[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 1999
========================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND 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
48-547 O WASHINGTON : 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, California
HENRY BONILLA, Texas NITA M. LOWEY, New York
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
DAN MILLER, Florida ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
MIKE PARKER, Mississippi ED PASTOR, Arizona
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York CHET EDWARDS, Texas
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Washington ROBERT E. (BUD) CRAMER, Jr., Alabama
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 1999
----------
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND
ORGANIZATIONS
----------
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITNESS
PETER FREEMAN, DEAN, GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, COMPUTING
RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
Mr. Lewis [presiding]. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Hi, Frank. Good to see you.
Is there anybody from the American Federation of Government
Employees present? I guess not.
Then, second on my list is the National Science Foundation,
Peter Freeman. All right. From the Computing Research
Association, right?
Mr. Freeman. That's correct.
Mr. Lewis. Okay. Well, welcome.
Mr. Freeman. Thank you, sir. Pleased to be here.
Mr. Lewis. Your entire statement will be included in the
record and if you'd like to summarize it for us, we'd
appreciate it.
Mr. Freeman. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. You may have a seat. Thank you.
Mr. Freeman. I would like to do that.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it's a
pleasure to be here this morning. I thank you for the
opportunity to testify about NSF.
My name is Peter Freeman. I'm dean of the College of
Computing at Georgia Tech in Atlanta. I also serve on the board
of directors of the Computing Research Association and serve as
the chair of its government affairs committee. And, I am
testifying on behalf of the CRA, not Georgia Tech, this
morning.
Mr. Lewis. Okay.
Mr. Freeman. We have submitted, as you noted, our written
testimony to the record and I'd like to just make some very
brief oral comments.
I'd like to start by again indicating my pleasure at being
here and thanking you, this subcommittee, for supporting
through some fairly tough times over the last few years basic
research as carried out by those of us that work with the
National Science Foundation. We really appreciate that. It's
been very important to our community.
Our testimony makes three points--and let me just summarize
those--about computing research. First, as I think everyone
understands, information technology is essential to the
security, to the welfare, to the economic health of this
country, and underlying this technology--which is approaching,
perhaps, 10 percent of our national economy or even greater--
lies many years of basic research.
Secondly, we make the point that, even though computing
research has led to a number of developments, that that is
going to expand by amounts that we cannot even really estimate
in the coming years; we've only begun to see the information
technology revolution.
Our third point, as I've already noted, is that NSF has
already been essential to that revolution and all of us in the
computing research field believe that it will continue to be a
real leader in creating the security, the economic well-being,
and the welfare for all of our citizens.
What I thought I would do in the few moments I have is to
put a bit of a personal face on computing research and,
although I'm testifying on behalf of the Computing Research
Association, let me use a couple of examples of how NSF-funded
research plays out in a unit such as my own.
I have approximately 45 tenure-track faculty that do a wide
variety of computer science and computing-related research. One
of those is a young woman by the name of Ann Chervanack. Like
any young professor, she is encouraged--indeed, has been
trained--in her graduate work at Berkeley to ask fundamental
questions. When she arrived in Atlanta to join my faculty
almost three years ago, like most young faculty it took her a
little while to get her feet on the ground, figure out what she
wanted to do. Very quickly, however, her graduate training--
which had been funded by NSF, among others--led her to start
asking some very basic questions.
What she has innovated is a project that she is calling the
``personal terrabyte'' project. A terrabyte is a measure of the
amount of storage on a computer. Strictly speaking, it's a
trillion bytes. To give you a sense of magnitude, all of the
Library of Congress has maybe 10 terrabytes ofinformation in
it. So, her point is that the technology is----
Mr. Lewis. A trillion bytes?
Mr. Freeman. A trillion bytes----
Mr. Lewis. Terrabyte----
Mr. Freeman [continuing]. Is a terrabyte.
And, her point is that the technology is racing ahead so
that within a very few years' four or five perhaps, you're
going to have the ability to have a terrabyte sitting on your
desktop for a few hundred dollars.
Ten percent of the Library of Congress. Now, that leads to
some rather interesting questions. What are you going to do
with it? How are you going to organize it? How are you going to
find anything in it? How are you going to back that information
up?
Some of that seems like something that industry would be
asking and, in some respects, they may be. But, what she and
her students are trying to do is to look at those kinds of
questions in a very basic sense. It's not product development
and she isn't going to develop a new product. But, what she is
developing are some undergraduates that are involved in her
research, some graduate students that will go out and become
professors or become advanced development people in industry,
and, in general, is helping push forward that area of
technology.
Our other case that I would share with you is a very
interesting young man, also an assistant professor, but who's
only been with us a bit longer, about five years. He's a young
man that we see more and more of today in the computing
research area. He's driven by dual interests. On the one hand,
he's very interested in how do children learn, what's the
cognition behind them. That led him to get a Ph.D. in Education
at the University of Michigan, one of the top educational
schools in the country. But, he also has a very strong interest
in technology--computing technology in particular--so he also
has a Ph.D. in Computer Science.
And, what he's now doing is bringing those two disciplines
together in some very innovative and interesting research that
very simply could be looked at, a Lotus Notes for students, but
much, much beyond that, and asking some very basic questions--
both in terms of how do children learn and how do they best
learn, given a new technology, as well as pushing forward those
technological foundations.
Both of these young people are supported at present by
National Science Foundation career awards. Dr. Gusdow being a
bit further along, is also a part of several other research
projects, collaborating with people in other disciplines also
supported by NSF.
So, I hope that these kinds of little vignettes give you,
perhaps, a personal sense of the kinds of research that the
National Science Foundation supports. I would be more than
happy to answer any additional questions that you might have.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Freeman, I very much appreciate your
testimony. Let me just say, for the audience in general, that
while we haven't received our budget allocations yet, the
Committee has been directed to, in no uncertain terms by way of
the Speaker's office, that we should, as we go about reducing
the rate of gross for the government, nonetheless, within these
budgets do everything that we possibly can to find dollars for
research purposes. And the Speaker--I very strongly applaud the
Speaker's statement that he wants to double these budgets for
research dollars in the short years ahead. We're going to do
everything that we can on this subcommittee to try to
accommodate. I won't repeat that line with every witness that
we--[laughter]--have, but in the meantime----
Mr. Freeman. I will say thank you on behalf of all of them.
Mr. Lewis. Yes. I might mention to you that I'm sorry to be
delayed this morning but there were four chancellors to the
University of California in my office and it was hard to cut
off the conversation because these same subjects were a part of
that discussion, too.
Mr. Freeman. I understand.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you for being with us.
Mr. Freeman. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Mrs. Meek.
Mrs. Meek. No, I have no questions.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you.
Mr. Freeman. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you for your answers.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 5 - 32--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITNESS
JAMES SIEDOW, PROFESSOR, DUKE UNIVERSITY AND COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC
AFFAIRS, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLANT PHYSIOLOGISTS
Mr. Lewis. Dr. James Siedow? Is that right? The American
Society of Plant Physiologists?
Mr. Siedow. Correct.
Mr. Lewis. Welcome.
Mr. Siedow. Thank you; glad to be here. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman and members of the subcommittee and I'd like to also
thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak here today.
My name is Jim Siedow and I'm Dean of Faculty Development
of Arts and Sciences and Professor of Botany at Duke
University. My testimony is on behalf of the American Society
of Plant Physiologists, which I have served as President and
currently serve on their public affairs committee. This society
is a professional science society of some 5,000 members. We
recruit plant scientists from industry, university, and
government laboratories.
Support by the National Science Foundation for plant
research provides basic knowledge of the structure and function
of plants. This basic knowledge can lead to important
agricultural, pharmaceutical and environmental applications--as
I hope to make clear by the end of this talk. As explained in
the National Science Foundation Director Neil Lane's statement
to the Subcommittee earlier this month, the $40 million
requested by the NSF in the Fiscal Year 1999 budget for plant
genome research will advance our understanding of the
structure, organization, and function of plant genomes, with
particular attention being paid to economically significant
plants. This research will accelerate application of new
biological knowledge and innovative technologies toward a more
complete understanding of basic biological processes in plants.
In January of this year, the White House-appointed
Interagency Working Group on Plant Genomes completed its report
at the request of Senator Bond. The report notes that major
challenges facing mankind in the 21st century are: the need to
increase fuel and fiber production; a cleaner environment; and
renewable chemical and energy resources. And, the report points
out that plant-based technologies can play a major role in
meeting these challenges.
The IWG report recommended investment of an additional $320
million over five years to make significant progress on the
scientific objectives it outlined for plant genome research. A
copy of the cover page and executive summary of the IWG report
is concluded with my testimony and I request to submit the
final IWG report to the Committee.
Mr. Lewis. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Siedow. On the recommendation on the House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittees of VA, HUD, and Independent
Agencies and with the support of--with a supportive interim IWG
report, Congress last year launched the plant genome initiative
in Fiscal Year 1998 with an appropriation of $40 million.
Plant genome research supported by this subcommittee will
help to open the world of functional genomics to plant research
and will speed up the application of genomic information to
develop improved plants and plant products. This was referred
to recently in a Science editorial by Phil Abelson as part of a
genomic revolution. This revolution will lead to the
development of enhanced plants that will meet the food and
nutritional needs of the Nation and our trading partners.
The simple fact of the matter is--and I dont have to tell
someone from California--we don't have more land to grow crops
on. In fact, we have less. We need to genetically engineer
plants which will grow more efficiently, which will have
greater resistant to pests and other diseases, and a better
tolerance to adverse weather conditions, such as drought.
As we learn more about the structure and function of plant
genomes, plant scientists will be able to better engineer
superior varieties of plants, enhancing the nutritional quality
of the food Americans eat, which, in turn, will promote the
Nations health. Plants are already a major source of
pharmaceutical products. Research that will lead to genetic
engineering of plants to treat or prevent human diseases is
already underway and this is an area with tremendous potential
for reducing human suffering, both in this country and across
the world--and, I might add, lowering health care costs in the
long run.
The availability in the United States of plant-produced
fuel with prices at near the cost of petroleum help keep the
cost of imported oil down. Further knowledge of plant genomes
and related plant research will help make domestically-produced
biofuels directly competitive in price with petroleum, allowing
them to meet a larger portion of U.S. energy needs in the
future. This, in turn, I might add, will cut down on emission
of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
In summary, the support of this subcommittee--the past
support and, we hope, future support--for both genomic and non-
genomic plant research supported by the National Science
Foundation helps plant scientists make the basic research
breakthroughs needed to address nutrition, health, and energy
needs of this Nation and the world. We deeply appreciate the
strong commitment of this subcommittee that enables the U.S.
science community to lead the world in plant research in this
new age of biology. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee
members.
I'd be very happy to address any questions.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much Dr. Siedow. I don't have any
questions but I appreciate your testimony. It will be included
in the record.
Mr. Siedow. Great.
Mr. Lewis. Mrs. Meek.
Mrs. Meek. No questions, thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Siedow. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 35 - 43--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITNESS
ALAN KRAUT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIETY
Mr. Lewis. Alan Kraut? Dr. Kraut with the American
Psychological Society? It's good to see you again.
Mr. Kraut. It's nice to be here again.
I want to thank you for allowing me again here to discuss
National Science Foundation funding on behalf of the American
Psychological Society. Our members are scientists and academics
who conduct research on such basic behavioral processes as
visual and auditory perception and attention, on memory, on
cognitive science and information processing, decisionmaking,
human development, emotions, and group behavior, just to name a
few.
Attached to my written statement is a recent report,
``Basic Research in Psychological Science,'' which I hope will
be of use to you as you consider NSF's mission and priorities.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you.
Mr. Kraut. As a member of the Coalition for National
Science Funding, the American Psychological Society asks you to
support the Coalition's recommendation of a 10 percent increase
for NSF.
But, my remarks today are going to focus mainly on the
Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate, known as
SBE. This subcommittee has encouraged the establishment of SBE
and has played a role in strengthening it over the last several
years and we're very grateful for that support. SBE is
scheduled for a 15 percent increase, which would bring us to
about $150 million this year, and the research division within
the Directorate is up for more than a 16 percent increase,
which would bring the division to a total of nearly $114
million.
These increases signal NSF's enthusiasm for behavioral and
social science research. Why? Because of both the progress and
the potential of basic research in these disciplines. For
example, NSF is giving priority to research in the area known
as Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence, KDI. Behavioral
science is a cornerstone of the KDI effort.
In my written testimony, I've described some of the
specific research projects conducted under KDI. One is an
automated, computerized tutor that combines user-friendly
dialog with effective, educational practices. This project is
drawing on basic research of psychologists in the area of
communications and comprehension as well as work from computer
scientists and educators. In another KDI project, researchers
are increasing our understanding of how sound takes meaning, of
how the brain takes in the audio signal of the spoken word and
processes it. This projects uses concepts from psychology,
neuroscience, linguistics, statistics, computer science, and
electrical engineering and puts them all into a framework for
understanding spoken language.
Today, I also want to touch briefly on something called the
Human Capital Initiative, which is funded under SBE. This is a
National Behavioral Science Research agenda that was first
developed by scientists across the range of psychological
science; from those studying the brain to those studying
organizations. As the name applies, the unifying concept
involves the development of human capital. Human capital
research was embraced and expanded by NSF following several
years of encouragement by this committee. In fact, the report I
referred to earlier is one of its products.
Today, human capital research includes many disciplines and
partnerships with many other NSF Directorates. It's reached
about $16 million. With your support, that will increase in
1999 with most of the increase going to research on children
and learning.
This program, by the way, owes a particular debt to Mr.
Stokes who worked to provide essential funding for the program
in its early stages. Human capital research is just one of the
legacies Mr. Stokes--I wish he were here because for this and
for many others, I'd like to thank him and tell him that we
would miss him greatly and that we wish him all the best in his
retirement.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you for that thought.
I'll make sure he knows.
Mr. Kraut. So, you see, this subcommittee's support of
behavioral science is being rewarded with unprecedented
scientific productivity. Behavioral research represents some of
the country's best science and has the potential to increase
our understanding of some of the Nation's greatest concerns:
literacy, productivity, international relations, technological
achievement, cultural diversity, and the development of human
capital, just to name a few. The critical role of this research
and the fact that the field is poised for rapid expansion are
reflected in the proposed NSF budget and we encourage your
support of it. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Dr. Kraut. I appreciate
your being with us. As I indicated, your entire statement will
be included in the record----
Mr. Kraut. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis [continuing]. And this, as well.
Mr. Kraut. Okay.
Mr. Lewis. Yes, thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 46 - 66--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITNESSES
PAUL WALTER, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
ANDREW SESSLER, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY
RALPH YOUNT, PRESIDENT, FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SOCIETIES FOR
EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
Mr. Lewis. Next on our list are Dr. Paul Walter, Dr. Andrew
Sessler, Dr. Ralph Yount from the American Chemical Society.
