wiebers, a distinguished medical researcher and board-certified neurologist, who is listed in our written testimony, ``The proposal would never make it to first base at the National Institutes of Health.'' In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, HSUS believes that medical data for future manned flights should be obtained from hundreds of humans who have spent and continue to spend time in space despite the known adverse effects of microgravity. We believe that the astronauts in the American space program are devoted to that program and the future welfare of their colleagues, and that instead of obtaining questionable data from animals, NASA should select astronauts willing to provide the necessary tissue samples. Mr. Chairman, flying animals into space, at least the way it has been done by NASA so far, is ineffective scientifically, wasteful economically, and terribly inhumane. We therefore request the inclusion of language that bans the use of any funds for missions involving experiments with nonhuman mammals in the Bion project in the fiscal year 1998 VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations bill. Thank you for your attention. Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Dr. Elzanowski. [The information follows:] [Pages 1033 - 1037--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. I must say that the debate that the Humane Society has addressed over some years is a helpful debate, where these kinds of discussion add to the flavor and mix and, hopefully, the quality of that which sometimes our research is all about. I am very close to a number of medical research institutions. At one time I thought I might become a veterinarian because I have a great love for animals, especially dogs and horses. Having said that, there is little question that there are researchers who believe strongly that they do get positive results from their experiments, including some of the Bion work that has gone forward. The researchers from UCLA, for example, would suggest to us that the information flows that they have received helped with their work dealing with quadriplegics and paraplegics and is very significant. But nonetheless, I think we need to pursue these questions in a way that causes NASA to give us some other direct responses to the questions that are being raised. So I think we ought to see who the appropriate people are and see that they indicate to us, beyond waiting until the record is printed. Mrs. Meek. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, the ethical part of the question needs to be researched and looked into in terms of direction NASA might think of going. Mr. Lewis. There currently is a funding proposal that involves, for example, sir, potential research as it relates to using proton therapy for cancer treatment, those radiation techniques, in a joint venture with NASA, attempting to measure the impact of radiation upon humans, measuring the effects upon human patients. All of this interchange is helpful. So I appreciate very much your testimony. That completes our list for this morning. We will be returning shortly after 1 o'clock. In the meantime, we will be in recess for a lunch break. ---------- Friday, May 2, 1997. COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY WITNESS WILLIAM A. POLF, DEPUTY VICE PRESIDENT, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY Mr. Lewis. We will take you out of order. You may come up. Dr. William A. Polf, deputy vice president of Columbia University, it is our pleasure to be with you. What is your field? Mr. Polf. I actually am an American historian. I have been in the administration of Columbia University for many years. Mr. Lewis. My history professor's son doesn't want to go into administration; he says he wants to teach. About the time he starts having children, he will probably want to go into administration. Mr. Polf. I am a native Californian who was born in your part of the world, Lynnwood, California. Mr. Lewis. We welcome your testimony, and we urge people to provide their full statement for the record and tell us what they want to communicate, within the time limits, reasonably. Mr. Polf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is good to see Congressman Stokes again. I have seen him on previous occasions. Mr. Stokes. Nice to see you, sir. Thank you. Mr. Polf. As the chairman said, I am Dr. William A. Polf, deputy vice president for external relations and strategic programs at the Health Sciences Center of Columbia University. I appreciate the opportunity to appear today toupdate you on the progress and development of the Audubon Biomedical Science and Technology Park. The Audubon Biomedical Science and Technology Park, located on the Health Sciences Campus of the Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center in New York City, is one of the first urban scientific research parks dedicated to biomedical research and the development of a new biotechnology industry. It is the first research park in New York City and one of the few in the Nation devoted specifically to housing both academic and commercial research to help create a synergy between university research and the development of commercial applications in pioneering new medical technologies, pharmaceuticals, and diagnostics. Development of the Audubon Park is supported by a partnership among Columbia University, New York City, New York State, and the Federal Government. The support of this subcommittee has been critical. Audubon combines three functions that, together, serve the national interest by providing a vital and innovative mechanism for providing health care to medically underserved citizens while maintaining America's leadership in one of our most important economic sectors, biomedical research and development. Audubon provides a location for the continuing progress of biomedical science in the discovery of the root causes of many diseases and the development of the most advanced methods to diagnose and treat them. Audubon offers facilities and programs for translating the discoveries achieved in the scientific laboratory into the treatments that reach the bedsides of patients across the country. Audubon is an instrument for the creation of new business and jobs in the economically depressed neighborhoods of Washington Heights and Harlem. Audubon is a central element of the new empowerment zone program in New York providing job training and business development services to the North Manhattan neighborhoods. Audubon will provide a center for enabling American biomedical science to generate new business in advanced pharmaceuticals and medical technologies, two cornerstones upon which the American economy can hold its own and grow in an increasingly competitive international business setting. By helping build the research and development base that provides a scientific and technological foundation for American business, Audubon will create new American jobs. In addition to this important economic stimulus, the health benefits from new discoveries at the park will flow directly to the surrounding community, which is characterized by high rates of illness associated with poverty, inadequate health care, and urban distress. When completed, the park will consist of five research buildings, the restored Audubon Ballroom, and a community center. The first building, the Mary Lasker Building, which houses the Audubon Business and Technology Center, is completed, and it currently houses 13 biotechnology companies. The second building has received support from your subcommittee and is currently under construction. It will provide the center for the most comprehensive program of research and treatment for diabetes in metropolitan New York, in addition to disease prevention research in cancer and--Mr. Chairman, I need to correct the testimony. The next word should be ``genetics,'' not ``geriatrics''--and pediatrics. Because of Federal support, private support for this project has increased significantly. When completed, this facility will house more than $25 million in research annually, supporting 400 new jobs. When the park is finished, nearly 2,500 new jobs will have been created, including scientific, research, laboratory, clerical, administrative, retail, and building operations and support. We are currently only $20 million away from obtaining the necessary funds to complete this phase, which represents a cornerstone of Audubon. As your subcommittee works to establish funding priorities for fiscal year 1998, I respectfully request that $10 million be dedicated from the Special Purpose Grants Program, as authorized under HUD's Community Development Block Grant Program, for completion of the new facility in Audubon. This will create jobs in an economically depressed area and develop and stimulate our national biotechnology industry. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present testimony to the subcommittee. [The information follows:] [Pages 1041 - 1048--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Thank you. Dr. Polf, would you give me a brief outline of the history of Audubon, when it was first begun--you know, when the Federal Government first made any economic contribution, and how much. Mr. Polf. I would be glad to. The park itself has been in development for about 15 years. The first facility, which is now called the Lasker Building, was financed by Columbia, the city, and the State of New York. The second facility began planning in 1989, and I believe the first appropriation of Federal support was in fiscal year 1991. To date, the total amount of Federal support that has been provided is $12.5 million, some of which has come through this committee. Mr. Lewis. Okay. You dwelled a good deal in your testimony on the number of jobs, et cetera, et cetera. Jobs, especially in research institutes, are incidental in the sense that those jobs are there to produce output. Could you give us some indication relative to what has been developed output of this biotechnological research? Mr. Polf. The main thing that--our first building to be completed so far, the so-called Lasker Building, is our commercial biotech building. And within the last 2 years--it has just officially been open for about 2 years--we have established, I think, I believe we now have more than 13 companies in the facility, including companies which have started in Harlem. We have had companies that have come to us because they wanted to be in the Federal empowerment zone. So we have had a lot of economic development activity that has started already. The areas of research--and of course there is research associated with the companies in those businesses. The second building that is about to be completed, which this committee has, thankfully, helped us with, will house the kind of research which is at the cutting edge of new biotechnology and in such areas as genetic development. For example, at Columbia most recently we discovered what has been called the P-10 gene, which is the gene that is instrumental in relation to a variety of cancers. There was quite a bit of press given to this 6 weeks ago when it was announced. And in a variety of other areas in our cancer research, and in a great deal of our basic science. One of the main things that we will be doing in this building is linking laboratory research in diabetes to clinical care in diabetes. As you know, diabetes is a disease that cuts across many other diseases and is linked to many diseases, and we believe that the research that we will do in diabetes will lead very directly and quickly to clinical applications that can help us. Mr. Lewis. The reason I asked the question and I would like to have some more detail for our record: For example, VA medical research has been significantly reduced as a result of the Administration's recommendation, if we follow that recommendation. But things like the viral connection between peptic ulcer and the problems that we face there saw significant breakthroughs through their research. NASA presently is in the midst of evaluating the impact of a virus on a very significant portion of the poor population of Latin America. I think that is very important. That is what I mean and what I would be interested in. Mr. Polf. In another area, a most recent discovery in our Alzheimer's research, we have made a linkage in estrogen levels and the onset of Alzheimer's that may indicate that estrogen may be a form of treatment for the prevention of Alzheimer's. That is another example, and a whole a variety of--our medical center is one of the major centers of organ transplants, particularly heart transplants, and a couple of the companies that are located in our incubator facility are directly involved in developing new technologies that relate to helping transplants. Columbia was the place where the main DNA manipulation discovery leading to the drug TPA, which is the drug that helps prevent organ rejection in organ transplants, was discovered. That is the kind of thing we are doing. Mr. Lewis. Thank you. Mr. Stokes. Mr. Stokes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Polf, nice to see you again. In your formal testimony you mentioned that Audubon Park is a central element in the empowerment zone project you have there in New York. Mr. Polf. Right. Mr. Stokes. Can you tell us how it ties into the empowerment zone? Mr. Polf. What we are doing, specifically, Congressman, is making sure that our programs--we are very close to the administration of the empowerment zone, and what we want to do, particularly in the job training area, is to develop some joint programs that help train younger people working in laboratory environments in combination with the rich education experience, and that is a program we are just developing right now. We have in place another program that helps licensed laboratory technicians complete their training. We also have, as I said, in a couple of instances companies that are able to benefit from the tax credits related to the empowerment zone located in our facility because it is in the empowerment zone, and we have a number of other projects of that kind. Mr. Stokes. You also mentioned that because of the Federal funds in this project, you have been able to generate significant private funding. Mr. Polf. Yes. Mr. Stokes. Could you tell us about that, what you mean? Mr. Polf. First of all, Federal money was very instrumental in getting State support for this project of about $10 million, and we have also received about $25 million in private support for the project from donors who, quite frankly, were skeptical about the viability of this project but, when they saw the support that was being provided by both the State and the Federal Governments, put up significant dollars to complete the project. That is one of the things that is helping us move into the diabetes area in particular. Mr. Stokes. I see. Mr. Lewis. Maybe you could elaborate on that for the record as well. Mr. Polf. We got a specific gift--the New York City metropolitan area is not an area where there is a large concentration of diabetes research, and so what this new center will allow us to do is to concentrate a variety of areas of science. As I said before, it cuts across a number of diseases, and we have gotten a donation to create a new diabetes center specifically for that purpose that will be opened and operating in the building when it is opened later this year. Mr. Lewis. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Polf. ---------- Friday, May 2, 1997 FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SOCIETIES FOR EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY WITNESS JOHN W. SUTTIE, PRESIDENT, FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SOCIETIES FOR EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY Mr. Lewis. Bernard Kahn. Dr. Suttie? We might as well take you out of order. Dr. John Suttie is the president of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. Doctor. Mr. Suttie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Stokes. I am here today representing the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. FASEB is a coalition of 14 societies with a combined membership of more than 43,000 scientists who conduct life science research at all major universities and various corporate research laboratories. Mr. Lewis. Doctor, as you know, we have your entire statement, and we will put it in the record. So if you would summarize your comments. Mr. Suttie. I certainly will. I will begin by discussing the budget of the NSF. The NSF is the sole Federal agency with the commission to promote a broad program of basic education in research and science, and this broad mission is now the key to the growing interdependence of science as we approach the 21st century. Discoveries in physics, mathematics, engineering, materials, and computer sciences are of critical importance to biology and medical research. It is for that reason that FASEB has moved beyond its advocacy for biomedical research funding and has worked closely with the Coalition for National Science Funding to request a 7.1 percent increase for NSF in fiscal year 1998. The studies made possible by NSF-funded research go beyond basic science advancement and also lead to industrial development and economic growth which continues to improve the quality of life for our citizens. For example, NSF-sponsored fundamental research on microorganisms led to the discovery of the DNA-cutting enzymes called restriction endonucleases. Use of these enzymes as reagents has played an essential role in the development of the field of molecular biology and the billion-dollar biotechnology it has spawned. Also, student participation in NSF-funded research at universities has educated and trained the workforce which is needed to support the development and the growth of the biotech industry. Despite its significant contribution to our Nation's scientific enterprise, NSF will be able to fund in fiscal year 1997 only a fraction of the proposals that had been rated meritorious. Because of inflation, the NSF budget has lost approximately 6 percent of its purchasing power since 1995. Continued decline will delay our progress in science as important new proposals remain unfunded and weaken the technical infrastructure that demands a workforce educated in the disciplines of science. To combat this alarming trend, FASEB recommends an NSF budget for fiscal year 1998 of $3.5 billion, or a 7.1 percent increase. This would replace the inflationary loss suffered since 1995 and provide a modest 1 percent growth in the NSF appropriation. This figure is similar to the amount for fiscal year 1998 that was approved last week by the House of Representatives when it passed H.R. 1273, the National Science Authorization Act. I will focus briefly on FASEB's recommendation for medical research at the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Our Nation has a real obligation to provide the highest quality health care possible to U.S. veterans. The VA Research and Development Program enhances the quality of veterans' health care by integrating clinical needs with fundamental research and assuring the rapid transfer of new knowledge from the laboratory to the bedside. It has also produced outstanding developments in the field of biomedical research which affect the general population. For example, the application of molecular biological techniques to the rapid diagnosis of tuberculosis has allowed diagnosis in 2 days rather than 4 to 6 weeks previously necessary. This advance will result in earlier treatment and reduced periods of hospitalization. Despite important discoveries such as these, VA-sponsored research is in serious jeopardy. The $28 million cut for VA research which was included in the administration's fiscal year 1998 budget request will be devastating and represents a 10.5 percent in real dollars and nearly 15 percent when adjusted for inflation. The resulting damage to those highly regarded programs will be irreparable. The VA research programs are an important part of the Nation's biomedical research capacity and a major factor in enhancing the quality of health care for both our veterans and for others. FASEB urges the members of this subcommittee to soundly reject any cuts in these critical programs. We further call on you to appropriate an additional $18 million for VA research, for a total of at least $280 million. Finally, Mr. Chairman, FASEB has a spending recommendation for NASA. In recent years, NASA has made progress in implementing merit review for its relatively small Biomedical Research Program contained in the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences. We have been concerned that this Biomedical Research Program be continued and it not be interrupted because of delays in space station construction. For fiscal year 1998, FASEB recommends $55 million for research and analysis in this program, a $5 million increase above the previous year. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I would be glad to answer any questions that you might have. [The information follows:] [Pages 1054 - 1066--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much. Mr. Stokes. Mr. Stokes. No questions, Mr. Chairman. I just thank the doctor for his appearance here and for his testimony. Mr. Lewis. Dr. Suttie, you follow a rather impressive string of people who have expressed similar concerns about research dollars, and the committee is of course very empathic. ---------- Friday, May 2, 1997. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WITNESS JACQUELINE L. JOHNSON, CHAIRPERSON, NAIHC, AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TLINGIT-HAIDA INDIAN HOUSING AUTHORITY, JUNEAU, ALASKA, NATIONAL AMERICAN INDIAN HOUSING COUNCIL (NAIHC) Mr. Lewis. One more time, could I ask if Mr. Tom Seth has arrived? Mr. Kahn. Ms. Jacqueline Johnson. Chairperson Jacqueline Johnson from Juneau, Alaska. Is that right? Ms. Johnson. Yes. Mr. Lewis. From the National American Indian Housing Council. Nice to see you again. Ms. Johnson. Good afternoon, Chairman Lewis and other Members of the Committee. I just wanted to let you know, first of all, I want to thank you for allowing me to testify today. I was scheduled for Wednesday, but I was at the negotiating rulemaking. As you know, it was a very important part of NAHASDA and the Indian Housing Act for Indian programs, and I am overwhelmed to be able to come here and tell you about the successes that we have there. It was incredible. We actually finished the rules and the regulations 1 day early. We had a 3-month time frame. We came to a formula that we all had consensus on and agreed to, and we believe that the rules and the regulations that we developed in the negotiated rulemaking process accommodate the needs of the tribe as well as the oversight provisions and requirements that not only Congress was looking for but needed to be provided for and instructed to for HUD. We also think that the rules respect the tribal sovereignty of the tribes in allowing them to be able to make and develop some of those flexible programs and meeting the needs that we thought were so important and the reason why we promoted the act. One of the biggest things that we also did was, we spent time writing the rules and the regulations for the Loan Guarantee Program so that we can encourage throughout the act, in the way that we developed the rules, a merging of public and private partnerships and trying to be able to get the public--I mean the private market, into the Indian country to help us resolve some of our Indian housing needs. So the next most important issue, of course, is money. That is what we are here about. So what I would like to let you know is that the President's budget for NAHASDA and for the block grant doesn't, of course, adequately, in our minds, meet the needs of what NAHASDA needs. And when we were developing NAHASDA, we recognized that there were a number of tribes who didn't have access to Indian housing problems. So through NAHASDA, finally there will be allocations for all tribes and all tribes will be able to have funding to manage the housing programs based upon the formula. So we recognize that there will be more tribes specifically in Indian housing programs and trying to relieve some of the economic and housing storage in their communities. The other thing, of course, is that the President's budget remains at a consistent level and it doesn't account for any inflationary factors, and also it doesn't account for the impact of welfare reform to Indian country. We believe that Indian country, since it is one of the most economically distressed places in the United States, will have some of the largest impact of welfare reform and the issues addressing it, and so there are a couple of places that we are looking at housing to create and encourage job promotion through this act as well as other partnerships. But welfare reform will be a difficult thing for us to overcome. Also, because a block grant is set and we get one amount of money, as people's rents are lowered because of welfare reform and the loss of jobs, or since we don't have the ability to create those other jobs, we won't be like other public housing programs where the subsidy just gets bigger in the housing components, our size is set in one block grant. The other thing, which is the most important element of the block grant, is to be able to have the 601 Loan Guarantee Program. As you know, the President's budget has zero dollars in that. We are urging you to consider putting money into the 601 Loan Guarantee Program. We know in order for us to succeed and in order for this grant to succeed, that we need to be able to leverage, and the only way that we can entice the private market to work with us is through the loan guarantee. We saw that happen with the 184 loan guarantee when it happened. Finally, financial markets, Fannie Mae, and other people were interested in doing business with us because they had the 100 percent guarantee with the Federal Government. We are asking for that same guarantee with the 601 Loan Guarantee. And we are asking, if it is difficult and you would like us to do a pilot program, we will even agree to do that with you. But this is so important to us that we want at least something there so that we can prove that this will be a successful element to bringing up our economic stability in our communities. The National Indian Housing Council is asking that $850 million be considered under the block grant program. This program is all-inclusive. There are provisions of the act that we didn't have to take care of before. The environmental requirements and review environments are now the tribal responsibility. There is the responsibility of putting together a comprehensive Indian housing plan as well as the components of that. So there are new responsibilities that we have never had to do before. So we believe that in addition to taking care of our current assisted stock, that we need to have that additional money to be able to ensure that this block grant is successful. If you could have been there and felt the power of the tribes and felt the power of the housing authorities and how they felt on that evening when we were successful, that power was incredible, and we need to allow that power to happen, because when people feel good about themselves and they feel successful about the product that they are doing, we will accomplish a lot more. And I believe if we give an adequate amount of money to this block grant, you will see success in Indian country that you have never seen before. We had unity putting this act together that we have never had before, and that same unity passed through the negotiated rulemaking process and I believe will pass through HUD. We will be working with the Secretary to be able to work with them to make sure that they understand not just the policies and the regulations but the spirit within them. The other thing is, there are a couple of things that we also think that you might be able to help us with, and one is the NAHASDA grant funds; we need them to be treated like home funds. You could use them for leverage and matching funds, and right now the NAHASDA grant funds do not have that identification. So if we were able to take the NAHASDA grant funds and to be able to place that identification with some language through the appropriation process that allows them to be used for matching and leveraging, then we will be able to leverage those dollars more with other departments' dollars, with other programs' dollars, with CDFI, with other kinds of things that are out there that currently, right now, we are not able to use them for. So that is a critical issue for us. The other thing is that we have a number of nonnatives that are participating in the Section 8 Program in Indian country. In fact, out of 3,600 vouchers that we have in Indian country-- which I know is not significant numbers compared to public housing, which we know is quite substantial--about 2,000 of those vouchers are currently being used by nonnatives. Those vouchers are important for those housing authorities to be able to maintain their viability. But what we would like, as long as they are being utilized by nonnatives, that perhaps we could have a public housing and Indian housing partnership in the management of those vouchers, and those vouchers will continue to be funded by the public housing program. And, of course, the technical assistance and training for tribes and TDHEs--Tribe Designated Housing Entities--under the act is absolutely critical at that point. This is a new phase for us, and we need to make sure that they have the capability, they continue the capacity, and they grow in those things. So we feel it is very important that we maintain a high level of technical assistance and training to be able to create those successes and help to share those models out there in Indian country. And I am not just saying it for the tribes and TDHEs. At this point, I think HUD is going to need a lot of assistance and training for them to be able to understand what this act does, what it provides, and what kind of assistance we need to provide to make it become successful. The last thing I would like your support in is, we are looking to try to create another kind of--we introduced a bill a couple of years ago and continued to last year, and it is called the Native American Financial Services Organization. I believe I talked with you a little bit about that. What we would like to do is, we believe this act is a first step. This is the nucleus for getting us the goal, making us feel that we have the ability to do it. The second step is the access to the private markets, and there are a lot of small tribes who are going to need to have not just capacity building, but they will probably remain small. We need to do some consortiums, some poolings, and other things to get the resources available and leveraged to make it bigger and broader, and I am asking you to be partners in creating that next step of this act, and that is creating something similar to NAFSO; if not NAFSO, something that gives us access and creates a financial market amongst Indian country that we can work on together that we can feel the same pride that we felt with NAHASDA when it passed and what we are doing now. I believe that we will be working on some proposals, and I hope that any of your input and ideas, that you will share them with us and we will be able to put together something that will be the next step for creating the financial market in Indian country. With that, I thank you very much for allowing me to be here today, and I appreciate your support and appreciate the interest that you have in Indian country, Chairman Lewis. It has been very rewarding, and it has been great to work with you and your staff. They have always been great. [The information follows:] [Pages 1071 - 1075--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. We thank you very much and appreciate our being able to work together, not only on these housing programs but your schedule as well. Mr. Stokes, Ms. Johnson and I have had a chance to spend a good deal of time together. You may have questions, but it is a shame she is not more articulate, isn't it? You did a very fine job. Thank you. Mr. Stokes. I might just take a moment, since I have not been favored with the conversations that you have had with the Chairman, and you are an excellent advocate for your cause and extremely articulate and eloquent, but I was interested in your comments relative to welfare reform and the impact that is having. Do you want to elaborate on that a little bit? Ms. Johnson. One thing that we are concerned about: The impact of welfare reform, particularly in Indian country, we believe as people--a lot of our Natives have moved out of the reservations to the more urban communities, and we believe as things become more difficult, that there is starting to already be, but there will be a greater, influx of people coming back to the reservation where services are being provided by the tribal organizations. The tribal organizations won't be able to handle that, and we won't be able to handle the housing provisions. But not only that; because the block grant is set for 5 years, this is the amount of level of funding that you have, and as payments are reduced because income is reduced because we are still on the percentage of income ratio, we don't have anything that helps build up the subsidy or the additional amount of money that is required to operate those units. In the formula, what we did, we used the 1996 level for current assisted stock to say, okay, this is how much subsidy you are going to get. But if we start seeing a decline in the people's abilities to provide those payments, we will see the decline in our ability to operate that permanent assisted stock. Mr. Stokes. I guess a part of your whole equation too, I note here, is the fact that while the Federal Government has recognized a certain number of tribes, there are obviously some processes by which they are continuing to currently recognize a certain number of new tribes? Ms. Johnson. Well, all tribes that we are dealing with are federally recognized tribes except for the few State-recognized tribes. But out of those there are probably about 300 tribes that were being served by Federal Indian housing programs, and there is like 530 tribes in the United States. So a lot of them didn't have housing programs. They were either too small or weren't part of a consortium to be able to make it work. This grant, the formula allocation, distributes money to all tribes that have affordable housing needs. So there will be more tribes be able to take advantage of it now that couldn't in the past. Mr. Stokes. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lewis. I can assure you, Mr. Stokes, that Ms. Johnson will be working with the authorizing committee as well over the time period. Thank you. Ms. Johnson. Thank you. I appreciate it. Mr. Lewis. Let me touch bases with our earlier schedule one more time to see if others have arrived. Mr. Tom Seth by chance? Mr. Bernard Kahn? Then we will move on with our schedule from there. ---------- -- -------- Friday, May 2, 1997. CITY OF COMPTON, CALIFORNIA WITNESS OMAR BRADLEY, MAYOR, CITY OF COMPTON, CALIFORNIA Mr. Lewis. Omar Bradley, the Mayor of the City of Compton. I haven't been to Compton for a couple of months. Good to see you. Mayor Bradley. Good to see you, Mr. Chairman, and you, too, Mr. Stokes; and on behalf of the more than 91,000 residents of the City of Compton I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to present testimony relevant to the fiscal year 1998 VA/HUD independent agencies appropriation bill. Mr. Lewis. We would say--let you know, Mr. Bradley that your entire statement will be included in the record; and we will measure it with care. So if you would help us with our time, but present the thoughts that you want in your own terms, please. Mayor Bradley. I will try and be as rapid as possible. With the time that I have been provided, I want to discuss---- Mr. Lewis. Let me interrupt. By chance, that is not a UCLA tie, is it? Mayor Bradley. No, I am a Long Beach State 49er. Mr. Lewis. It is the right colors. Mayor Bradley. Since my name is Omar Bradley, I had to wear some of Army's colors, too. I wanted to discuss issues related to our efforts to initiate economic and community development. HUD is a very important part of that. This Tuesday marked the fifth anniversary of the so-called Rodney King riots that devastated a great portion of Los Angeles County. Nowhere was the impact of that violence more destructive than in the City of Compton. During the riots, more than 200 fires burned throughout the City; and more than 100 businesses and nearly 1,800 jobs were lost. Over the past 5 years, much has been done to rebuild and revitalize the riot-torn areas. However, much more remains undone; and the effects have had a profound effect on the City of Compton. For example, one in three buildings that were destroyed or sustained significant damage in this City, Compton, has yet to be repaired or rebuilt. City residents wishing to establish or reopen businesses cannot secure adequate resources or financing to do so. Additionally, the City's unemployment rate has swollen to 14.7 percent, nearly twice the State's average. Compton applied for an empowerment zone designation to aid its economic recovery; but, inexplicably, the City was denied. Nor were any of $1.3 billion in grants and loans awarded to the City of Los Angeles ever sent to the City of Compton. In spite of these setbacks, the citizens of Compton havedisplayed a remarkable ability to overcome each hardship with new resolve and determination, and this type of resolve and determination serves as the basis of the City's attempt to launch our regenesis program into the next century. Known as the Compton General Plan 2010, this innovative strategy plans--outlines revitalization through three specific areas. The first is vision, the second is revitalization, and the third is stability. With proper vision, the City is able to make specific statements about how Compton should look and function by the year 2010. With revitalization, the City can highlight its positive aspects while conceptualizing improvements that can be achieved over a relatively brief period. Through stabilization, the search to outline and eliminate negative trends can be pursued. Once these areas have been identified, other problematic areas can be addressed. Mr. Chairman, you have heard the challenges we are facing are multifaceted and daunting. The role that HUD plays in helping Compton to address these issues is essential. The addition of HUD funds will assist Compton in its effort to establish, first, an international industrial complex to capitalize on the trade opportunities from the $1.8 billion Alameda Corridor Project; secondly, it will help move the City's unemployment and welfare recipients into the workforce; third, it will encourage community development and entrepreneurship; and, fourth, it will promote homeownership by providing safe and affordable housing. With this in mind, the City of Compton support's HUD's budget request for $16 billion for the fiscal year 1998. Specifically, the City of Compton would like the Committee to support the Department's request to, first, allocate $100 million to begin the implementation of the second round of empowerment zones and empowerment communities. The City desires to obtain designation as an empowerment zone or enterprise community in the next round of competition. We strongly believe that the tax incentives and substantial resources that come with the zone designations will aid in the implementation of Compton's general plan. Second, we would like this Committee to provide $50 million for economic development initiative funds from this account. These funds would be used by the City to assist in our effort to establish an international industrial complex adjacent to the Alameda Corridor. This project would bring class A industrial space to the City and serve as a major land development project. Also we would like this Committee to provide at least $4.6 billion for the community development block grant program. This program has been extremely beneficial to the Compton community over the last 21 years. Unlike other funding sources, the CDBG program provides a stream of resources that provides for some flexibility and promotes comprehensive community planning and continuity of effort. Fourth, we would like for you to help us utilize $1.3 billion to continue the section 108 loan program. In addition to providing reduced interest loans to those projects that require gap funding, Compton uses these loans for a number of strong job-producing economic development projects through the City's economic development revolving loan program. In addition to these programs, the City also would like to go on record supporting the $5.4 billion budget to transform dilapidated HUD housing into modern, liveable properties and that $823 million request for the HOME program. In supporting these programs, the committee is supporting the efforts of Compton and other economically distressed areas around the Nation to foster sustainable economic growth and community development. With your continued assistance, we will be able to achieve this goal. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Again, thank you for the opportunity to present these views and recommendations to you for the City of Compton. Have any questions? [The information follows:] [Pages 1080 - 1084--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Mayor Bradley, I must say that the last Mayor Bradley that I worked with closely was a UCLA graduate; but, in the meantime, I like your colors. Mayor Bradley. My mother graduated from UCLA. She was a graduate in 1981. Mr. Lewis. I did attend a meeting at Compton High School recently where we were discussing the question of cocaine and its transport into the country; and the questions are still swirling around that, as I am sure you are familiar with. Mayor Bradley. Yes, sir. Mr. Lewis. We know of many of the problems of urban America and especially of a community like Compton; and we would like for the funds that are provided by HUD to, in a sensitive way, be responsive to the kinds of requests that you are making today. Mr. Stokes. Mr. Stokes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor, let me welcome you before our Subcommittee. It is a pleasure and honor to have you here this afternoon. In your testimony, you mentioned 14 percent unemployment. I would imagine that under our new welfare reform legislation that you are having some fallout with reference to that in your statement. You want to tell us about it? Mayor Bradley. Well, certainly, as the welfare reform program begins to take toll on people who probably need more preparation in terms of job training, we are seeing higher rates of crime, despair, hopelessness. Much of the crime is associated around relationships between men and women who, in fact, utilize that welfare for survival. In fact, just last Saturday, we had a homicide--well, the person who was killed was a recipient; and she was murdered by her husband or her lover, whichever you prefer. So, as the money begins to dry up, you are seeing more volatile situations between men and women who usually utilize that money to survive as a family, even if the male is not part of the household. The other thing that you are seeing in Compton is a rise in robbery, a rise in burglary. We have the highest homicide rate west of the Mississippi River; and certainly in the last 12 days we have experienced eight homicides, much of it having to do with situations of economic depravity and despair. So my recommendation is that, through the funds we receive from HUD, we can begin to train people who are coming off of welfare to become valuable parts of our citizenry. One of the things that we have an abundance of is empty housing stock. Much of that housing is a part of HUD's program. What we would like to do is take some of these people who, in fact, are not working who should be heads of their household, train them to repair the housing that isthere, and then, through the HUD first-time buyer program, allow them to purchase those same homes. Since Los Angeles County is a macrocosm of the City of Compton, consider this. We have 26,000 domiciles. We have 1,000 empty. Los Angeles County probably has maybe a million domiciles. How many do you think are empty there and how many people could be employed to rehabilitate those homes, if in fact, they were given the proper training? So we are really interested in seeing HUD move forward, but we also recognize that we have got to give people trainable, sellable skills so that they can ultimately get off of the welfare roll and become independent productive citizens. Mr. Stokes. I noted, Mr. Chairman, a couple of nights ago a nationally televised TV program that was about Los Angeles and the Rodney King riots of about 5 years ago; and, of course, they indicated that to a large degree in Los Angeles they had been able to recoup and rebuild some of the areas. They showed a big mall that had been destroyed and had now been rebuilt, mentioned about $1.3 billion having been spent in that area. But, evidently, a lot of this did not spill over into Compton. Mayor Bradley. None. And let me just be specific. The problem is that when you make an appropriation without providing for training, then that money usually leaves the community. Because if you are not trained to help in the rebuild project, then you are not going to participate in it. If you are not participatory, then what happens is you have beautiful buildings, but you have people who are locked out. And they, in turn, become criminals, because if they don't take a part in the project they are going to take a part of the project from a criminal standpoint. So what we have to do is be intelligent in how we spend. I don't believe we should take a man fishing. We should teach him how to fish, and then he fishes on his own, and he is fed for a lifetime. So I would like to see some of the funding that we receive from HUD focused upon people who are revisiting the community from maybe penitentiary cells so this person doesn't get locked out and forced into a life of crime and recidivism. That can only be done through education and preparation for life. That is what we need to do. We need to have a holistic approach to making human beings capable of surviving in our society. As I said in earlier meetings, everybody that is an American has the right and should have the right to an opportunity to succeed. I had it. I hope everybody else has. Mr. Stokes. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Lewis. I must say, Mayor Bradley, you, too, are an articulate spokesperson for your viewpoint; and the City of Compton is grateful, as we are grateful for your coming here. Mayor Bradley. And, by the way, George Bush is a former resident of the City of Compton. Mr. Lewis. Mike of my staff was telling me that the former mayor was a former member of the committee, Del Clawson. Mr. Stokes. Yes, I know Del. Mayor Bradley. Including Pete Rozelle and a few other notables. Mr. Lewis. You didn't get those broad shoulders just at the breakfast table. Mayor Bradley. Playing football. We played Long Beach State my last year there--I mean, we played UCLA; and we lost 59 to nothing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lewis. That certainly wasn't your fault. Mayor Bradley. No, because I refused to play. Thank you so much. God bless. Friday, May 2, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WITNESS KERRY SUBLETTE, SARKEYS PROFESSOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, THE UNIVERSITY OF TULSA Mr. Lewis. Dr. Kerry Sublette. It may be that guests who are going to be on our schedule earlier have arrived. If they have, if they will let my staff know, I would appreciate it. Dr. Sublette, Professor of Environmental Engineering, University of Tulsa. Mr. Sublette. Yes, sir. I have to say, after listening to the last two witnesses, I am suitably humbled. I come to you today not only on behalf of the University of Tulsa, but I am also representing the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University and the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. All of these institutions have come together to form the Integrated Petroleum Environmental Consortium, or IPEC, which I hope you will agree meets the objectives of the new community-based approach of the EPA to regulation as applied to the domestic energy industry. Included in this new way of thinking, as I am sure you know, are developing consensus-based solutions empowering the public with information, providing multimedia environmental protection, building partnerships with regulated communities, increasing the use of promising technologies and use of more market-based incentives; and I think as you will hear this is the hallmark of IPEC. We believe that IPEC is of critical importance to the EPA in accomplishing these types of goals and these types of initiatives in this particular industry. Mr. Chairman, the declining price of crude oil and increasing costs of compliance to environmental regulations have combined to produce a decrease in domestic oil production in the United States. The major oil companies have scaled back their domestic production, and they have refocused their exploration and production overseas. However, there are 8,000 independent producers that don't have that option. The only two options they have is producing from this domestic resource base or going out of business. At the same time, the independents are increasingly the inheritors of these mature fields that the majors are leaving behind. Yet, compared to the major producer, the independent producer is most vulnerable to the declining price of oil and gas and the increasing cost of environmental compliance and unfavorable tax policies. This independent producer only has one source of revenue, and that is the sale of oil and gas. He doesn't refine any products. There is no vertical depth to his business. If these small- and medium-sized producers which make up the backbone of this, I think we all agree, strategic industry in this country are to remain viable, the domestic industry which produces up to 75 percent of the domestic production in this country will require access to cost-effective technology of pollution prevention, research, waste treatment, remediation and exploration and production. The industry needs clearly more cost-effective technologies and new approaches to pollution prevention to lower the cost of complying with pollution and waste disposal regulations that U.S. society demands. A reduction in the environmental compliance costs will have the greatest impact on the national economy when applied at this level, at the level of the extraction industry. The strategic importance of this industry requires that industry and government and academia all combine their resources and coordinate their efforts toward finding solutions to environmental problems that represent the greatest challenge to the domestic petroleum industry and to the competitiveness of that industry and the greatest risk to human health and the environment. In response to this need, as I have said, these four major universities have joined together to form IPEC. IPEC seeks to work with the Environmental Protection Agency in meeting the objectives of the strategic plan of the Office of Research and Development while increasing the competitiveness of this strategically important industry. Specifically, IPEC proposes to provide the infrastructure to achieve and maintain an outstanding R&D program to assess risk assessment and risk management in the domestic industry, focus R&D expenditures on solving environmental problems in the domestic energy industry that pose the greatest risk to human health and the environment, to work with the Environmental Protection Agency to maintain a close working relationship with the domestic petroleum industry, something that doesn't exist now, and support the development of outstanding environmental scientists and engineers and provide the needed technology transfer to the industry. IPEC will be a true public-private partnership, with industry providing 50 percent cost sharing for funded projects; and the industry will both be advisor and hands-on participant in any technology development. IPEC is seeking an appropriation of up to $4 million for fiscal year 1998 and succeeding fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 through the Environmental Protection Agency. The consortium will be responsible for private sector and State support at no less than 25 percent of Federal appropriations in fiscal year 1998 and an average of 50 percent of Federal appropriations over a 5-year period. The consortium will be subject to review as of September 30, 1999, and each 12-month period thereafter to assure the effective production of data regulatory assessments and technology development meeting the stated goals of the consortium. And, lastly, as I close, Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I didn't thank you and this committee and Mr. Stokes for the support that has been given to the University of Tulsa and the city of Tulsa for its most important economic development education initiative, the Kendall-Whittier Project. Testimony has been submitted in that regard, but on behalf of the President of the University of Tulsa and the city of Tulsa I would like to thank you for that effort. Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Dr. Sublette. [The information follows:] [Pages 1089 - 1097--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. Let me say perhaps one of the most significant periods of my involvement in public affairs swirls around that time in the late 1960s when we first discovered that word ``environment.'' It is obvious that man has interest in making certain that we do that which is effective and necessary to improve and extend the conditions under which we live. Having said that, from time to time, I have noticed that that whole discussion has been dominated by people on the fringes of these issues. Some would use the environmental discussions to establish preconceived notions about no growth. Others would suggest that the environment is the world only as I see it. And it is very important that people who are somewhere closer to the center of all of this help direct and guide the discussion. So I very much welcome the work of this consortium and want you to know I think you are on a very important track, and if there are ways that we can be of assistance we will try to do that. Mr. Sublette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lewis. Mr. Stokes. Mr. Stokes. No questions, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate Dr. Sublette's testimony. Mr. Lewis. Nice to be with you. Mr. Sublette. Thank you very much. ---------- Friday, May 2, 1997. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSE ANESTHETISTS WITNESS STEPHEN McGARRY, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSE ANESTHETISTS Mr. Lewis. Mr. Steven McGarry--we actually have you up almost on the button. We were going to call you at 2:03--the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists. Mr. McGarry. My job is to put you to sleep, but I will try and be brief and keep you awake for a couple of minutes anyway. My name is Stephen McGarry, and I am a certified registered nurse anesthetist. I am also a Vietnam era veteran and a 20- year employee of the West Roxbury VA medical center in Boston. I appreciate the opportunity to present my testimony to the committee today on behalf of the 27,000 CRNAs of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists and the 450 CRNAs of the Association of VA Nurse Anesthetists. My testimony today will explain how CRNAs can save the VHA money and will address some concerns that we have about preserving the quality of care provided to our Nation's veterans. CRNAs administer approximately 65 percent of the anesthetics given to patients each year in the United States and perform many of the same functions as physician anesthesiologists. Both CRNAs and anesthesiologists administer anesthesia for all types of surgical procedures from the simplest to the most complex either as solo providers or in a team care setting. No studies have ever found any difference between CRNA and anesthesiologists in the quality of care provided. While both types of health care professionals can provide same or similar services, CRNAs cost the VHA much less to retain. The average salary of a physician anesthesiologist is over $200,000 per year, while the average salary of a CRNA employed by the VHA runs far lower at approximately $81,000 per year. CRNAs draw far lower salaries and therefore cost less than anesthesiologists to retain. In addition to salary considerations, however, it is also vitally important to utilize CRNAs in appropriate practice situations with our physician anesthesiologists counterparts. Many work in a team care setting in conjunction with the anesthesiologist to provide anesthesia service to our Nation's veterans. However, according to VHA Handbook 1112, there is no requirement of anesthesiologist supervision of CRNAs. CRNAs are licensed and certified to provide all types of anesthesia services, and no State requires supervision by an anesthesiologist. This is also a well-established policy in the other Federal services. In fact, there are many veterans in military hospitals throughout the country which have CRNAs as their sole anesthesia providers, and this practice arrangement has not had a negative impact on the quality of the anesthesia care. Therefore, any attempt by either the national anesthesia service or by local VHA medical directors to mandate supervision by anesthesiologists for all anesthesia care would undermine cost-effectiveness without any increase in the quality of care provided to our Nation's veterans. Being a veteran, above the concerns for cost-effectiveness, however, quality of care should be the primary concern for all VHA medical centers. We owe our veterans no less. That is why Congress should direct the VHA to give all due consideration before approving the introduction of anesthesiologist assistants or AAs into the VA medical system. Anesthesiologist assistants function under the direction of an anesthesiologist. According to a memorandum sent to all CRNAs by the VHA, VHA does not currently have anesthesia assistants as a recognized group of health care providers, and there is an orderly process for adding a new provider group. AANA strongly recommends the VHA follow this orderly process and no other if the decision is made to consider the introduction of AAs. It is unclear, however, why there are currently AAs already working in the VHA system when they are not yet a recognized VHA provider. Until AAs have been evaluated and national policies established for their practice within the VHA, there is some reason to be concerned about the quality of care they provide. The Health Care Financing Administration expressed their concerns along ago in medicare regulations stating anesthesiologist assistants are not educated and experienced in comprehensive patient care as are CRNAs. Therefore, at the very least, VHA medical directors should be directed to implement strict supervision and policies in order to preserve quality of care. Until that is done, AANA strongly recommends re-examination of the decisions that have allowed the employment of AAs before they were carefully considered during an orderly process referred to the VHA memorandum. I would last like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to speak, and I add this last part myself. As a veteran and VA employee, I feel Dr. Kizer's vision could prove to be our most effective managed health care system where more of our health care dollar goes back to the patient and less to the pockets of the corporate world. Mr. Lewis. Well, we will make sure that Dr. Kizer hears that last additive from your testimony. But, in the meantime, we very much appreciate you being with us and appreciate your remarks. Mr. Stokes. Mr. Stokes. No questions. Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much. [The information follows:] [Pages 1101 - 1105--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] Mr. Lewis. By chance has Tom Seth arrived? Or Bernard Kahn? If not, then the record will receive their testimony, if they would like to submit it. Mr. Lewis. In the meantime, that ends our public witness testimony; and, with that, the committee is adjourned. [Information for the record follows:] [Pages 1107 - 1375--The official Committee record contains additional material here.] W I T N E S S E S __________ Page A'zera, Veronica................................................. 889 Abeles, Norman................................................... 807 Adams, Tom....................................................... 1291 Allen, W.R....................................................... 1296 Anderson, P.S.................................................... 858 Anthes, R.A...................................................... 1371 Applegate, David................................................. 874 Atlas, R.A....................................................... 834 Avery, Martin.................................................... 126 Bates, Dr. Joseph................................................ 572 Berenson, A.R.................................................... 220 Bereuter, Hon. Doug.............................................. 78 Blum, J.O........................................................ 1351 Blumenauer, Hon. Earl............................................ 37 Bollinger, John.................................................. 889 Bowles, L.K...................................................... 343 Boyd, Hon. Allen................................................. 1107 Boyd, Merle...................................................... 1362 Bradley, Omar.................................................... 1077 Brandt, David.................................................... 821 Briggs, Jack..................................................... 1234 Bursell, Sven.................................................... 924 Butler, W.T...................................................... 325 Bye, Dr. R.E., Jr................................................ 1224 Cabral, R.J...................................................... 1175 Cagey, Henry..................................................... 118 Calhoun, J.A..................................................... 1309 Calkins, C.L..................................................... 957 Calzonetti, Frank................................................ 718 Campbell, C.K.................................................... 370 Campion, R.J..................................................... 645 Capps, Hon. Walter............................................... 1109 Charvat, Steven.................................................. 1303 Ciaccia, Julius, Jr.............................................. 477 Clark, Les....................................................... 1175 Cole, M.L........................................................ 385 Colvin, J.F...................................................... 1330 Cook, Peter...................................................... 469 Correll, D.L..................................................... 469 Cunha, Manuel, Jr................................................ 1175 Davis, Hon. Jim.................................................. 112 Dawson, Clyde.................................................... 592 Diaz, Ricardo.................................................... 246 DiPasquale, N.A.................................................. 1204 Doyle, Hon. Mike................................................. 72 Elzanowski, Anjay................................................ 1030 Farr, Hon. Sam................................................... 442 Federoff, Carolyn................................................ 1171 Fernandez, Henry................................................. 942 Foreman, Spencer................................................. 1274 Fox, Dr. Peter................................................... 1133 Frank, Hon. Barney............................................... 23 Friedman, Dr. Louis.............................................. 1342 Gainer, Walter................................................... 682 Gantt, Elisabeth................................................. 829 Gentry, R.C...................................................... 298 Glenn, G.A....................................................... 1259 Godbey, Dr. Galen................................................ 1336 Gorden, Stephen.................................................. 419 Gordon, Hon. Bart................................................ 44 Gorosh, Kathye................................................... 1199 Grace, Marcellus................................................. 552 Grant, Glenn..................................................... 592 Graziano, Joseph................................................. 645 Grogan, Paul..................................................... 277 Gustinis, J.G.................................................... 611 Hanle, P.A....................................................... 669 Hanrahan, Pegeen................................................. 562 Harp, Jim........................................................ 536 Harvey, Bart..................................................... 335 Haynes, Rita..................................................... 448 Herman, Richard.................................................. 726 Herrera, Alexandra............................................... 442 Higgins, Maureen................................................. 1164 Iarossi, Brad.................................................... 1002 Isbell, D.B...................................................... 986 Jackson-Lee, Hon. Sheila......................................... 758 Jawroski, Lawrence............................................... 522 Johnson, David................................................... 788 Johnson, J.L..................................................... 1067 Johnson, Than.................................................... 194 Jollivette, C.M.................................................. 1265 Joseph, Rev. Laverne............................................. 360 Kahn, B.M........................................................ 1248 Kelly, Bob....................................................... 536 Kenny, M.P....................................................... 1175 Kerr, Bill....................................................... 490 Killian, Bill.................................................... 1179 Kirk, Ken........................................................ 1148 Kleine, M.A...................................................... 1243 Kraut, A.G....................................................... 794 Lampson, Hon. Rick............................................... 15 Larson, L.A...................................................... 1151 Larson, P.F...................................................... 583 Lehman, Hon. William............................................. 385 Leiby, V.M....................................................... 497 Levine, F.J...................................................... 771 MacDonald, D.B................................................... 485 Magill, James.................................................... 