I appreciate all three of you gentlemen coming with us and
your patience with our schedule. [Laughter.]
Please tell me how you want to proceed.
Mr. Sessler. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for this opportunity to testify at this hearing. I'm
Andrew Sessler, President of the American Physical Society,
which is the largest physics membership organization in the
world.
I am here today with my colleagues, Dr. Paul Walter,
President of the American Chemical Society, and Dr. Ralph
Yount, President of the Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology.
This is truly a unique occasion. For the first time,
leaders of organizations representing a quarter of a million
scientists have joined to present common testimony before this
subcommittee in support of the National Science Foundation. We
have done so because we share a common belief that the future
of our Nation depends critically upon our scientific excellence
and because today the scientific disciplines have become
thoroughly intertwined and totally interdependent.
I am pleased to yield to my colleague, Dr. Paul Walter who
has agreed to speak on behalf of all three of us.
Mr. Lewis. Dr. Walter.
Mr. Walter. Mr. Chairman, I am Paul Walter, President of
the American Chemical Society, representing over 150,000
chemists and chemical engineers in academia, industry and
government.
We commend you for taking the lead last year in recognizing
the critical importance of the National Science Foundation and
funding it accordingly. The substantial increase Congress
provided for NSF for Fiscal Year 1998 resulted from the 6.6
percent increase initially provided by this subcommittee.
Last year, as you know, more than 100 leaders of science,
engineering and mathematic organizations joined together in a
call to double Federal investment in research within a decade.
We continue to urge this course of action because we
passionately believe that the economic well-being, health,
quality of life, and security of our citizenry depend
critically upon robust and sustained investments in research.
In keeping with those goals, we come before you today to
ask that you continue to make investments in our Nation's
future by supporting the 10 percent increase for the National
Science Foundation proposed in the President's budget for
Fiscal Year 1999 and endorsed by the Coalition for National
Science Funding.
The National Science Foundation is unique among Federal
agencies. It has the responsibility for supporting long-term
research in practically all scientific and engineering
disciplines. In addition, as the only agency supporting
research that is not mission-oriented, the NSF is the prime
steward of the enabling sciences upon which virtually all
Federal science and technology programs depend. Finally, it is
the only Federal agency in which scientific research and
education are fully integrated. Let me briefly address each of
these unique features.
Today, as my colleague Andy Sessler has indicated, the
sciences have become almost totally interdependent. For
example, AIDS research dramatizes this point. Our progress in
treating this terrible disease and our understanding of its
pathology would never have occurred without critical advances
in chemistry, biology, and physics and, yes, mathematics,
engineering and computer science as well. The National Science
Foundation is the only Federal agency that has the program
breadth needed to see that all the disciplines remain vibrant
and healthy.
Last year, the Federal R&D budget amounted to a little more
than $75 billion. Of that, more than 90 percent was devoted to
mission-oriented or strategic work. Since scientific research
always has the potential for revolutionary discovery, we
believe that our Nation must sustain investments in non-
mission-oriented science. The proposed increase for the
National Science Foundation is consistent with that strategy.
In conclusion, let me underscore the key role that
chemistry, physics and biology play in the American economy.
Today, the chemical industry accounts for 1.9 percent of the
Nation's GDP and is the number one contributor to U.S. exports.
Physics, I am sure you all know, was the enabling science that
resulted in the a $1-trillion-a-year computer industry.
Recently, it gave us the World Wide Web that has revolutionized
the way we communicate and conduct business. And biology, of
course, is the underpinning of the entire biotechnology
industry, one of the fastest growing sectors of our economy.
These advances are attributable in large part to the Federal
Government's investment in research through which scientists
are trained and new fundamental discoveries are made.
I now yield to my colleague Dr. Ralph Yount for a closing
remark.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you. Dr. Yount.
Mr. Yount. Mr. Chairman, I'm Ralph Yount, President of the
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology,
representing 14 scientific societies with approximately 52,000
members.
I'm a former president of the Biophysical Society and a
long-time member of the American Chemical Society and I'm
delighted to be a participant in this historic occasion which
brings together three of the major scientific disciplines in
support----
Mr. Lewis. It's a very unusual occasion?
Mr. Yount [continuing]. Yes--in support of--it should have
happened long ago.
These disciplines, as my colleagues have noted, are
fundamentally intertwined and we must develop a comprehensive
investment strategy to allow each of those to develop their
full potential. Not only is this approach key to the future
health and economic prosperity of our citizens, it's also
essential for maintaining the excellence of our universities,
which are really the envy of the world. And, I join Dr.
Sessler, Dr. Walter in urging your committee to appropriate
$3.8 billion for NSF, a 10 percent increase over last year's
fiscal budget. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Well, we very much appreciate your all coming
together. Mrs. Meek, do you have any questions of these
gentlemen?
Mrs. Meek. No, I do not.
Mr. Lewis. I just might mention to you that it's been
suggested that ``Jerry Lewis,'' which is an unusual name but I
had the name first, has led for the development of a group
known as ``Jerry's Kids'' and regardless of what he might have
said, Clint Lewis--who's with you today--may or may not have
played a role in some of that.
Mr. Yount. Yes; yes, he did.
Mr. Lewis. Good to be with you. Take care.
Mr. Yount. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Smart kid.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 70 - 94--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITNESS
JEAN FUTRELL, CHAIR-ELECT, COUNCIL FOR CHEMICAL RESEARCH, INC.
Mr. Lewis. Let's see. Jean Futrell with the Council for
Chemical Research, Incorporated? Mr. Futrell? Your statement
will all be included in the record. If you'll summarize that
for us, we'll move right along. Appreciate your being with us.
Mr. Futrell. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman,
Congresswoman Meek, my name is Jean Futrell. I'm the Chair-
elect of the Council for Chemical Research and the Willis F.
Harrington Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the
University of Delaware. We join other professional societies
who are testifying today, notably the American Chemical Society
and the Coalition for National Science Funding, in strongly
recommending Congress to fund the National Science Foundation
at a level of no less than $3.77 billion, an increase of 10
percent over the current appropriation.
In meeting with you today, I am substituting for Dr. Gary
McGraw who is Vice President for Technological Innovation at
Eastman Chemical Corporation. Gary is the Chair this year of
the Council for Chemical Research, the professional society
whose members are the leaders of the Nation's chemical research
enterprise.
We represent in CCR the major companies, universities and
government laboratories which conduct research in the chemical
sciences and engineering. The Council feels strongly that the
erosion of funding of the NSF needs to be reversed. A 10
percent increase, although substantial, would restore the
ground lost since Fiscal Year 1995 in purchasing power of the
appropriated dollars and provides for modest growth of 2
percent. This increase would enable new discovery and educate
some of the world's brightest scientists and engineers. It is
clearly in the best interests of the Nation and crucial to our
continued economic growth.
The NSF is the only agency, as you very well know, with
overall responsibility for research and education in all
scientific and engineering fields. Its role as a steward of the
Nation's science enterprise faces new challenges, such as
promoting new approaches to research, to education, to training
the technological workforce that is required for our Nation as
we enter the next century.
Despite these challenges, the purchasing power has been
eroded by about 8 percent since 1995. This erosion--partly
because of the very high efficiency, that the NSF
administrative costs are only a small fraction of the
appropriations--this cut is felt directly by those who conduct
research and participate in education at our universities.
Research and education are the keys to our Nation's future and
the ultimate impact of the restricted growth or cuts is
detrimental to all of us.
The Council understands very well the importance of NSF
funding for both scientific research and in education from
Kindergarten through post-graduate studies. Increasingly, the
chemical industry, for whom I'm a spokesperson today, relies
upon universities for discovery research which is the basis for
new products and processes.
For example, about half of the research cited and the
patents applied for in the last decade cite as the basis of
their discovery research that was supported by public sources,
primarily the National Science Foundation. In chemistry alone,
for example, this research contributes directly to necessities
of modern life including plastics, synthetic fabrics, cleaner
burning fuels, pharmaceuticals, advanced materials for
electronics, and a cleaner environment.
The Council for Chemical Research appreciates that the
budget decisions confronting this committee are not easy. The
case for investing in the future by funding the NSF at the
level requested stands on its own merits and has to be
considered against concerns about spending for individual help
and security. As you proceed with your deliberations, we ask
you to consider that the NSF funding represents only 0.2
percent of the Federal budget but represents 25 percent of all
Federal support for academic institutions to conduct basic
research.
Although the Foundation is formally classified as part of
the discretionary budget, it is our view that NSF funding is
properly viewed as investment which yields very high returns to
our society at large. We note the last 50 years, the
technological innovation, the sciences supporting it was
accounted for by about 50 percent of all economic growth.
We very much appreciate, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Meek,
the support of this subcommittee in this enterprise and we ask
the Congress to take the long view in these difficult choices
which affect the future capability of the Nation's innovation
engine. I thank you for your attention and the opportunity to
testify.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Futrell, thank you very much for being with
us. I don't have any questions.
Mrs. Meek or Mr. Walsh.
Mrs. Meek. No.
Mr. Walsh. No questions.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you. Thank you very much for being with
us.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 97 - 101--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESSES
NATHAN ROBFOGEL, VICE PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY RELATIONS, ROCHESTER
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NABIL NASR, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER OF REMANUFACTURING AND RESOURCE
RECOVERY, ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Lewis. Ms. Slaughter, by chance are all your guests
here?
Ms. Slaughter. They are. We----
Mr. Lewis. I'm going to----
Ms. Slaughter. We're happy to wait our turn.
Mr. Lewis. I'm going to exercise the discretion of the
Chair and have you come up. I know your schedule is every bit
as difficult as Ms. Meek's and mine, so, would you come up?
Ms. Slaughter. Well, then, you're very kind. I hope----
Mr. Lewis. Sure. Please do.
Ms. Slaughter [continuing]. Other speakers won't object. I
appreciate it very much.
Mr. Lewis. Frankly, they'd be disappointed if I didn't
allow them to hear you. [Laughter.]
Ms. Slaughter. Oh, my goodness. That's probably the nicest
anybody ever said to me. Isn't that wonderful?
Mr. Walsh. He's not always this charming. [Laughter.]
Ms. Slaughter. I believe he is. It's wonderful to see you
this morning, Mr. Chairman, my neighbor here, Jim Walsh, and
I'll be very brief and not try your patience since you've been
so gracious to me----
Mr. Lewis. We appreciate that.
Ms. Slaughter. But I----
Mr. Lewis. If you'd leave that tin on the way out, I'd
appreciate that----
Ms. Slaughter. Isn't that a wonderful one?
Mr. Lewis. Yes, I like it.
Ms. Slaughter. It was given to me by some school kids----
Mr. Lewis. It's great; it's wonderful.
Ms. Slaughter. I'm happy to be here today to introduce the
Vice President of the University Relations for the Rochester
Institute of Technology, Mr. Nathan Robfogel----
Mr. Lewis. Rochester, is that in New York?
Ms. Slaughter. It sure is. [Laughter.]
Actually, everything in New York sort of revolves out from
Rochester. [Laughter.]
And Dr. Nabil Nasr----
Mr. Walsh. And what is at the center of----
[Laughter.]
Ms. Slaughter. If he picks it----
Mr. Walsh. Syracuse----
Ms. Slaughter [continuing]. Syracuse is, yes. [Laughter.]
And Dr. Nasr, who heads the RIT National Center for
Remanufacturing and Resource Recovery. Mr. Robfogel will
describe the commitment that the University is making to the
emerging field of remanufacturing and the benefits that it will
provide to EPA. Now, Dr. Nasr, who is the leading scientist in
the field of remanufacturing in the Nation, will answer any
technical questions that you may have.
The mission of EPA's Science and Technology Program is to
promote long-term basic and short-term applied research on a
wide range of environmental and health concerns and to provide
the scientific knowledge and technologies to prevent pollution.
As such, RIT's Center for Remanufacturing and Resource Recovery
will enhance the effectiveness of the EPA Science and
Technology Program by allowing the EPA to work with United
States manufacturers to design products in ways that
dramatically reduce pollution, energy consumption, and waste.
To put it simply, the new product manufacturing creates 87
percent of the waste produced in the United States. But, with
remanufactured products which consist of 80 to 90 percent used
components, we can dramatically reduce that waste and the
pollution that it creates.
RIT is requesting $2.2 million to work with the EPA to
address the Agency's research mission and I am hopeful that you
will look kindly upon this request and I thank you very much
and I'd now like to introduce Mr. Robfogel.
Mr. Robfogel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Your testimony as well will be included in the
record in its entirety so if you would summarize it, we
appreciate that.
Mr. Robfogel. Yes, we clearly intend to do that by
submitting our formal testimony. My thanks to you and your
colleagues and my thanks also to Congresswoman Slaughter for
introducing us.
You have long been a great champion for what we do at RIT
in manufacturing, research, imaging, microelectronics, and many
other areas and we're very grateful for that.
Mr. Chairman, my name is Nick Robfogel and I'm Vice
President for University Relations at RIT. Dr. Nasr is, as the
Congresswoman has indicated, a leading scientist in the Nation
in the emerging area of remanufacturing which can have a
profound effect on our Nation's industrial sector.
Mr. Chairman, RIT is over 100 years old. It's a
comprehensive technological university which has had a long and
distinguished history of supporting the Nation's manufacturing
sector through applied research, education and training. The
University's most recent and notable effort is the
establishment of the National Center of Excellence in
Remanufacturing Research.
Just a few examples of remanufactured products are Kodak's
single-use camera, Xerox and other photocopier cartridges,
automobile carburetors, brakes and starters, military vehicle
engines, the B-52 Bomber, and the Bradley fighting vehicle.
Today, Mr. Chairman, we want to bring to your attention and
that of the Subcommittee the extremely positive environmental
impact of remanufacturing which should be used on a more
widespread basis. Remanufacturing is truly the ultimate form of
recycling and the way that the United States' manufacturing
sector can prevent further costly regulatory action against
them by EPA and other regulators.
While recycling reclaims the original materials used to
create a product, remanufacturing also reclaims the body of the
product itself and all of the design and engineering aspects of
that product. Plus, the economic materials and environmental
costs associated with making that product new are avoided. Just
as importantly, the pollution caused by raw materials
extraction and with manufacturing them into a final production
are also avoided.
Mr. Chairman, remanufacturing is a powerful example of how
the goals of environmental protection and economic growth can
go hand-in-hand. As the Congresswoman has indicated, new
product manufacturing creates 87 percent of all the waste
produced in the United States. Our remanufactured product can
consist of up to 80 to 90 percent of used parts. These parts
would have resulted in more waste or pollution associated with
making new ones.
What we offer the Subcommittee are a couple of very brief,
specific examples. Remanufactured automobile starters annually
save about 8 million gallons of crude oil, 52,000 tons of iron
ore, and 6,000 tons of copper. Kodak's single-use camera
remanufacturing initiative salvaged parts and materials from
over 100 million single-use cameras resulting in the diversion
of 14 million pounds of waste from the entry of the waste
stream.
Mr. Chairman, while pollution prevention has become the
guiding principle of EPA's efforts to protect the environment,
Federal environmental policy still overemphasizes the treatment
of waste products rather than improving the environmental
friendliness of the manufacturing process which created them.
Our National Center for Remanufacturing and Resource Recovery
is seeking a partnership with EPA under which RIT
remanufacturing engineers will work with the agency and the
Nation's manufacturers to establish techniques and processes
whereby industry will adopt manufacturing practices on a more
widespread basis.
The focus of this program will be to conduct applied
research in conjunction with manufacturers to address
environmental pollution at the source; during the product
design and manufacturing process. If we can get manufacturers
to design their products at the outset with remanufacturing in
mind, we can achieve significant savings in environmental costs
in both the short-and long-terms.
The National Center is requesting $2.2 million in the
Fiscal Year 1999 EPA budget to begin this applied research
program which will focus on six specific areas which are
outlined in our formal written testimony. The research program
will be conducted at RIT's new 157,000 square foot
manufacturing research laboratory, the Center for Integrated
Manufacturing Studies. That is the only such facility of its
kind in the United States.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to
testify. We hope you will support this important initiative
which we believe is an alternative to further costly
environmental compliance action and new regulations. Dr. Nasr
and I are available to answer any questions you might have and
Dr. Nasr has a very up-to-the-minute item that we'd like to
submit as a part of our testimony.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Robfogel. Dr. Nasr.
Mr. Nasr. If I may, I would like to insert this document--
the EPA document--that remanufacturers have referenced.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 105 - 116--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Lewis. Okay, thank you very much.
Ms. Slaughter, I don't have any questions but we certainly
appreciate your guests being with us.
Ms. Slaughter. Thank you very much, and we appreciate your
kindness.
Mr. Lewis. A pleasure.
Ms. Slaughter. We're pleased to be here.
Mr. Lewis. Questions.
Mrs. Meek. No.
Mr. Walsh. Just a comment. Certainly, I'd like to welcome
my colleague to our subcommittee today and the officials and
professors at RIT. It's a wonderful institution, it's a
wonderful community, it certainly--if there was to be a focus
on remanufacturing, it should come from a community that is
worldwide renown for quality of manufacturing with home to
Xerox, Kodak, Bausch & Lomb, to name a few.
I've always marvelled at the program that Kodak has about
taking all those cameras back and recycling them.
It's a marvelous program. I wonder, did RIT provide any
consultancy on that or is that a Kodak-spawned idea of their
own?
Mr. Nasr. We trained a lot of their engineers, educated a
lot of them.
Mr. Walsh. I see. [Laughter.]
So, the thought process--the critical thinking process came
from RIT.
Mr. Nasr. It actually came from----
Mr. Walsh. I'm going to make that assumption. [Laughter.]
Mr. Nasr [continuing]. The engineers that we trained.
Mr. Walsh. Yes.
Ms. Slaughter. Jim, the Center for Integrated Manufacturing
Studies is really the bridge to the 21st Century and we would
like to invite you to come over and all the rest of you, if you
can----
Mr. Lewis. Right.
Ms. Slaughter [continuing]. But we can sort of capture Jim
from next door but we'd welcome having you come to see it.
Mr. Walsh. I'm not that far away----
Ms. Slaughter. It is quite remarkable.
Mr. Walsh. RIT--I'd like to talk about our education
component in New York State, at RIT, that is so critical to the
future----
Ms. Slaughter. Yes.
Mr. Walsh [continuing]. Of New York State and its
technology. We have Cornell and RIT and the University of
Rochester-Syracuse--and all within 80 to 90 miles of each
other----
Ms. Slaughter. All working together----
Mr. Walsh [continuing]. So, I will be very supportive----
Ms. Slaughter. Thank you, we appreciate that very, very
much----
Mr. Walsh. I'll do my best to get the chairman to do the
same.
Ms. Slaughter. Thank you all.
Mr. Lewis. I want you to know that items like that which
Dr. Nasr will provide will be included in the committee file to
make sure that that information is available. If we have
additional questions, we'll extend them.
Ms. Slaughter. We would love to hear from you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you again.
Mr. Walsh. Thank you very much.
Ms. Slaughter. Thank you very much.
Mr. Robfogel. Thank you.
Mr. Nasr. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 119 - 128--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITNESS
DAVID JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FEDERATION OF BEHAVIORAL,
PSYCHOLOGICAL AND COGNITIVE SCIENCES
Mr. Lewis. Dr. David Johnson, who's the Executive Director
of the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive
Sciences? Dr. Johnson, I appreciate your patience. Just a
little interruption there in our schedule. Thank you. You've
been with us before so just----
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, we find
ourselves in the odd situation as we look at the upgrowing 1999
budget of sending that money everywhere but none to use. The
tobacco settlement seems to be slipping away, the current
sentiment seems----
Mr. Lewis. Money everywhere but none to use.
Mr. Johnson. Well said.
The current sentiment seems to be set all of the budget
surplus aside for some security and if the transportation
authorization is reflected in appropriations without a change
in spending caps, many programs may have to be cut to pay for
the new transportation initiatives.
It isn't quite what we thought the second year of the
budget surplus would look like and we hope, in the end, that it
won't look that way.
This subcommittee has long understood the importance of
basic research supported by the National Science Foundation. In
the leanest times, you kept the NSF budget stable and whenever
there was an opportunity to do so, you'd see that the budget
could grow a little faster than inflation.
The overall effect through the 1980's and 1990's has been a
budget for NSF that has almost kept pace with inflation. Given
the circumstances of those decades that isn't a bad record. But
it has been demonstrated that economic growth has spurred a
significant degree of research. In a time of prosperity it is
clear that an extra effort should be made to do research simply
because it is one of the best ways to ensure that prosperity
will continue.
We join with all the other groups that have been parading
before you and urging that in the Fiscal Year 1999 budget there
be a 10 percent increase for NSF. The initiatives that NSF
would undertake with its budget would show the substantial
growth relative to the research needs of our time. We're living
in the information age. Through its knowledge and distributed
intelligence initiative, NSF proposes to help drive the
information age to new heights. Many with the most powerful
tools in the information age are not used to full capacity in
the education of our children. Through NSF's proposed joint
research program with the Department of Education, the gap
would be narrowed between what is possible technically and what
is used to advantage in the teaching of children.
For the first time, NSF also proposes to launch a research
program focused on children. The Federal government for all
practical purposes is the ``funder'' of research on children.
What we know scientifically about child development and about
how to help children develop well is the direct result of
Federal support. But the expenditure for research on their
behalf amounts to about 2 percent of the Federal R&D budget.
That isn't enough of an investment to ensure that we learn
enough to help children have a future we want for them.
NSF's recognition of the need for focus on research for
children is something that needs to have your strong support.
The constraints that at the moment make it seem difficult to
reach a 10 percent increase for NSF, or even to hold it at its
fiscal year 1998 level, are not insurmountable. They were
arrived at through the political process and can be modified by
the same process. We appreciate that you have a difficult job
in trying to find the right balance among many worthy
undertakings that are, and could be, supported with Federal
funds, but I think it's safe to say that scientists, educators,
and parents are supportive of the direction in which NSF wants
to move, and would be equally supportive of your efforts to
help NSF succeed.
Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much Dr. Johnson. Mrs. Meek.
Mrs. Meek. No, sir.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Walsh.
Mr. Walsh. No questions.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you for being with us. Thank you, Mr.
Johnson, appreciate it.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 131 - 163--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITNESS
BOB BOEDING, MEMBER, NATIONAL CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Lewis. Bob Boeding, who is with the National Corn
Growers' Association. Mr. Boeding?
Mr. Boeding. Good day, sir.
Mr. Lewis. You've heard about summarizing statements and
otherwise?
Mr. Boeding. I certainly have. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lewis. Appreciate it.
Mr. Boeding. I take that to heart and the full statement
has gone on the record.
My name is Bob Boeding, corn farmer from the town of
Lawler, Iowa, northeast Iowa. I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss the importance of this
National Science Foundation's Plant Genome Initiative. I
testify in behalf of the Nation's 30,000 corn growers, or 80
percent of the Nation's corn producers. The NCGA believes that
the most important appropriations issue for fiscal year 1999 is
funding for plant genomics research. We also concur with Philip
Abelson's article in the Science Journal, I've forgotten the
date that was quoted here, but his statement essentially says,
``the early phases of this third technological revolution,
genomics revolution, will be the most important we've seen so
far.''
With that, I'll diverge to a slightly personalization and
expansion of the points that were made in this. The first item
is the intellectual property rights we wish to protect for
those genomic work that's done here in the United States. There
is some concern that the Japanese have proceeded the pace with
the rice genome and inasmuch as EST's are relatively congruent,
it would seem that they could proceed very rapidly in this. So,
the concern would be that an external body, such as this, could
license this, and we would be faced with relatively high seed
costs. Our able researchers within the States would be provided
the intellectual property rights that are justly their's.
While shifting from our commodity bulk grain sales to a
crop with a specific high intrinsic value will enable our
consumers locally, domestically, nationally, and
internationally to obtain a greater net value from what they
are buying, and hopefully, I and my fellow farmers could
realize a slightly higher price from the better quality higher
intrinsic value corn.
The fourth item I've combined here have been mentioned
earlier, the higher ethanol yield per pound or per bushel, or
per pound biomass, more rapid timber growth, these all fit the
higher holistic balance that's demanded for a population that
is expected to double in my lifetime. I really, I look at that
with this rapid rise and it staggers me.
I've blended six other points here. The need for plants
that are capable of surviving in what I'll call a challenged
environment, one that is faced with a little more air
pollution, drought, pestilence, all the diseases that we
currently face and new ones that maybe we haven't seen or
realized before. Traditional breeding has helped dramatically
in this area over my lifetime. The Plant Genome Initiative will
be a key to giving me the yields necessary to support that
population that I've referred to in the prior statement.
On to the environmental aspects of what you're going to do,
or what your funding efforts may do for us. Brown water,
contamination with phosphate fertilizers, with nitrogen
fertilizers, and so on. On my farm, there are 4,600 large
births, mammal births per year, of a pound or slightly over
that. We have a high concern with high quality water here,
roughly equivalent to what should be in a maternity ward in a
large major city hospital. I cannot afford to have contaminated
water, as could anyone else in this Nation, or the world. So
this effort would also help in those areas.
The nutritional quality that I spoke of earlier, the
protein, the intrinsic values, the starch qualities, we have
funded--Dr. Jay Langene is characterizing starch for us at Iowa
State University, specific genes blending, when the genome map
is completed. So that as we complete the map, we'll have
materials to insert.
I have seen the value of coming up with intrinsic values of
corns firsthand. In Mexico, they are using protein
supplementation, for pediatric corn moss to use in tortillas.
This would be something that wouldn't decrease, excuse me,
faced with doing, had we provided or been able to provide them
with a higher quality protein corn.
With that, I say that I'll terminate here. This program is
worthy of a Manhattan-style project. It requires the resources
and the power of government to coordinate and to help fund
those things that we individually have not been able to do in
pass years. It's a huge program. I don't wish to bring in the
old Manhattan project but Paul Ehrlich had the population bomb
and this would be one of those things to help us diffuse that
bomb. It's also a near cinch for success. The Plant Genome is
one of those projects that, if it failed, I'd be shocked. I
don't know. I can't conceive of how it could possibly fail. At
the Iowa Corn Promotion Board we funded over 200 research
projects and only had four of them that met any relative
success. I don't know how to personally guarantee that this
would be that successful, or 100 percent success, but it's as
close to a success as I can see us getting.
In conclusion, I found a Henri Fabre's quote about in 1912,
I believe, ``no man qualifies as a statesman who is ignorant of
the problems of wheat.'' And I took the liberty of fiddling
around with it a little bit and I said, ``No person is a States
person who cannot see the potentials of the plant genome.''
And I, also, in wrapping a second or third time, recognize
the potential you did in last year's funding programs recognize
the potential of this Plant Genome and with that I applaud you
and we encourage you to continue this program and expand it
where possible. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. All right, do you have a question Mrs. Meek?
Mrs. Meek. No.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Walsh.
Mr. Walsh. Just a comment, the business is of interest to
me, coming from the Agriculture Subcommittee and yet looking at
it from. When I was a Peace Corps volunteer I went out for U.S.
AID and collected corn maze in the fall. Corn was provided to
them and they then submitted it for collection. It was kind of
fun. It was interesting. It is fascinating science and it's
farmers like you that have made Elvis Huxley and Paul Erhlich
and Thomas Malthus look a little silly over the years. I hope
you keep it going.
Mr. Boeding. We do too.
Mr. Walsh. We need you to do it.
Mr. Boeding. We'll have to do it as a team this time
because, as I said, the population explosion, or the population
increases are very rapid every year, and 30 years is not that
far off.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Boeding, I might mention, just so that it's
a part of the record. Normally this funding, the Genome
Project, and something like this would go through the
Agriculture Subcommittee. It's fundamentally an agriculture
research effort. It should be noted, if you haven't noted
already, that beyond Mr. Walsh, Senator Bond has played a very,
very significant role in all this. And, indeed, in our last go
around this was his baby and certainly a lot of credit is
deserved there.
Mr. Boeding. We do heartily thank them for that, and we do
recognize that.
Mr. Lewis. Thanks for being with us.
Mr. Boeding. Thank you, sir.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 167 - 173--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITNESS
HOWARD J. SILVER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CONSORTIUM OF SOCIAL SCIENCE
ASSOCIATIONS
Mr. Lewis. Dr. Howard Silver, who is the Executive Director
of the Consortium of Social Science Associations. Dr. Silver?
Mr. Silver. Good to see you again.
Mr. Lewis. Nice to see you again.
Mr. Silver. Thank you for the opportunity to be here, Mr.
Chairman, members of the Subcommittee. I'm Howard Silver. I'm
the executive director of COSSA, Consortium of Social Science
Associations, which represents over 100 professional
associations, scientific societies, universities, and research
institutes concerned with the promotion of, and funding for,
research and the social behavioral and economic sciences. I'm
also proud to serve, Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of the
Coalition for National Science, whose name has been invoked
already this morning. CNSF is an ad hoc, umbrella organization
of over 70 groups in the social, behavioral, physical and
natural sciences, engineering, higher education, and the
industrial world dedicated to ensuring enhanced support to
maintain the National Science Foundation has a premier basic
science agency in the world.