889 Mallory, R.E..................................................... 1164 Maloney, Hon. J.H................................................ 1 Martin, Robert................................................... 461 Mason, R.J....................................................... 1219 Mathews, Mary.................................................... 448 Mauderly, Joseph................................................. 604 Maulson, Tom..................................................... 134 Maves, M.D....................................................... 691 Mavrogenes, Harry................................................ 566 McClain, R.M..................................................... 631 McDonald, Kevin.................................................. 490 McEwen, B.S...................................................... 1366 McGarry, Stephen................................................. 1098 McGovern, Hon. J.P............................................... 24 McKee, Kate...................................................... 448 Moakley, Hon. Joe................................................ 85 Mullen, J.M., Jr................................................. 174 Nadel, S.M....................................................... 658 Nasr, Nebil...................................................... 611 Nellor, Margaret................................................. 1133 Nemtzow, David................................................... 748 O'Brien, T.J..................................................... 1262 O'Hara, Ann...................................................... 205 Overbey, M.M..................................................... 1116 Pallone, Hon. Frank.............................................. 49 Pelosi, Hon. Nancy............................................... 61 Pickett, Hon. Owen............................................... 27 Pietrafesa, Len.................................................. 700 Pings, C.J....................................................... 1155 Polf, W.A........................................................ 1038 Quinn, Hon. Jack................................................. 112 Rawls, Mac....................................................... 27 Reheis, C.H...................................................... 1175 Reischman, M.M................................................... 709 Reyes, Silvestre................................................. 111 Rhea, L.D........................................................ 1321 Roman, Nan....................................................... 1279 Rousseau, R.W.................................................... 851 Rutherford, George............................................... 978 Sandy, M.L....................................................... 1306 Saundry, P.D..................................................... 515 Saxton, Hon. Jim................................................. 430 Saylor, A.V...................................................... 1283 Schlender, J.H................................................... 547 Schwarzkopf, Larry............................................... 142 Shays, Hon. Christopher.......................................... 5 Silver, H.J...................................................... 735 Slade, David..................................................... 490 Soltis, A. McC................................................... 544 Speicher, A.L.................................................... 1146 Stevenson, Mr.................................................... 461 Sturdivant, J.N.................................................. 1166 Sublette, Kerry.................................................. 1087 Suki, W.N........................................................ 402 Surratt, Richard................................................. 889 Suttie, J.W...................................................... 1051 Testa, W.R....................................................... 261 Thantom, Jim..................................................... 544 Thompson, B.J.................................................... 315 Thurman, Hon. K.L................................................ 99 Tierney, Hon. J.F................................................ 25 Toney, R.J....................................................... 993 Turpin, Roland................................................... 231 Uhlmann, Jerry................................................... 1016 Vancott, Wit..................................................... 461 Visclosky, Hon. P.J............................................40, 1114 Vitikacs, John................................................... 967 Walker, R.D...................................................... 934 Waters, Hon. Maxine.............................................. 164 Wawronowicz, Larry............................................... 134 Webdale, W.D..................................................... 350 Weinstein, Michael............................................... 185 Weller, Hon. Jerry............................................... 67 Whitman, Hon. C.T................................................ 430 Williams, Terry.................................................. 536 Wilmer, John, Sr................................................. 1160 Wodraska, J.R.................................................... 1209 I N D E X ---------- Community Development Financial Institutions Page Rita Haynes, Coalition of Community Development Financial Institutions................................................... 448 Mary Mathews, Coalition of Community Development Financial Institutions................................................... 448 Kate McKee, Coalition of Community Development Financial Institutions................................................... 448 Hon. Sam Farr.................................................... 442 Alexandra Herrera................................................ 442 Hon. Christopher Shays........................................... 5 Court of Veterans Appeals David B. Isbell, Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program............ 986 Environmental Protection Agency Ronald Atlas, American Society for Microbiology.................. 834 Joseph Bates, American Lung Association/Thoracic Society......... 572 Hon. Doug Bereuter............................................... 78 Raymond J. Campion, Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics Research Center................................................ 645 Julius Ciaccia, Jr., Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, Commissioner of Water for City of Cleveland.................... 477 Peter Cook, National Association of Water Companies.............. 469 Donald L. Correll, United Water Resources, National Association of Water Companies............................................. 469 Hon. Jim Davis................................................... 112 Hon. Mike Doyle.................................................. 72 Hon. Barney Frank................................................ 23 Walter Gainer, National Utility Contractors Association.......... 682 Stephen Gorden, City of Detroit, American Water Works Association 419 Marcellus Grace, Xavier University, Louisiana, Association of Minority Health Professional Schools........................... 552 Joseph Graziano, Columbia University............................. 645 Judy Gwen Gustinis, Center for Integrated Manufacturing Studies.. 611 Paul A. Hanle, Academy of Natural Sciences....................... 669 Pegeen Hanrahan, City of Gainesville, Florida.................... 562 Jim Harp, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.................. 536 Lawrence Jawroski, Water Environmental Federation................ 522 Bob Kelly, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission................. 536 Bill Kerr, Citizens Advisory Committee of Indian River Lagoon of Florida........................................................ 490 Hon. Nick Lampson................................................ 15 Paul D. Larson, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey......................................................... 582 Vanessa M. Leiby, Association of State Drinking Water Administrators................................................. 497 Douglas B. MacDonald, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.... 485 Hon. James H. Maloney............................................ 1 Robert Martin, AWWA Research Foundation and the Association of California Water Agencies...................................... 461 Joseph Mauderly, Lovelace Respiratory Research................... 604 Tom Maulson, Lac Du Flambeau Band of Chippewa.................... 134 Michael D. Maves, American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Inc.............................................. 691 Harry Mavrogenes, City of Miami Beach, Florida................... 566 Ann McCamon Soltis, Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Commission..... 544 R. Michael McClain, Society of Toxicology........................ 631 Kevin McDonald, Citizens Advisory Committee of Peconic Bay, NY... 490 Hon. John Joseph Moakley......................................... 85 Steven M. Nadel, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 658 Nebil Nasr, Rochester Institute for Technology................... 611 David M. Nemtzow, Alliance to Save Energy........................ 748 Hon. Frank Pallone Jr............................................ 49 Hon. Owen Pickett................................................ 27 Len Pietrafesa, North Carolina State University, National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges...... 700 Mac Rawls, Virginia Marine Science............................... 27 Peter D. Saundry, Committee for the National Institute for the Environment.................................................... 515 Hon. Jim Saxton.................................................. 430 Hon. Christopher Shays........................................... 5 David Slade, Association of National Estuary Programs............ 490 Kerry Sublette, The University of Tulsa.......................... 1087 Jim Thanton, Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Commission............ 544 Hon. Karen Thurman............................................... 99 Hon. John F. Tierney............................................. 23 Hon. Christine Todd Whitman, Governor, State of New Jersey....... 430 Hon. Pete J. Visclosky........................................... 40 Larry Wawronowicz, Lac Du Flambeau Band of Chippewa.............. 134 Hon. Jerry Weller................................................ 67 Terry Williams, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission............ 536 Federal Emergency Management Agency Hon. Earl Blumenauer............................................. 37 Brad Iarossi, Association of State Dam Safety Officials, Inc..... 1002 Jerry Uhlmann, National Emergency Management Association......... 1016 Housing and Urban Development Martin Avery, Navajo Nation...................................... 126 Aimee Berenson, AIDS Action Council.............................. 