On May 20th, the NSF will sponsor an exhibition at which 30
scientific societies and universities will display the results
of NSF supported research, to provide an opportunity to engage
scientists, educators, and students in discussions of their
important studies, and we hope you and your colleagues will be
able to join us in the Rayburn basement from 4:30 to 7:30.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you.
Mr. Silver. I want to express COSSA and CNSF's appreciation
for the Subcommittee's past strong support for NSF. As always,
you face difficult choices among competing programs and
interests in a constrained budget situation. Yet it appears the
national consensus is formed on the critical need for enhanced
Federal support for basic research. President Clinton has
called for the largest increase ever for NSF. As you noted
earlier, Mr. Chairman, the Speaker has argued an investment in
science should be a priority. Republicans and Democrats in
Congress, and 106 national organizations have called for
doubling the national investment in science.
And thus COSSA believes, and CNSF, that investing in NSF
research and education efforts will help shape this country's
future economic well-being and national security, and strongly
recommends the 10 percent increase for NSF's Fiscal 1999
appropriation requested by NSF and endorsed by CNSF. I have
attached the CNSF budget document to my testimony, and I
believe it provides the justifications for this increase.
Let me talk a little bit now about basic research in the
SBE sciences. Dr. Kraut earlier mentioned the numbers in the
proposed budget, and like him, we are excited about the
proposed increases. The research in these sciences continues to
examine the evermore complex and human dimensions of issues,
and generates new knowledge and insight to help us understand
human commonalities and human differences. The research
portfolio is diverse and supports sciences of enormous
intellectual excitement and substantial societal importance.
In many ways, the social sciences are becoming laboratory
sciences. Experimental economists are studying the dynamic
behavior of markets. In his laboratory at California Institute
of Technology, Charles Plott has examined the behavior of
individuals and markets and how they lead to speculative
bubbles followed by crashes. In other laboratory settings,
different economists are conducting experiments testing
theories of inflation and international trade. Political
scientists use laboratory settings to test theories of agenda
setting and committee decision making, while sociologists study
how status hierarchies emerge in newly formed groups. There
have been direct societal benefits to these experiments. In
Plott's lab, the Federal Communications Commission tested the
highly lucrative broadband communication spectrum auction
design. And from those experiments other applications include
different methods of allocating space and time on the space
shuttle, and allocating slots at airports.
We heard earlier about NSF's new thrust in knowledge of
distributive intelligence. Let me point out one other area that
we're happy they are including in the KDI initiative. In
echoing NIH's efforts on the Human Genome Project, NSF has
included a legal, ethical, and societal implications effort as
part of KDI, such issues as intellectual property rights,
scientific publications, data security and integrity, balancing
the need for universal access against protection from
disclosure of private information to unauthorized individuals
are all part of the picture as we increase the capabilities to
gather and access information.
I'd also like to say a word about the Education and Human
Resources Director, COSSA asked the Subcommittee to support the
proposed increase for research, evaluation and communication
division as part of the overall increase. As we know from the
Subcommittee, there's a strong need to find out why Americans
students perform well at the fourth grade level and not so well
as they move up to the eighth and twelfth grades.
In conclusion, we urge the Subcommittee to continue its
support for a U.S. science policy that focuses on the physical
and natural behavioral and social aspects of what it will mean
to function in a technologically oriented society still
dominated by interactions among human beings. In his new book,
social biologist E.O. Wilson posits the notion of consilience,
which he defines as ``the interlocking of causal explanations
among disciplines.'' He suggests that we need ``an explanatory
integration not just of the natural sciences but also of the
social sciences and humanities.'' Many years ago at a COSSA
Annual Meeting, Thomas F. Malone, now Distinguished University
Scholar at North Carolina State University, and a meteorologist
by training, talked about what he calls a ``grand convergence''
of the social and behavioral sciences and the natural and
physical sciences. And you see that happening all over the
place.
Thus, any fundamental science policy must include
significant investments to explain the behaviors of human
beings as they interact with each other and with their social,
political, economic, and technological environment. To maintain
the United States as a world leader in science, economic
prosperity, and as the beacon of democracy, enhanced resources
devoted to gaining increased knowledge about humans and their
communities must be a priority.
The NSF remains a central actor to support the conduct of
this research and, therefore, must receive adequate funds to
carry out these important activities for the Nation, and the
proposed increase of 10 percent will satisfy that requirement,
and we hope the Subcommittee will grant it.
Thank you for your time.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Dr. Silver. Mrs. Meek, by
chance, questions?
Mrs. Meek. No.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Walsh.
Mr. Walsh. No questions, thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, sir, we thank you for being with us.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 177 - 185--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITNESS
MARY MARGARET OVERBEY, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS AMERICAN
ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Mr. Lewis. Let's see, let me go back to the top of the list
and see if by chance if a representative is going to be present
from the American Federation of Government Employees, is that
person here? Okay, calling once, calling twice, we'll get to
third here in a while. Let's see, Dr. Mary Margaret Overbey,
the Director of Government Relations for the American
Anthropological Association, who has been waiting patiently.
Welcome back.
Ms. Overbey. Thank you. I'm presenting my testimony on
behalf of the American Association of Physical Anthropological
Association, the Society for American Archaeology, and American
Association of Physical Anthropologists. Basically we're
supporting a 10 percent increase for NSF with the $2.8 billion
for research and $150 million allotted for social behavioral
and economic sciences research.
I want to use my time basically to let the research speak
for itself. I'd like to give you some examples of cultural
anthropology research, biological and anthropology research,
and archaeology research that have been funded by NSF and that
are currently ongoing. And the point is that these, each of
these studies that's advancing our knowledge that also have
evoked a lot of interest among people, the American people. So
there's been a lot of media attention to all of these projects.
The first one I'd like to talk about is a study of
secondary students down in Miami, in Dade County, who are in
poor disadvantaged neighborhoods looking at risk factors. What
causes students in their situation to succeed at school? And
how do they overcome at risk factors to succeed in life? And
basically what they have found to date is that strong social
relations in the family, and also among peers and in the
churches, do have a strong effect, and a positive effect on the
students so that students are able to overcome at risk factors.
This is still an ongoing project. It's going to be long-term so
he'll follow these students beyond school, jobs, and college.
But it has already attracted private funding from Carnegie
Corporation and Andrew Mellon Foundation.
There's an archeological project that is taking place down,
150 miles southwest of El Paso, Texas, by Robert Hard and his
colleagues at the University of Texas, San Antonio. And in this
site, what they have found is really the first existence of
settled agricultural village 3,000 years ago. Previous
scientists have felt that the only time we could find this
level of agriculture and settled villages was 1,500 years ago.
He has pushed this back several. This is during the Archaic
period that most people in the northeastern United States were
hunting, gathering bands just roving about, but he affirmed a
settled village that supported between 100 and 1,000 people,
cultivating maize and squash.
Mark Stoneking at Pennsylvania State University has
extracted the first authentic DNA from fossil hominid, and also
obtained the first sequence of mitochondrial DNA from this
fossil. And this is the first Neanderthal fossil that was found
in Germany in 1856. What Mark Stoneking's work is looking at is
the ancestral relations, are there ancestral relations with
modern humans. Scientists had guessed that the Neanderthal was
related and so he tested that by looking at the number of
mutations in the mitochondrial sequence. And in humans there
are only 7 to 8 mutations, or differences in that sequence.
What he found in comparing the Neanderthal DNA sequence with
the humans was that there were 27 to 28 differences so he
concluded that the Neanderthal are not ancestral to modern
humans.
NSF funding also enabled Kristin Hawkes and her colleagues
at the University of Utah to look at the role of post-
menopausal women in society and in the development of culture.
Hawkes has been working among the Hadza in Tanzania, they're a
modern hunting gathering group that, you know, roam in Africa.
And what she found is that the older women were producing the
most food. They were forging for the vegetables that produced
the most food in the village. And what the older woman would do
would be distribute this food strategically to their daughters
and their grandchildren. And if they didn't have a direct
relation, to their nieces and their children. So, in essence,
Hawkes is concluding that these women are perpetuating the band
and their families along the line. And she thinks, in
evolutionary terms, that if these older women really
contributed to the development of culture. And one thing I did
want to mention is that menopause itself is unique to humans,
and they're trying to look at the ``why'' of menopause, why do
they have menopause? So here, it's more of an explanation that
menopause actually serves a purpose to release these women to
take the time to forage and distribute.
The final project I'd like to mention is one by Patrick
Gannon, Arthur Fishberg and Ralph Holloway, looking at the
areas of the brain associated with human language. This is the
planum temporale, here's a picture. It's located in the left
hemisphere of the brain. It's where language is located, and
also musical ability. And neuroscientists have recently found,
it's the planum temporale where the perfect pitch is located.
So the ability, which is a rare ability, to be able to discern
notes separate from any context of music is located in the
planum temporale. Scientists always had also felt that this
area was unique to humans. And what Gannon and his associates
found is that it's found in chimps. So Chimpanzees actually do
have this left hemisphere, planum temporale developed, which
leads us to believe that language ability in chimps is greater
than scientists have previously thought.
And one thing I did want to mention is Gannon's research
itself, this is extensive, these are citations of the media
coverage that he received on this. There are three pages of
citations, everything from The New York Times and The Post, to
Jay Leno, and just a lot of radio and TV. BBC has done
something on this too. So there's been a lot of attention to
this.
So my purpose in letting the research speak for itself is
that to let you know that NSF is funding good research, that it
is advancing our knowledge, and that it really does intrigue
the American people and does advance their understanding of how
we got to where we are today, and their understanding of how we
could improve the world in which we live.
Mr. Lewis. Dr. Overbey, thank you very much for being with
us. I got your pitch. [Laughter.]
Ms. Overbey. Okay, thank you.
Mrs. Meek. I'm pleased to see that Mr. Neanderthal is not
ancestral to humans because I thought just the opposite.
Ms. Overbey. Well, that's right. And I think there's been a
history of saying there is, but there's been questions as to
what the relationship is. So this is really furthering that
knowledge that yes, probably it is not----
Mrs. Meek. Pleased to see your proud of your research.
Ms. Overbey. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you for being with us.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 189 - 206--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITNESS
ARTHUR JAFFE, JOINT POLICY BOARD FOR MATHEMATICS
Mr. Lewis. Arthur Jaffe with the Joint Policy Board for
Mathematics. Mr. Jaffe, it's good to see you again.
Mr. Jaffe. Thank you. I'm pleased to be here again after
two years.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I'm Arthur Jaffe, I'm President
of the American Mathematical Society, the Landon T. Clay
Professor of Mathematics at Harvard University, and Chair of
the Joint Policy Board for Mathematics. That Board is a
collaboration of three societies with combined membership of
over 57,000 mathematicians, and I welcome the opportunity to be
here.
Let me start by thanking the Committee for your support for
the NSF over the years. I hope for your continued support this
year. JPBM wholeheartedly endorses full funding for the 1999
budget request for NSF which will provide a significant 10
percent increase. We believe mathematics science and
engineering represents a top priority, along with our children,
for the future of our country. The NSF has seen no real budget
increase since 1995, and was part of the overall one-third
decline in the percent of R&D funding is the percent of GDP
over 30 years. We feel this short changes our most promising
investment in the future.
Given the extraordinary importance of the NSF's mission,
the need for full appropriation transcends any particular
budget mechanisms. The importance has been expressed by a
bipartisan group of members in the House and the Senate. The
request is consistent with authorizations in the House, with
the authorization moving through the Senate, and with the
Senate's budget resolution which assumes full funding for 1999.
The CNSF concurred, endorses the proposed budget. Furthermore,
a coalition of over 100 presidents of scientific societies,
including the three JPBM presidents, issued a unified statement
calling for a renewal of science funding over the next decade.
These societies have over 3 million members signed it, and you
probably have seen the unified statement which was issued last
October.
I believe it's widely understood that today's prosperity is
a consequence of our past 30 year investment in science. Our
economy relies, and our economic security relies on tomorrow's
technology. These technologies will evolve from today's
research. Our strength as a world power relies on our ability
to educate our population in mathematics and in science. In the
NSF there is a prominent share of the responsibility to fund
it.
We're especially supportive of the NSF's proposed budget of
$114 million in the division of mathematical sciences. The
Foundation has identified and documented a special need for
growth in mathematics. A panel appointed by the NSF presents
this material in a March 1998 study illustrating the inadequate
support of mathematics, along with the increasing role of
mathematics as the enabling discipline for all fields of
science.
I'd like to give some specific examples. In my written
testimony, I talked about a number of examples. They range from
the basic research leading to 1997 Nobel Prize in Economics,
that was research in probability theory, and it's had a
profound impact on today's financial markets and on risk
analysis to new mathematics behind modern medical imaging. New
mathematical methods of semi-conductor designs that have the
potential to impact that business while computer simulations
changed aircraft designs. New symmetries in the laws of
physics, the discovery of these led to dependent numerical
calculations in specialized field of mathematics. But there are
new ways to break and make codes.
As explained in a recent congressional briefing,
mathematicians devised new encryption schemes, and they also
devised new tools to break them. The symmetries in physics are
not unrelated to the tools that I'm talking about here. This
past week, we learned that digital cellular phone encryption,
which was believed to be secure, has been broken.
The NSF also provides the Federal funding that enables
professional mathematicians to improve education. One
successful program, the research experiences for
undergraduates, links students in summer programs to
mathematicians doing frontier research. In a complementary
fashion, the graduate fellowships provide incentives and
recognition for young scientists to continue to do research in
their field. The postdoctoral fellowship programs extends the
training at a crucial time when the recipients make the
delicate transition from initial discovery to world leadership.
It's through this package of support from undergraduate to
leading researcher that we shepherd our country's next
generation of Fields medal winners and Nobel prize laureates.
But while U.S. graduate education shines, our schools do
not. You've heard the results of the TIMSS, or the Third
International Mathematics and Science Study which show U.S.
students from approximately average in the fourth grade to the
very bottom in 12th grade. This is not only a case in averages
but even when measuring the top 10 percent of student
performance, this is totally unacceptable.
We urge the Subcommittee to support the request for the
Joint Mathematic initiatives proposed in cooperation with the
Department of Education. With less than 5 percent of the total
R&D budget, the NSF assumes major responsibility for many
critical components of science. I urge you again to provide the
10 percent requested in 1999 to the NSF.
And, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to second the invitation to you
and members of the Subcommittee to attend the Fourth Annual
CNSF Exhibition and reception on May 20th. There you can see
first-hand the sample of research and you can talk with some of
the researchers whose ideas produce these advances.
Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Jaffe.
Questions, questions?
Mr. Walsh. Mr. Jaffe, it doesn't relate to appropriations
but you raised the issue of the fall-off in math scores and
abilities of our kids from fourth grade through twelfth. What
do you surmise? We have the best post-secondary educational
system on earth, but secondary education is not on par with the
rest of the world. What's going on, do you think?
Mr. Jaffe. I understand it's a very complicated problem.
Mr. Walsh. Well, you're a mathematician it should be easy
for you. [Laughter.]
Mr. Jaffe. First, we have a problem with the social status,
a social problem, social status of teachers, their pay. We
don't necessarily attract, of course there are exceptions, the
best people by and large into the profession and therefore it's
perhaps not a surprise that they are not fully acquainted with
the content materials that they keep. I think there are a
number of programs to work with teachers to train them more in
the content, and I feel that content in mathematics and the
sciences is very important to give to the students. Those
programs have been a very great success.
Mr. Walsh. Can the NSF support that activity?
Mr. Jaffe. The NSF does partially support that activity.
They have training programs, they're joint programs with the
Department of Education as well.
Mr. Walsh. When NSF was in I suggested an idea that,
similar to the Peace Corps approach to things where the
AmeriCorp, you take some of your best graduate students and you
send them into school districts to teach, not only the kids,
but to teach the teachers, and to try to develop a level of
expertise at the high schools that wasn't previously there.
Mr. Jaffe. Right. We have programs, there's a program at
Harvard to bring in teachers from neighboring area schools to
help them with the material. There are summer programs at major
university sites, other places, that especially train teachers
in mathematics. This is extremely important, we'd like to send
students, some of our students go out to the area schools but
it just can't be a volunteer process, we have to have a program
in place. And it's not a problem that's going to be solved
overnight.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Jaffe, a very complex subject but
nonetheless, lest we mislead anybody who might be listening,
the Subcommittee has in the past expressed very strong support
for the work of NSF, and I anticipate that we will be doing the
same as you go forward. But nonetheless we should all make note
of the fact that never but never has more than 10 cents on the
dollar for educational purposes come from the Federal
Government. It is produced by way of local resources, State
resources, the private sector, tuitions, et cetera. We do love
to give 10 cents and tell you everything you got to be doing
through NSF--[laughter]--hopefully, we're not going to do that.
Mr. Jaffe. I totally agree. [Laughter]
Mr. Lewis. Thank you for being with us. Please wander by
the Kennedy School and say, ``hello,'' to our colleague, Mickey
Edwards, one of these days, would you?
Mr. Jaffe. Surely will, thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 210 - 216--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
WITNESS
JOHN NEYLAN, PRESIDENT-ELECT, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TRANSPLANT PHYSICIANS
Mr. Lewis. Let's see, is John Neylan here? John? The
American Society of Transplant Physicians. Really much of that
work is carried on by way of the VA, but, welcome.
Mr. Neylan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Subcommittee.
Mr. Lewis. Your testimony will be included in the record
and we appreciate your being with us.
Mr. Neylan. I am John Neylan, medical director of Kidney
Transplant Patients at Emery University, and I'm president-
elect of the American Society of Transplant Physicians. The
ASTP, which has no Government support, is comprised of over
1,100 physicians, surgeons, and scientists who are actively
engaged in research and the practice of transplantation
medicine and immunobiology. The ASTP represents the majority of
professionals involved in the field of transplantation in the
United States.
Today, my testimony will focus on Fiscal Year 1999
appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs Health
Administration and its transplant program. Since 1961, this
program has provided more than 7,000 solid organ transplants
(over 100 a year) to U.S. veterans in need. In addition, VA
funded research has made important contributions, both to our
understanding of diseases which may lead to organ failure, as
well as to those basic mechanisms regulating the immune system
which may be critical to the success of organ transplantation.
Although VA initiatives and transplantation have provided many
U.S. veterans with the critical gift of life, the program could
be broadened in the area of research to more effectively serve
our veterans and the overall health of the Nation.
Over the last 30 years, transplantation of solid organs has
moved from experimental to accepted therapy, with over 20,000
performed in 1997 alone. The success of this procedure has
improved greatly and now almost all solid organ recipients
enjoy anywhere from 83 to 97 percent survivals in one year.
Much of the success can be attributed to basic research
initiatives in immunobiology funded by previous Federal
appropriations. Our better understanding of the body's response
to foreign proteins has led to countless other breakthroughs in
all areas in medical science. However, this success has brought
with it new challenges.
Mr. Chairman, during the next hour four new names will join
those over 56,000 individuals in this country waiting for a
solid organ transplant. And by the time I get to Atlanta this
evening, 10 individuals will have died because the wait for the
transplant was too long. It's unfortunate and absolutely
unnecessary, but the sad fact is that we as a Nation are not
living up to our potential. Too many families are turning down
the option of organ donation.
In December 1997, the Administration launched a national
organ and tissue donation initiative to encourage more families
to discuss and understand their loved ones wishes in regard to
donation. This may help in reducing family refusal which is the
number one cause of the loss of potential donors today.
Therefore, the ASTP urges this subcommittee to provide
additional resources from Fiscal Year 1999 to ensure the
success of the administration's initiative and other federally-
initiated programs that enhance donor awareness and improve the
public trust in the process.
Research is also critical to all that occurs in the
transplantation process. The ASTP believes that we are on the
threshold of many important scientific breakthroughs in areas
of transplantation research, including the better understanding
of the mechanisms of organ rejection, improvements in
immunosuppression, the achievement of a drug-free immunologic
tolerance, and the potential use of animal organs and tissues,
xenotransplantation. Because of this, the ASTP agrees with the
Friends of the VA that the Subcommittee should provide a Fiscal
Year 1999 VA research appropriation of at least $325 million,
the amount necessary to sustain new initiatives VA is
implementing in Fiscal Year 1998 and to fully implement new
initiatives in Fiscal Year 1999, such as research in the area
of solid organ transplantation.
The VA currently supports research centers in a variety of
areas, such as HIV, alcohol and kidney disease. These centers
have successfully allowed for the advancement of knowledge in
targeted areas as a result of the talented investigators that
are assembled under one roof. By providing funds to operate
additional research centers, focusing on areas such as solid
organ transplantation, the VA could contribute even more
effectively to advances in the diagnosis and treatment of
disease and disability. By increasing Fiscal Year 1999 VA
research appropriations to at least $325 million, the
Department would also have the resources necessary to address a
backlog of medical research, career development applications
and increase awards to first time principal investigator
applicants. Such an effort would work to ensure that the VA
will be able to meet its need for highly trained investigators
in all research disciplines and in all fields important to our
U.S. veterans.
For more than six decades, the VA system has made unique
contributions to the health of the Nation's veterans, and to
the entire country's medical, scientific, and health care
efforts. The scientific community is on the verge of many new
breakthroughs in the area of solid organ transplantation, and
the ASTP believes that increased funding for VA research will
greatly improve the lives of U.S. veterans while increasing the
capacity for critical transplantation research for the entire
Nation. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much. We very much appreciate
your making the effort to come here. It's very, very important
that we recognize the value of the veterans' hospital locations
associated with major research universities, the potential is
endless in terms of improving the human condition, and we
appreciate your work. Thank you.
Mr. Neylan. Thank you, Chairman Lewis.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 219 - 255--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
PAUL GROGAN, PRESIDENT, LOCAL INITIATIVES SUPPORT CORPORATION
Mr. Lewis. Let's see, Paul Grogan, President of the Local
Initiatives Support Corporation. Mr. Grogan, welcome one more
time.
Mr. Grogan. Mr. Chairman, one more time.
Mr. Lewis. Hi, there.
Mr. Grogan. Well, I'm going to offer you an interruption in
the steady stream of scientists and physicians and
mathematicians.
Mr. Lewis. Always happy to hear from HUD. [Laughter.]
Mr. Grogan. Talk about houses. I have to say I'm not sure
following the Society of Transplant Physicians is a message
about HUD or not, but thank you for having me, Mr. Chairman.
I want to preface my brief remarks by bringing you what I
think is very good news from the innercities of the country. As
you know, Local Initiatives Support Corporation is a private
organization supported by more than 2,000 corporations,
foundations, and private individuals providing capital and
expertise to innercity and rural development efforts
nationwide. And we are seeing unmistakable signs of more and
more turn around, particularly in innercity communities that
have been depressed for a very, very long time. And I think
that's significant because I think for the last 30 years or so,
we've thought this cause was pretty hopeless. We've been very
pessimistic about conditions in these communities which have
bred an enormous amount of poverty and social pathology, and we
really think things are starting to turn around very much as a
consequences of the grassroots revitalization movement, not of
actions of the Federal government but of the ordinary citizens
taking matters into their own hands, organizing out of churches
and block clubs, to take on problems and issues in their own
communities. And there are now more than 2,000 of these groups
renovating and building housing, bringing jobs back into the
communities, working on health clinics, day care centers, anti-
crime efforts.
It's really a spreading phenomenon that is based on the
bedrock American attributes of self-help and partnership and
tangible results. And private capital is fueling much of this.
The Federal government has done a couple of important things.
It's a short list of things but that magnifies their
importance. One of them is not under the jurisdiction of this
committee but I very much appreciate your decision, Mr.
Chairman, to join as a sponsor of the two bills in the House
that proposes to expand the low-income housing tax credit,
which is, as you know, steers a lot of private capital to
affordable housing.
Two programs at HUD though have been very, very helpful:
the HOME Program and the Community Development Block Grant. And
I particularly want to focus on HOME, which has been of
particularly utility to grassroots groups. Unlike a lot of
programs that are so rule bound and prescriptive that they
don't take account of this type of local initiative or the need
to leverage private capital, home has really done a great job
in being the kind of flexible, locally-driven resource that can
be combined with private capital and can be molded to do a wide
variety of housing programs that local communities want to do.
The program is very well utilized. As you know, it is
leveraging, for every dollar, $1.08 in private and other
financing. We are just seeing this as really being part of the
fuel that's driving this movement.
Community Development Block Grant is also very, very
important. In general, we would like to see HUD evolve into a
flexible investor in local partnerships as opposed to the kind
of institution that it has been. I applaud Secretary Cuomo's
efforts to do that, but right now the programs that really make
the strongest statement, and are of the most impact in this
realm, are those two.
We very much appreciate your support last year in
increasing somewhat the administration's proposal, and we would
certainly urge you to do the same this year. I don't think we
can underestimate what it might mean to our country if we came
to believe that the innercities could really be revived. The
tremendous burden that they have been on us, the source of
really national embarrassment, and I think there is a
tremendous opportunity where you see housing, where you see
markets following housing, and the kind of citizen engagement
that's rebuilding institutions--everything from PTAs to little
leagues.
We had the great pleasure of hosting a visit of the
President to the South Bronx late last year. South Bronx has
perhaps been emblematic in a very powerful way of the
devastation of the innercities, and I think he was stunned, as
was the media, to see the acres and acres of revitalization--
really all wrought by the initiative of community organizations
to provide the capital, but very much helped and catalyzed by
this short list of Federal programs.
So we've got something going here that's working. The HOME
and CDBG are relatively small programs. Everyone says we
appreciate the tough choices you have to make. I don't think we
really do. We want you to do what we're proposing, but I think
we can show that the leverage on these Federal efforts is
fantastic, and we've really drawn private capital in, which is
what's finally led to restoring these markets.
Thank you very much for having me here this morning.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Grogan, very much.
I must say that programs like the House that Congress
Built--and half the House now is going to be involved in that
symbolic effort; lots of private capital flowing, volunteer
efforts--very, very important, working together in this urban
centers. And I, frankly, think the goal is to revitalize those
urban centers, and we appreciate not only your testimony, but
your help.
Mr. Grogan. Thank you. We're working very closely with
Habitat across the country. It's one of the great stories
that's part of this.
Mr. Lewis. Yes, it is.
Thank you very much for being with us.
Mrs. Meek. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to Mr. Grogan,
I've been working with this many, many years. It worked in its
revival. There has been some change to these communities. We
just need more of that.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you for being with us.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 258 - 297--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
WITNESS
WADI SUKI, PRESIDENT, THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY
Mr. Lewis. Let's see, back to the National Science
Foundation, Dr. Wadi Suki, president of the American Society
for Nephrology.
Dr. Suki. In addition, our Nation has renewed commitment to
allocating increased resources for medical research, and the VA
should not be forgotten, and at the minimum the research
program that serves our Nation's veterans deserves a level of
increase similar to that of other federally-funded medical
research programs. Therefore, our Society supports the
appropriation of at least $325 million for VA medical research.
When you think in terms of how much this represents, if you
would consider how much the VA has spent for health care
services, $272 million spent last year on research in the VA
comes out to only 1.5 percent of total expenditures on health
care, which is really a very small amount. It is my view and
the view of members of our Society that investment in research
is the only real opportunity we have to reduce enormous costs
to the VA, not to mention human suffering composed by chronic
health conditions.
The VA R&D is poised to realize its vision of the future
with additional funding for medical research to be well-
positioned to help the VA system meet the challenge of a
changing health care environment while contributing to advances
in the Nation's knowledge of disease.
The recruitment and retention of the best and the brightest
to pursue careers in academic investigative methodology has
been and will continue to be our Society's foremost goal. The
VA Research Realignment Advisory Committee found that the VA is
not satisfactorily recruiting and sustaining the next
generation of outstanding clinical investigators. Our Society
believes that the major obstacle to achieving the goals of the
cure for and the prevention of kidney disease is the difficulty
in the current environment of attracting the most talented
young individuals to pursue careers in research.
By your subcommittee appropriating $325 million for VA
medical research in Fiscal Year 1999, implementation of new
research training and career development programs can occur in
the VA, and the VA will be able to address the backlog of
medical research career development complications, and increase
awards to first time physician investigator applications.
Increasing career development awards enhances the VA's
ability to attract and retain high quality physician
investigators for a career in the VA. Considering that 75
percent of VA researchers are the physicians who provide
medical care for our veterans, the quality of the health care
received by our veterans is directly correlated to the VA's
ability to provide funds for a career in biomedical research.
The Veterans' Administration has made profound
contributions in areas related to nephrology, research on
diabetes, which is the foremost cause of kidney failure in this
country. Research in this area conducted in the VA has advanced
our knowledge in how to retard the progression of kidney
disease in diabetics and how to prevent it. Research in the
area of hypertension, which is the second commonest cause of
kidney failure, has also advanced knowledge and this research
has been carried out in the VA.
Most research breakthroughs in this country come from
investigator initiated projects. If the VA research budget is
funded at $325 million for Fiscal Year 1999, investigator
initiated projects could increase by at least 10 percent. In
addition, years of funding shortfalls have prevented the VA
from conducting much needed renovation of VA research
facilities. Many VA research facilities are housed in buildings
erected in the post-World War II era. Renovations need to occur
to accommodate the equipment and electrical venting safety and
plumbing systems required for today's cutting edge research.
While our Society recognizes the difficult task that
Congress has in choosing between Federal programs, these
choices should not come at the expense of those who have fought
for our freedoms 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 again urges this
subcommittee to support a Fiscal Year 1999 appropriation of
$325 million for VA medical research.