220 Hon. Doug Bereuter............................................... 78 Liza K. Bowles, NAHB Research Center............................. 343 Hon. Omar Bradley, Mayor, City of Compton, California............ 1077 Henry Cagey, Lummi Indian Business Council....................... 118 C. Keith Campbell, American Association of Retired Persons....... 370 Mary Louise Cole, ICARE Bay Point Schools........................ 385 Clyde Dawson, Weequahic Park Association......................... 592 Ricardo Diaz, Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, Milwaukee Housing Authority.................................... 246 Hon. Mike Doyle.................................................. 72 Richard C. Gentry, Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority.. 298 Glenn Grant, City of Newark, New Jersey.......................... 592 Paul Grogan, Local Initiatives Support Corporation............... 277 Bart Harvey, The Enterprise Foundation........................... 335 Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee.......................................... 758 Than Johnson, Champaign Residential Services Inc., American Network of Community Options and Resources..................... 194 Jacqueline L. Johnson, TLINGIT-HAIDA Indian Housing Authority, Juneau, Alaska, National American Indian Housing Council....... 1067 Laverne Joseph, Retirement Housing Foundation, American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging................ 360 Hon. William Lehman, ICARE Bay Point Schools..................... 385 Ann McCamon Soltis, Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Commission..... 544 James M. Mullen, Trinity College................................. 174 Ann O'Hara, Technical Assistance Collaborative, Inc., Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities................................. 205 Hon. Nancy Pelosi................................................ 61 William A. Polf, Columbia University............................. 1038 Larry Schwarzkopf, Fond du Lac Band of Chippewa Indians.......... 142 Hon. Christopher Shays........................................... 2 William R. Testa, Arc Morris Chapter, Arc of the United States... 261 Jim Thanton, Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Commission............ 544 Barbara J. Thompson, National Council of State Housing Agencies.. 315 Roland Turpin, Metropolitan Housing Authority, Public Housing Authorities Directors Association, Dayton, Ohio................ 231 Hon. Pete J. Visclosky........................................... 40 Hon. Maxine Waters............................................... 164 Walter Webdale, Housing and Community Development, Fairfax County, Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies, National Association of Counties; National Community Development Association; National League of Cities; and The United States Conference of Mayors........................................... 350 Michael Weinstein, AIDS Healthcare Foundation Washington Office.. 185 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Norman Abeles, American Psychological Association................ 807 David Brandt, National Space Society............................. 821 Frank Calzonetti, Eberly College of Arts and Sciences on behalf of EPSCoR States............................................... 718 Anjay Elzanowski, Humane Society of the United States............ 1030 Michael D. Maves, American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Inc.............................................. 691 John W. Suttie, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology........................................................ 1051 National Science Foundation Norman Abeles, American Psychological Association................ 807 Paul F. Anderson, American Chemical Society...................... 858 David Applegate, American Geological Institute................... Ronald Atlas, American Society for Microbiology.................. 834 Frank Calzonetti, Eberly College of Arts and Sciences on behalf of EPSCoR States............................................... 718 Hon. Mike Doyle.................................................. 72 Elisabeth Gannt, American Society of Plant Physiologists......... 829 Richard Herman, Joint Policy Board for Mathmatics................ 726 David Johnson, Federation of Behaviorial, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences............................................. 788 Alan G. Kraut, American Psychological Society.................... 794 Felice J. Levine, American Sociological Association.............. 771 Michael M. Reischman, National Science Foundation Task Force, American Society of Mechanical Engineers....................... 709 Ronald Rousseaux, Council Chemical Research, Inc................. 851 Peter D. Saundry, Committee for the National Institute for the Environment.................................................... 515 Howard J. Silver, Consortium of Social Science Associations...... 735 John W. Suttie, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology........................................................ 1051 Selective Service System Raymond J. Toney, National Interreligious Service Board for Conscientious Objectors........................................ 993 Department of Veterans Affairs Veronica A'zera, AmVets.......................................... 889 Norman Abeles, American Psychological Association................ 807 Joseph Bates, American Lung Association/Thoracic Society......... 572 Hon. Doug Bereuter............................................... 78 John Bollinger, Paralyzed Veterans of America.................... 889 Sven Bursell, Joslin Diabetes Center............................. 924 William Butler, Baylor College of Medicine, Association of American Medical Colleges...................................... 325 Charles L. Calkins, Fleet Reserve Association.................... 957 Hon. Mike Doyle.................................................. 72 Henry Fernandez, Association of University Programs in Health Administration................................................. 942 Hon. Bart Gordon................................................. 44 James Magill, Veterans of Foreign War............................ 889 Michael D. Maves, American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Inc.............................................. 691 Stephen McGarry, American Association of Nurse Anesthetists...... 1098 Hon. Jack Quinn.................................................. 112 George Rutherford, University of California-Berkeley, National Assocation of Veterans' Research and Education Foundations..... 978 Wadi N. Suki American Society of Nephrology...................... 402 Richard Surratt, Disabled American Veterans...................... 889 John W. Suttie, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology........................................................ 1051 John Vitikacs, American Legion................................... 967 R. Dale Walker, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, Oregon, American Psychiatric Association....................... 934 Written Testimony American Anthropological Association............................. 1116 American Federation of Government Employees...................... 1166 American Federation of Government Employees Local 3258........... 1171 American Heart Association....................................... 1121 American Public Power Association................................ 1126 American Society for Engineering Education....................... 1146 American Society of Civil Engineers.............................. 1136 American Society of Pharmacologists and Experimental Therapeutics 1129 Association of American Universities............................. 1155 Association of Metropolitan Sewage Agencies...................... 1148 Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials...................................................... 1204 Association of State Floodplain Managers......................... 1151 Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians................. 1160 Hon. Allen Boyd.................................................. 1107 California Housing Finance Agency................................ 1164 California Industry and Government Coalition on PM-10/PM-2.5..... 1175 California Rural Water Association............................... 1179 Hon. Walter Capps................................................ 1109 Consortium of Eleven Professional Scientific Societies........... 1214 Core Center of Chicago, Illinois................................. 1199 Environmental Lung Center at National Jewish Medical and Research Center......................................................... 1219 Engineering Education Coalition.................................. 1142 Florida State University......................................... 1224 Fond Du Lac Tribal and Community College......................... 1228 Dr. Peter Fox, Arizona State University and Margaret Nellor, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County.............. 1133 Friends of VA Medical Care and Health Research................... 1238 Golden Gate University........................................... 1243 Hebrew Academy for Special Children.............................. 1248 Integrated Petroleum Environmental Consortium.................... 1253 Massachusetts Foundation for Excellence in Marine & Polymer Sciences....................................................... 1259 Metropolitan Water District of South California.................. 1209 Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago....... 1262 Montefiore Medical Center........................................ 1274 National Alliance for the Mentally Ill........................... 1283 National Alliance to End Homelessness, Inc....................... 1279 National Association of Conservation Districts................... 1289 National Audubon Society......................................... 1291 National Congress of American Indians............................ 1296 National Coordinating Council on Emergency Management............ 1303 National Council of Space Grant Directors........................ 1306 National Crime Prevention Council................................ 1309 New York University.............................................. 1318 Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United States of America........................................................ 1321 Nuclear Energy Institute......................................... 1330 Pennsylvania Educational Telecommunications Exchange Network..... 1336 The Planetary Society............................................ 1342 Polysocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association............. 1351 Hon Silvestre Reyes.............................................. 1111 Sac and Fox Nation............................................... 1362 Society for Neuroscience......................................... 1366 State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators....... 1356 University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.................. 1371 University of Miami.............................................. 1265 Water Environment Research Foundation............................ 1374