This concludes my presentation, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
the opportunity.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Dr. Suki.
Mrs. Meek. I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, and to Dr.
Suki, I've been a strong proponent of medical research at the
VA since I've been on this subcommittee and I do hope that we
can improve this as I've perceived it, the medical research
part of the VA's budget, and I do hope that we can
substantially improve it.
Dr. Suki. We thank you for your support.
Mr. Lewis. Dr. Suki, we all, especially on a day like today
where you have a variety of mix of witnesses coming forward,
find, probably conclude that the term ``lobbyist,'' is not
necessarily a bad term. They come in many shape and forms. I
was struck when I was home over these last couple of weeks that
there's a fellow whose building a new home down the street from
me, and I haven't had a chance to meet him but I've noted that
when going by a relatively new Jeep, it's a young family. And
I've learned that this fellow is a nephrologist and I have no
idea whether he's a part of your Society or not but one of
these days I'll probably find out. [Laughter.]
I urge you to find out who he is. [Laughter.]
Dr. Suki. He probably works at the Research Institute,
something like that; he looked like it. Thank you.
Dr. Suki. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. We appreciate your being here.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 300 - 304--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
WITNESS
SVEN-ERIK BURSELL, JOSLIN DIABETES CENTER
Mr. Lewis. Let's see, we're going to stay on that same
track for just a moment. Is Dr. Bursell with Joslin Diabetes
Center present?
Dr. Bursell. Yes.
Mr. Lewis. The seat next to you.
Dr. Bursell. It's great to be here again at the Committee.
I'm going to talk to you about a diabetes project. It's a
collaborative project that we had proposed last Spring with the
Veterans' Administration. The demonstration project will be the
Institute's pilot programs for detection, prevention, and care
in two regions: Hawaii, through the Tripler Army Medical
Center, in collaboration with both the DOD and the VA out
there; and in New England, through the VA's VISN-1 region. The
objectives involve training and technology transfer of Joslin's
expertise using telemedicine infrastructures, personnel, and
employment patient bases of the Department of Defense and
Veterans' Affairs.
The idea is to basically facilitate patient's access to a
program of diabetes care and prevention and education,
hopefully to reduce some of the complications from diabetes,
such as blindness or kidney disease.
We'd like to thank you, the members of the Committee here,
and especially Congressman Nethercutt for the support we
received in Fiscal Year 1998 through the VA/HUD appropriations.
But I'm going to focus on today is two aspects of the project,
primarily the status report and a request for our second year
funding.
The two objectives of the project are screening for
diabetes among DOD and VA patient populations in New England
and Hawaii using innovative technology which requires nothing
more than shining a light into the eye and determine whether or
not you have diabetes, and implementing a program of improved
diabetes management and education using the telemedicine
platform for the DOD and VA patient populations in New England
and Hawaii.
We have reached an understanding, with the support of the
DOD and VA policy program personnel on implementation on the
work plan to report to the Committee last year. And by
September 30th of 1998, we will have accomplished the
following: one, a completion of phase one studies and
implementation of phase two studies in the New England region,
and implementation of phase one studies at the Tripler Medical
Center in Hawaii. And basically this is an evaluation to
determine how cost effective, both for the patient, and cost
effective in terms of getting care to the patients the
telemedicine intervention is and how it impacts on the standard
practice of diabetes. And again deployment of three remote
examination sites in the New England area.
In year 2002, we will have accomplished the following
objectives: providing DOD and VA diabetes patients cost
effective access to the benefits of annual eye exams,
diagnosis, treatments that are necessary to reduce risk to
vision, and other significant complications of diabetes, such
as nephrology and heart disease; to develop the utilization of
a quick, efficient and easily acceptable method of screening
for diabetes in remote sites; to demonstrate efficient and
effective methods to improve the metabolic control of patients
with diabetes.
Today Joslin has expended approximately $2 million, without
any reimbursement from Federal funds. This has been a
particular challenge for us as a nonprofit institution and the
reason was we weren't aware that at each stage of Department of
Defense review, and decision-making, that essentially the funds
would be allocated for administrative purposes. So the total
DOD and VA assessment over the two year project period has
exceeded $2 million. And the bare bones budget we submitted
last year did not include resource allocations for partners in
DOD/VA so that in this stage of the project we have very little
money. [Laughter.]
There's a fair amount of angst associated with it. The DOD
officials have recognized Joslin's plight and have indicated
they will support a second year budget of $6.4 million to
assure that we can proceed efficiently.
Mr. Chairman, in order to implement this project properly,
and conduct the project in the manner and under the terms
established by the DOD and VA, we will require an appropriation
of $6.4 million in Fiscal Year 1999 for the diabetes research
project, the National Security Subcommittee initially funded in
Fiscal Year 1998.
And this concludes my statement and if you have any
questions.
Mr. Lewis. Dr. Bursell, if you would, as we go forward
through the conference process try and help us focus on this to
make sure that we do get the interaction that we want from the
Department.
Mr. Bursell. That would be my pleasure.
Mr. Lewis. I appreciate your testimony. Thank you very
much.
Dr. Bursell. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 307 - 329--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITNESS
DALE L. KEAIRNS, PH.D., AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERS
Mr. Lewis. Dr. Dale Keairns, the American Institute of
Chemical Engineers. Hello, welcome back.
Mr. Keairns. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for
welcoming me. I'm Dale Keairns. I'm a manager of the chemical
and environmental area at Westinghouse, and I'm pleased to be
with you this morning on behalf of the American Institute of
Chemical Engineers, AIChE. AIChE is a nonprofit professional
association of more than 58,000 chemical engineers that
provides leadership in advancing the chemical engineering
profession. And our message today is really one of supporting
the Administration's request for the NSF budget and
particularly the $400 million request for the Engineering
Directorate.
The research conducted by chemical engineers in academia
and industry plays an important role in bringing new
technologies to fruition in industries as varied as energy,
paper, food, pharmaceuticals, plastics, and many others. NSF
support is essential to developing new technologies for these
industries as it provides over 55 percent of all Federal
support for academic research in chemical engineering. AIChE
supports the Administration's budget request of $3.8 billion
for NSF, and we particularly support the $2.8 billion request
for NSF research activities, 12 percent more than last year.
Within NSF's research activities, AIChE believes that
engineering research deserves increased emphasis. Accordingly,
we believe Congress should provide no less than the $400
million budget request for the NSF Engineering Directorate.
While Congress in 1986 granted engineering equal status with
science in furthering NSF's testimony mission, the Engineering
Directorate continues to represent only about 10 percent of the
NSF budget. Considering the Engineering Directorate's integral
role in advancing NSF's mission, we believe the relative size
of the Engineering Directorate, as well as engineering research
in other directorates should be increased.
The term ``engineering'' is normally associated with
application oriented activities. NSF's Engineering Directorate,
however, supports fundamental engineering research, as
certainly you are well aware. In a critical, but often
overlooked function of NSF, technologies such as environmental
benign manufacturing, parallel computing, robotics, can trace
their origins to NSF's support of fundamental engineering
research.
NSF's Engineering Directorate supports a wide range of
value added activities. The program supports individual
investigator research in focused disciplines, and multi-
disciplinary research conducted in small groups in research
centers, including the engineering research centers and
university cooperative research centers. It also supports
engineering education activities, the SBIR program, the cross-
directorate initiatives, such as the Next Generation Internet.
Additionally, the Engineering Directorate spearheads efforts to
strengthen ties between university and industry researchers
through programs like Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison
with Industry, or GOALI program.
While the breadth of these programs is one of the
Directorate's programs main assets, sufficient funding is
needed to maintain the varied missions.
Mr. Chairman, let me quickly highlight two of these
programs which we believe should receive high priority. The
Engineering Research Center program brings together cross-
disciplinary teams of science and engineering researchers and
students in university-based centers to address fundamental
issues in technological areas relevant to industry and of high
importance to the Nation. This collaborative systems-oriented
approach leverages limited resources and fosters a two-way flow
of ideas between universities and industry on mutually
beneficial research. Industrial and other partners match NSF's
investment by about 3 to 1. A recent NSF assessment of these
centers found that firms employing former ERC graduate students
graded the students higher than their peers in several areas.
With regard to the GOALI program, this has been getting
high marks for placing faculty and students in industrial
settings to work on the conceptual phase of the research
endeavor. Such interactions strengthen intellectual connections
that can open up new areas for university research and foster a
mutual understanding of the cultural differences between
academia and industry.
While we recognize the budget gaps under which this
committee must work, we believe that investing in NSF,
including fundamental engineering research, strengthens the
U.S. pool of technical talent and long-term economic growth at
the same time.
The chemical engineering profession, the chemical engineers
of AIChE look forward to continuing to provide our expertise on
research programs that impact our profession and the Nation's
technological strength.
I really appreciate this opportunity to be with you today.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Dr. Keairns.
Mr. Keairns. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Appreciate it very much.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 332 - 341--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITNESS
MARTHA SLOAN, CHAIR, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERING SOCIETIES
Mr. Lewis. Our next witness is Dr. Martha Sloan, the
American Association of Engineering Societies, the 1998 AAES
Chair. Welcome, welcome back.
Dr. Sloan. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
address the Subcommittee. My name is Martha Sloan. I am Chair
of the American Association of Engineering Societies, a
federation of more than one million engineers and 25
engineering societies. I'm also a professor of electrical
engineering at Michigan Technological University.
As you know, for nearly 50 years, NSF has been a leader in
supporting the highest quality research for our country. NSF
has a long history of success in accomplishing that mission. It
assisted in developing lasers, superconducting materials, the
Internet, GPS, and many others. NSF is unique because it does
not support a specific mission-oriented type of research, such
as space research at NASA, or medical research at NIH. Instead,
NSF supports a broad spectrum of basic and applied science and
engineering research, primarily at universities.
AAES strongly supports the Administration's request to
increase the National Science Foundation's funding by 10
percent to $3.8 billion for Fiscal Year 1999. This will allow
NSF to better support world-class science and engineering
research.
NSF provides support for pre-competitive engineering. The
need for this type of support becomes obvious when one thinks
of the research continuum. A scientist explores a question and
may discover a new scientific law. An engineer takes that
knowledge and applies it to a process or application. NSF
supports engineering research before a process or application
is ready to be used by the private sector. This, of course, is
what pre-competitive engineering means.
An example from NSF's Engineering Directorate is a novel
optical method of document verification. This application could
eventually help to prevent credit card fraud. The research is
on optical data and coding, and a newly discovered polymeric
film for optical data storage. Photos or fingerprints could be
placed upon film on the credit card to verify the use of
identity.
NSF provides about one-quarter of all Federal support for
basic research at U.S. universities, but NSF is also heavily
involved with education supporting math and science education
at all levels. These efforts are helping train our Nation's
future scientists and engineers who will supply power for the
Nation's economic interests.
This year NSF is launching a new program called the Action
Agenda for Systemic Engineering Education Reform. This program
seeks to develop significant advances in teaching and learning
methods, curriculum, and networking. This helps faculty to
adopt new approaches to implement improvements in engineering
education.
One factor vital to the success of NSF is stringent peer
review. Subjecting research proposals to peer review is the
optimal way for NSF to ensure that only the best proposals are
funded.
Many economic experts, such as Paul Romer of Stanford, have
said that up to 50 percent of the growth in our Nation's GDP
can be attributed to technological innovation. Much of this
growth resulted from Government supported research,
particularly from NSF. The economic competitiveness of the U.S.
is directly tied to our ability to innovate and improve
technology. Our country's ability to compete in the 21st
century depends on the investments we make today. The proposed
10 percent increase in science and engineering research funding
will let us help to maintain the U.S.'s technological and
economic dominance.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Ms. Sloan, appreciate your
being with us.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 344 - 350--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, AND NASA
WITNESS
MELVIN RAY, CHAIR, MISSISSIPPI EPSCoR COMMITTEE
Mr. Lewis. We're going to very briefly shift gears one more
time. Mr. Wicker has a difficult and conflicting schedule and
he has a guest he'd like to introduce. So I call upon Dr.
Melvin Ray of Mississippi State University, representing the
Coalition of EPSCoR. Mr. Wicker?
Mr. Wicker. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I know
we are pressed for time, and I very much appreciate the
indulgence of the Chair today. It's my pleasure to introduce to
the Committee, to the Subcommittee, Dr. Melvin C. Ray, of
Mississippi State University. He is the Chair of the
Mississippi EPSCoR Committee. He is not a constituent of mine.
He resides in one of the counties which I share with
Representative Pickering, and I can say that he's a wonderful
participant in the faculty at Mississippi State University and
a good citizen of the community. I think you will find his
testimony on behalf of the EPSCoR program to be very
enlightening.
Mr. Lewis. Dr. Ray, your entire testimony will be included
in the record, and you may summarize it as you wish. Appreciate
your being with us.
Mr. Ray. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee, I am Dr. Melvin Ray and Chairman of the
Mississippi EPSCoR Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify today on behalf of the Coalition of EPSCoR States
regarding the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research.
First, I'd like to thank Representative Wicker for his
strong support of EPSCoR. From the very beginning of his
service in the House, Congressman Wicker has understood the
importance of building science and technology infrastructure in
the State of Mississippi, as well as the Nation. And I thank
you.
Mr. Lewis. I hope you'd tell him to slow down on twisting
my arm as much as he does. [Laughter.]
Mr. Ray. EPSCoR, again, Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research was established in the National Science
Foundation due to a concern that our national research and
development dollars was highly concentrated, and that it would
benefit the Nation if more States could participate in
conducting research that our Nation needs. EPSCoR has helped
Mississippi and the other EPSCoR States improve their research
capabilities. As a result, EPSCoR has expanded to other Federal
agencies.
The Mississippi EPSCoR program began in 1988. It has had an
enormously positive impact within the State and the four
research institutions: Jackson State University, The University
of Southern Mississippi, The University of Mississippi, and, of
course, Mississippi State. EPSCoR has had a positive tangible
impact in Mississippi in four specific categories: it supports
junior faculty, it provides training for students, it helps
develop new programs, and it provides solid scientific results.
Specific examples are included in my written testimony.
Mr. Chairman, the EPSCoR Coalition asks the Subcommittee to
support EPSCoR funding in the NSF, NASA, and EPA. NSF EPSCoR
helps eligible States improve R&D competitiveness through three
types of awards: the EPSCoR cooperative agreements which
support infrastructure development; EPSCoR grants, which are
essentially seed grants for new and improving technology for
the States; and EPSCoR co-funding to accelerate movement of
investigators into the regular NSF research programs.
The Administration has requested $38.41 million for EPSCoR
for Fiscal Year 1999. The Coalition for EPSCoR States
respectfully requests the Subcommittee to appropriate $43.41
million. This figure will allow us to continue existing
programs by increasing co-funding to the budget level of $15
million. We also ask the Committee to keep forth this effort to
ensure that our States are included in the NSF high performance
computing and networking efforts.
As it relates to NASA EPSCoR--NASA EPSCoR provides seed
funding to develop academic research programs, activities
directed toward long-term self-sustaining naturally competitive
capabilities in science and technology. The Administration
requested level funding of $4.7 million in Fiscal Year 1998.
However, more funds are needed if all EPSCoR States are to
participate. For each additional $500,000 added above $4.7
million, another EPSCoR State will be able to participate in
the NASA EPSCoR program. If NASA EPSCoR is to be effective, it
is imperative that it remain a coherent headquartered effort,
and not distributed to regional centers.
As it relates to EPA EPSCoR--EPA EPSCoR remains the
smallest of the EPSCoR programs. Congress provided $2.5 million
for EPA EPSCoR in Fiscal Year 1998, and the administration has
requested zero funded. EPA EPSCoR promotes nationally
competitive environmental science research programs, and
provides the EPA with needed high quality environmental
research. More funds are needed if the EPA is to have a truly
effective EPSCoR program. The Coalition of EPSCoR States
requests $5 million for EPA EPSCoR in Fiscal Year 1999.
I thank the Committee for the time today, and will be glad
to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Dr. Ray. Mrs. Meek.
Mrs. Meek. No questions, but I'm encouraged.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Wicker, do you have questions?
Mr. Wicker. Well, I realize that we're under a time
constraint. I guess if you could just briefly tell us, perhaps,
what your biggest frustration has been with the way the program
is funded?
Mr. Lewis. EPA zero funding. [Laughter.]
Mr. Ray. Exactly. In terms of the EPSCoR Coalition, the
EPSCoR States, what we would like to see is, Congressman, that
we could benefit our State and our citizens and be able to
attract new business to the industry if the NASA EPSCoR program
is funded at the $10 million level requested, and if the EPA
was funded at $5 million level requested. That will allow the
States, specifically, Mississippi, to have opportunity to
participate in those programs. Because the funding levels are
so low, the 18 States plus Puerto Rico are unable to
participate. There's just not enough funding to go around.
Mrs. Meek. Doctor, what is the meaning, explain what this
acronym means?
Mr. Ray. EPSCoR, EPSCoR is the Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research.
Mrs. Meek. Oh, thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thanks a lot, Dr. Ray, appreciate your being
with us.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 354 - 360--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, NASA
WITNESS
MICHAEL REISCHMAN, CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS
Mr. Lewis. Let's see, Michael Reischman, The American
Society of Mechanical Engineers. Mr. Reischman? Thank you for
your patience.
Mr. Reischman. Good morning.
Mr. Lewis. Good morning.
Mr. Reischman. My being from South Carolina, EPSCoR means a
lot to us as well.
Mr. Lewis. I'm sure it does.
Mr. Reischman. It has its own unique problems but it's
very, very beneficial to everyone.
Mr. Lewis. Great. I noticed that you already have
summarized your testimony. We appreciate your presenting that
as you would for the record.
Mr. Reischman. Thank you. I'm, as I said, Michael
Reischman. I'm from the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers. I'm Chair of the Inter Council Committee on Federal
R&D. I'm also a member of the Council on Education's NSF Task
Force, and I'm accompanied by Dr. Wade from Rutgers University
who is a similar member of that committee.
Mr. Lewis. Okay.
Mr. Reischman. In introduction, I'd like to say that
mechanical engineering profession is well-served by NSF, and by
their support of developing basic knowledge, applying that
knowledge in specific engineering processes, and also the
educational activities that they pursue. The task force is, in
general, and I'll keep my numbers to a minimum, very, very
pleased with the almost 12 percent increase in engineering at
NSF.
For engineering, in general, the development of efficient
design manufacturing methodologies or products of all types is
really the essence of our being globally competitive.
With that in my mind, let me comment a little bit on all
three of the areas. Basic knowledge--very pleased to see the
continued focus on inter-disciplinary activities. For example,
nanotechnologies and long-term deterioration of materials, both
initiatives within engineering. Research there leads to
understanding the aging effects on engineer structures and
systems or, ultimately, how to develop smart structures and
systems have an enormous impact downstream in the power
generation industry, in the civil infrastructure we all enjoy
day by day, in aircraft safety, in automotive efficiency, and
in automotive safety.
Biology based technology is another initiative we'd like to
support. The research there is sort of at the intersection
between biology and engineering. The potential for that
research in the health care industry alone is enormous.
Applications would include non-invasive drug delivery, the idea
of highly efficient micro-miniaturized but robotically-
controlled medical devices, an ominous thought but ultimately
what's going to happen. The increased priority in funding NSF
shows for these basic research areas is highly commended by the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Next, integrating this knowledge into complex engineering
prophecies. As I said before, design and manufacturing are sort
of the heart of our profession. Projected increases there are
quite in track with the rest of NSF, they're close. But because
they are not quite in track we have to then leverage on other
areas of NSF to make sure that design and manufacturing moves
ahead at the same expediency as the rest.
I'd like to suggest two areas, actually three areas of
initiatives where such leverage can be obtained. First, two in
NSF, one is a macro-scale engineering initiative in
engineering. The other one is the KDI, which is the Knowledge
and Distributed Intelligence initiative, which is a NSF-wide
well-known program area.
The third is a NASA initiative in intelligence synthesis
environment. These initiatives are all focused in on the areas
of computing system research, and the human role in that
computing system, the convergence of computing and
communications, the simulation, the large-scale simulation and
control. That research can have enormous impact in design and
manufacturing. For example, simulation and control, large-scale
simulation and control leads ultimately to developing advanced
tools for us to be able to evaluate and simulate manufacturing
alternatives, thereby cutting down time to market.
Secondly, commuting system research is really the
forerunner of very large virtual geographically distributed
adaptive and flexible manufacturing enterprises, something that
NASA and NSF are both seeing as the future downstream.
The Task Force endorses and strongly recommends the full
deployment of these inter-discipline projects.
Let me wrap up with a word about NSF's support of
engineering education. As you know, engineering is a problem
defining and solving discipline. It requires a lot of team work
and it requires a lot of cross-disciplinary thinking and those
traits are highly valued. Engineering at NSF is the absolute
leader in engineering education reform and renovation in this
country. No where is the idea of inter-disciplinary more
attractive and more evident than in that directive. ASME is
very supportive of this, and all the other NSF education
initiatives.
And one specific observation in engineering education--we
have for a long time supported the increase in support to
graduate fellowships thinking having our best and brightest
achieve is a good sign for the country. I'm glad to say,
finally, that NSF is coming along in increasing that support.
Anyway, thank you very much for the opportunity for
presenting our views on the 1999 appropriations for NSF. I'll
be happy to respond to any questions.
Mr. Lewis. Dr. Reischman, thank you for being here. We
appreciate Dr. Wade being here as well. If you want to
supplement any of the record, we certainly will leave the
record open for that purpose for our file at least, so welcome
and appreciate your being with us.
Mr. Reischman. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 363 - 369--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, NASA
WITNESS
FRANCIS LAWRENCE, PRESIDENT, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY
Mr. Lewis. Let's see, is Francis Lawrence with us?
Mr. Lawrence. I am.
Mr. Lewis. Yes. The president of Rutgers University,
speaking for the Association of American Universities, welcome.
Mr. Lawrence. Thank you. The last two must stand between
you and the Committee's lunch so we have to be at our best
here.
I am Francis L. Lawrence, president of Rutgers, the State
University of New Jersey, the State's largest public research
university. We enrolled 48,000 students and we graduate 10,000
yearly. And we are a major source of the highly trained
workforce. I'm pleased to testify on behalf of basic scientific
research and science education in a positive environment
created by the leaders of both parties.
President Clinton's budget proposal including a 10 percent
increase for the National Science Foundation are sound. Speaker
Gingrich also views scientific research as a priority item. I
submit for the record the testimony of the Higher Education
Community representing AAU, NASULGC and the American Council on
Education.
I would like to address basic scientific research and
science education in the United States. Research in education
rely on partnerships involving Federal and State Governments,
industry, and universities. The NSF fosters such partnerships.
It is the only Federal agency supporting the full range of
science and engineering fields. With the proposed increased for
the NSF, the Federal Government emerges as the leader and a
challenger of other partners. Rutgers is a leader in
partnership development. It has planned for, and is prepared to
match, your leadership. For context, Rutgers' external research
and training grants for the current year are at an all time
high of $154.6 million, over half from Federal sources. More
than 100 major corporations, including many of the Nation's
largest, are sponsors of Rutgers' research. In fact, support
from them in Fiscal 1997 exceeded $14 million.
Our State funding is also significant. More support for the
NSF is particularly important in the light of the New Jersey
Commission on Higher Education draft legislation for cost-
sharing which calls for State matching of Federal and private
funding for research done at State research universities.
Partnerships are a cornerstone of Rutgers' strategic plan
to bring us into the first rank of public research universities
by the year 2010. We have identified 13 academic growth areas
for emphasis to achieve excellence. Four in particular, life
science, engineering, information sciences, and the environment
are highly appropriate for additional NSF support.
I said earlier that Rutgers is a leader in creating
partnerships. Even with recent budget constraints we have
committed our own limited resources to growth areas. We are
using $4 million annually reallocated from administrative
resources to fund the initiatives to win matching funds and
leverage external support. We are funding 60 projects with
significant results. Some are generating external support three
to four times the size of our initial investment. State,
Federal, corporate, and private partners are making these
developments possible.
For example, we are poised to become a national leader in
bioinformatics, blending research in applied math and computer
science with molecular biology and biophysics. Among other
benefits, it permits rational drug discovery through
mathematical modeling of formulation, the potential benefits
are enormous, especially in New Jersey which is a
pharmaceutical haven of the United States. NSF funding for the
project exceeds $500,000. With corporate funds and our
allocations, we can see rapid large scale growth and
development of this project and many others.
Increased NSF support is important for research
partnerships, especially for economic competitiveness and
quality of life issues. So we're eager to follow your lead. And
if I might, in concluding, earlier, I think six speakers ago,
there was a question about where we stood in math and science.
I want to give you one example that has NSF behind us. Rutgers
faculty can play the leadership role in transforming the
State's K-12 curriculum in mathematics and science through the
NSF funded state-wide systemic initiative, Rutgers Center for
Math, Science and Computer Education leads a broad effort to
reform mathematics and science education. It has had a direct
impact on hundreds of schools, thousands of teachers, and
hundreds of thousands of children. This has been a five year
grant and it is highly successfully. And certainly we're going
to try to leverage it into the future.
Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much for that testimony.
Leveraging public and private dollars with nonprofit efforts
are very helpful. We love that, leveraging. [Laughter.]We
appreciate your testimony and I appreciate your being with us.
Mr. Lawrence. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Mrs. Meek, do you have questions?
Mrs. Meek. No.
Mr. Lewis. Thanks a lot, appreciated that.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 372 - 434--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
WITNESS
RAYMOND KRIZEK, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
Mr. Lewis. And the last witness for the morning session,
Raymond Krizek, who is with the American Society of Civil
Engineers. You've been hearing my repeated comments about for
the record so I appreciate your patience and your being with
us.
Mr. Krizek. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you.
Mr. Krizek. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss the Administration's fiscal year 1999 budget
for FEMA's dam safety program.
My name is Raymond J. Krizek and I currently serve as the
President of the Geo-Institute of the American Society of Civil
Engineers. This is our Nation's premier organization,
professional organization for go-technical engineers, engineers
whose expertise lies with designing and constructing facilities
involving the earth. I am also the Stanley F. Pepper Chair
Professor of Civil Engineering and the Director of the Project
Management Program at Northwestern University.
On behalf of the people who are served, I thank this
committee for providing the full funding of $2.9 million last
year to support the National Dam Safety Program. It's the first
national program of this type aimed toward preventing dam
failure. The $2.9 million provided a solid starting point for
the States to begin improving their dam safety programs but dam
safety is not a one year problem. Just as the maintenance of
each of your homes, the inspection and maintenance of our
Nation's 100,000 dams is a continuing program and it needs
continued approaching to avoid potentially catastrophic
consequences.
Notwithstanding the immense benefits to be gained, the
Administration's fiscal year budget request of $1.5 million
falls woefully short of the $3.9 million authorized in the Act.
And more importantly, it is inadequate to implement the
National Dam Safety Program in even a minimally accepted
manner. This is an alarming step backward for public safety at
a time when the States, which are struggling with minimal
budgets and staff are just beginning to make their first real
progress toward the establishment of a truly meaningful dam
safety program.
Annual budgets in some states average less than $10 per
dam. And sometimes one employee has the responsibility to
inspect and evaluate more than 2,500 dams. Aging dams are
especially susceptible to deterioration if not maintained. In
this vein, one-fourth of our dams are more than 50 years old
and by 2020 this figure will be some 85 percent. Approximately
2,000 dams are currently considered unsafe and therefore must
be watched with special care. In Fiscal Year 1997 alone, 32
States reported 47 dam failures. You probably haven't heard of
these because no lives were lost, although there was
significant property damage encountered. Over 9,000 dams are in
the high-hazard category which means that a failure would
likely cause the loss of life. Of particular concern, is the
fact that many of the 2,000 dams considered unsafe are in that
high-hazard category and, due to restricted budgets, about one-
third of all the high-hazard dams were last inspected more than
a decade ago.
Based on these data, dam safety officials are concerned
that the many dams across our Nation are at risk. Disasters
really waiting to happen. And they are even more concerned that
what they don't know, because of inadequate inspection and
evaluation, might be cause for greater fear.
For these reason, the ASCE respectfully requests this
subcommittee to support the addition of $2.4 million to the
fiscal year 1999 budget to enable FEMA to implement the
National Dam Safety Program in accordance with the intent of
the Act. This very modest, yet vital funding, will enable the
States to improve their fledgling dam safety programs, which in
turn will translate into reduced risk to life and property.
Dam failures are extremely expensive from all points of
view and we should give special heed to the old adage that ``an
ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.''
ASCE looks forward to working with this subcommittee and
its staff on this crucial public safety issue.
Thank you very much for this opportunity, and I would be
happy to respond to any questions you may have.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Krizek.
Mrs. Meek. I just want to make a note of the fact that some
states don't even report their dams.
Mr. Krizek. That is correct.
Mrs. Meek. It's amazing that with the proclivity for danger
that they don't have reporting standards.
Mr. Krizek. That is correct and in fact there are many,
many dams, we don't even know how many, that are 50 to 100
years old that have been abandoned and we don't even know who
the owners are.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Krizek, I appreciate your testimony very
much. All of us know that dam safety is a very important item.
I might just mention, have it brought to your attention, the
Seven Oaks Dam is east of the San Bernandino Valley and is a
major feature of this Santa Ana River Project, which is an
approximately $1.5 billion project in the West. That dam is
kind of, it could be compared to one of the great pyramids,
only inverted. That project is ahead of schedule significantly.
There's a lot of cost savings taking place. I would think
somewhere within our mix here some of these might very well be
able to at least focus upon those dollars and see if some could
be shifted in this direction. The thought occurred to me as you
gave your testimony.
We appreciate your being with us.
Mr. Krizek. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 437 - 445--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Lewis. The Committee is adjourned until 1:00 p.m.
today, when we'll continue with the outside witnesses.
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
DORR DEARBORN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF PEDIATRICS
Mr. Lewis. Mrs. Meek will be on in a just a moment. She
suggested that it was appropriate that we proceed, and so, Dr.
Dearborn, Pediatric Pulmonary School of Medicine, welcome.
Dr. Dearborn. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Lewis. You've been through this process before----
Dr. Dearborn. Once before, yes.
Mr. Lewis [continuing]. So, if you would just summarize
your statement for the record, we will include it in its
entirety in the record and be happy to receive it.
Dr. Dearborn. Okay, thanks, yes. Chairman Lewis, and other
congressmen, I am a pediatric pulmonologist, a lung specialist,
at the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. I am
here to talk about a outbreak a pulmonary hemorrhage in young
infants that's been occurring in our community and actually
nationwide.
A previously rare disorder, acute pulmonary hemorrhage has
been diagnosed in 41 infants in the Greater Cleveland area in
the past 5 years. This serious disorder causes infants to cough
blood and usually requires intensive care measures to save
them. Fifteen of these infants have died including nine
originally thought to have had Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.
Thirty-one infants were African-Americans, all of whom lived in
a limited geographic area of eastern metropolitan Cleveland, an
area of older housing stock. This area corresponds directly
with Congressman Stokes' district, and Congressman Stokes has
been providing key leadership in addressing this important
disease in Cleveland infants.
An investigation of this outbreak was led by the CDC and
has linked the disease to the exposure of a toxic mold called
Stachybotrys, which was found in the infants homes. This mold
requires water-saturated wood products to grow and appears to
have occurred secondary to chronic basement flooding or from
chronic plumbing and maintenance problems. Once the source of
water damage is corrected, the mold can sometimes be removed
with bleach. However, residents often need assistance from
local housing agencies to address more extensive problems.
Stachybotrys, while not a common mold, is known to have a
wide distribution. We are aware of a total of 124 cases of
acute pulmonary hemorrhage in infants nationwide over the past
5 years. The rapidly growing lungs of young infants appear to
be especially vulnerable to the toxins made by this mold. The
CDC investigation also found that tobacco smoke was frequently
a trigger of the bleeding.
One year ago, today, the President issued an Executive
Order addressing the Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks which calls for the development
of Federal programs focusing specifically on the protection of
the health of children. Based on the tenants of this executive
order, HUD recognized the need to provide healthy housing for
children and families and designed the Healthy Homes Initiative
proposed in their 1999 budget. Similarly, the EPA established
their new Office of Child Health Protection. We urge Congress
to support these programs.
Pulmonary hemorrhage in infants is an emerging disease. We
need to act now in Ohio to learn how to effectively prevent and
treat it. The strategies that we develop will have implications
for the entire country. We urge you to provide new,
supplemental funding both to HUD and EPA to address this
problem. We request an additional $6 million to HUD primarily
to assist the homeowners in the affected areas of Greater
Cleveland correct the water and mold problems in the homes with
infants through the HUD's new Healthy Homes Initiative.
HUD also needs to take leadership in research on moisture
and mold problems in housing construction and remodeling and in
the development of standards for housing regarding allowable
levels of mold growth in private and public residents.
We request an additional $3 million for the EPA primarily
to develop rapid methods to detect and quantify airborne toxic
fungi in order to make more objective public health decisions
regarding the safety of infants. EPA also needs to develop
toxic mold clean-up guidelines applicable to residential
buildings and promote public education and research on the
health effects of mold growth in homes as part of their Office
of Child Health Protection.
We urge you to help us attack this newly recognized
environmental hazard that is killing young infants in our
community. These fiscal requests are a crucial initial
empowerment. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Dr. Dearborn. I must say
that this is a very interesting area. Mr. Stokes can't be here;
he's got a conflict--has suggested to me that I need to come
visit his local housing authority sometime. There's a woman
there who does fabulous work. Do you have some interplay with
that local housing authority in Cleveland?
Dr. Dearborn. The Metropolitan Housing Authority, yes.
Through the headquarters office of HUD and local offices, they
have set aside 12 housing units to use for transient housing
while we correct the moldy, water damaged homes where infants
were living.
Mr. Lewis. There's not any reason why you would be aware of
this, but there is a children's hospital located at Loma Linda
University in California where I have spent some time. I have
no idea if they know about this problem, but between now and
then if there's a way that you could help me communicate in its
summary form the rudiments of the problem,I'd like to have some
of our people focus on it.
Dr. Dearborn. I just did a television interview for your
HDTV, FOX, two weeks ago for your area.
Mr. Lewis. Well, thanks for being with us. We appreciate
your testimony.
Dr. Dearborn. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 450 - 454--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION, AND DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
WITNESS
MICHAEL MAVES, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
Mr. Lewis. Let's see, Michael Maves, Executive Vice
President, the American Academy of Otolaryngology. Michael?
Dr. Maves. I'm here.
Mr. Lewis. There you are, okay. Otolaryngology. Good to see
you.
Dr. Maves. It's good to be here this afternoon, and on
behalf of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck
Surgery and its roughly 11,000 members, I want to thank you for
the opportunity to present this testimony before the Committee
today. I'm Dr. Michael Maves, the executive vice president of
the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery,
and I would like to speak to you today about four separate
programs that we have an interest in and would like to have you
consider.
The first is the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. For a long time, NASA has helped us here on
Earth discover some of the causes of dizziness, of
disequilibrium because of the some of the difficulties that
they have in space flight and in microgravities or zero
gravity. When you go up into space the little otoconia, the
parts of your inner ear that keep your balance in check, floats
just as other objects float, and so, as you may be aware, it's
not uncommon for the astronauts to experience dizziness both
when they're in space, during space travel and then after they
return to the Earth. This has been an area that's been very,
very hopeful for us here on Earth to understand why some of our
patients have problems with their dizziness, with
disequilibrium, and so it's been a very big transfer of
knowledge, really, directly from the space program to taking
care of actual patients here on Earth.
It was such a big item that two years ago--and I've got a
copy for you--in 1996, we put on a symposium with the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration. Now, on the topic of
using space flight, using some of the lessons that we've
learned from the different space missions to highlight the
progress that we've made here on Earth, as I say taking care of
these patients, we certainly look forward to new developments
which can occur from the space program. Microgravity offers us
the opportunities to grow tissues; to grow substances in
special ways, so we appreciate the Subcommittee's interest in
this area and its continued support, and we would certainly,
vigorously support continued investment in NASA. We feel that
this is a national investment; an investment that helps not
only individuals in space, but we can see very surely the real
results that we've realized here on Earth.
The second area that I'd like to talk to you a little bit
about is the Environmental Protection Agency. As physicians
that take care of a number of the body's senses, of hearing, of
smell, of taste, and voice, we've been very, very concerned
about pollution of the environment. Not only does this relate
to specific pollutants such as tobacco smoke, second-hand
smoke, carcinogens that we've been very aware of in medicine,
but also to just general air quality in the environment, and we
find that these are areas that affect not only the traditional
people who worry about lung cancer and the affects on the
lungs, but also there's a similar affect on the respiratory
passages in the nose, in the mouth, in the oral cavity. We
know, for instance, that children that are exposed to second-
hand smoke, have a higher instance of having middle ear
disease, and we feel that this is due to the irritation of
these substances on those patients.
And so one of the things that we would like is, obviously,
to have the EPA continue to work to protect the quality of the
air in the workplace, in the environment. We feel much like
NASA, it's an investment now that will pay off long in the
future.
We testified before about the EPA's Stratospheric Ozone
Protection Program, particularly the development of a national
UV index. Very important as we become more and more aware of
the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation on the skin;
development of skin cancers. We think that this is a program,
again, that represents an investment in our young individuals
now so that they're counseled appropriately about the hazards
of being out in the sun and exposed to ultraviolet radiation,
so that later on they don't developthe problems of skin cancer
that we see and we have to treat as physicians now.
Finally, what I'd like to just discuss is the problem that
we have of deafness. Although many causes of deafness are
acquired, the one that we worry about the most is the deafness
just from being in our modern environment. Noise from
machinery, noise in industry, noise associated with various
kinds of occupations is a reversible kind of injury that can
occur to the ear. We know that, again, the EPA has done a great
deal to advise individuals about protection from noisy
environment, but, again, we've seen many, many times when we've
gone into areas such as night clubs and so on where there
really isn't sufficient warning about the hazards of noise, and
we think that these things, again, need to be pointed out to
young individuals to prevent the devastating effects of
exposure to noise. It's a different kind of pollution, if you
will, than that of air pollution or water pollution; the things
we tend to think of more closely associated with the EPA, but
it can be just as devastating and for us, at least, in
otolaryngology, the specialty that deals primarily with
individuals that have a hearing loss, it can be a very
devastating condition.
Shifting gears a little bit, I'd like to talk to you a
little bit about energy efficiency. When I came to the academy
from my home in St. Louis I thought that there must be a better
way of maintaining some energy efficiency in our offices, and
after going around late at night turning off lights, as I think
all of us do, we installed a series of computer programs that
did that for us; that monitored the energy efficiency of our
office, and as we were going about doing this we actually found
that the EPA had a specific program targeted towards this. We
were very happy to be recognized both by the EPA and by the AMA
for our efforts in reducing the energy usage in our office, and
we've actually been able to reduce this by about $7,500 a year.
I tell people this isn't just good for the environment, it's
also good for your pocketbook, because it really does result in
savings to the association but also savings, if you will, to
society in terms of energy usage that's more wisely used and
expended. They're trying to be able to have more small medical
businesses become involved in this, and we encourage the EPA to
make this program more widely known.
Finally, we have one specific program, the Veterans'
Administration has conducted a program with the National
Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
regarding hearing aids for veterans. Again, we know that
there's a large proportion of our veteran population due to the
effective noise in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and so on that
have required hearing aids. This has been a program that has
resulted in a considerable amount of new knowledge about
individuals being able to wear hearing aids. It's something
that we're seeing more and more particularly as those of us in
the baby boom generation get older. As the President just
demonstrated about a year ago, we all may well be needing to
think about hearing aids in some point in the future. This is a
specific program that we would like to see the Veterans'
Administration continue. It really represents one of the very
few areas where we have an isolated program looking at a
targeted use of hearing aids in the United States, and so we
would like to see the--obviously, the Veterans' Administration
continue to work on that program.
I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them or we'd
be happy to direct those to staff.
Mr. Lewis. Mrs. Meek.
Mrs. Meek. No, sir.
Mr. Lewis. I just want to mention that yesterday flying
across the country with a physician fellow sitting a row ahead
of me, I happen to know the gentleman. My ears seem to be
functioning better than most. My wife complains about that from
time to time. [Laughter.]
But I noted I was hearing some music somewhere, and the
music that I was hearing was coming from the earphones he had
over his ears. The EPA can only do so much, and I'm not sure
where it begins or ends, but this guy needed a little help.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Maves. It is interesting--you know there's was a study
that was actually done at the University of Iowa a number of
years ago when the little Walkman-type earphones just came out,
and that's exactly what they did. They recruited a group of
student volunteers to wear their Walkmans at certain predefined
levels, and, indeed, you can get what's called a temporary
threshold shift where your hearing goes away for a short period
of time and recovers, but you're right, we need to educate
people more about that, but there's only so much we can do.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, sir.
Dr. Maves. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 458 - 464--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION
WITNESS
ELLEN FUTTER, PRESIDENT AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY
Mr. Lewis. Let's see, Ellen Futter, come right up here. The
American Museum of Natural History. Welcome.
Ms. Futter. Good afternoon. Thank you very much, it's a
pleasure to be here. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee,
I'm delighted to join you this afternoon. I very much
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf
of the American Museum of Natural History to present the
summary of our recent activities and our Fiscal Year 1999 plans
and objectives. Most of all, I want to thank this subcommittee
for the contributions it has made to science education in this
Nation and to science at the American Museum. There is no
subcommittee in Government to which research institution such
as ours owe more.
This subcommittee's broad purview, ranging from urban
economic development in HUD to science in NSF, NASA, EPA,
mirrors that of the American Museum. Consistent with the
interests of this subcommittee, the Museum has long had as its
mission advancing scientific research and science education.
Our scientific and educational resources are among the finest
in the world and include more than 32 million artifacts and
specimens forming an irreplaceable record of life on Earth;
more than 200 active research scientists who possess top-ranked
international expertise and who work with each of the research
agencies under your jurisdiction, NASA and NSF prime among
them; an audience of more than 3.5 million visitors annually of
whom almost half of children; a long-standing tradition of
enhancing science education for one of the largest urban school
systems in the Nation.
This past year with the benefit of this subcommittee's
important leadership and in partnership with NASA's
administrator, Daniel Goldin, the education division of NASA,
and many of the NASA centers, the Museum established the
National Center for Science Literacy, Education, and
Technology. The National Center yields an unprecedented
expansion of the Museum's educational mission by creating
materials and programs that reach beyond the Museum's walls
into schools, homes, museums, libraries, and other community-
based centers around the Nation to link citizens of all ages,
backgrounds, and levels of education with the vast resources of
the Museum.
Looking ahead, I would like to focus on the Museum's
current concentration on the vital topic of biodiversity, and I
can't help but point out that today's Washington Post includes
a report of a survey conducted by our Museum in which it is
reported that a majority of the Nation's biologists believe
that the loss of biodiversity is the greatest environmental
threat confronting our planet at this time. As we embark on our
new biodiversity initiative, we are harnessing the educational
resources of the Museum's National Center and the research
capacity of our Center for Biodiversity and Conservation.
Together, these two new leadership institutes are extensively
involved in global environmental research, education and
training in a broad range of biodiversity efforts including the
development of a entirely new, innovative, world-class
exhibition facility, the Hall of Biodiversity, where cutting-
edge technology will be used to translate and interpret science
to the public.
In the upcoming year, the Museum seeks to play an
increasingly prominent role in the search for solutions to
today's most pressing scientific issues. Consistent with the
Federal government's own stated commitment to an interagency
and multi-disciplinary direction in these areas, we are seeking
Federal partnerships to ensure that the programs of the Museum
are developed with a similar approach. Given the EPA's
longstanding leadership in environmental science, technology,
education, and training, EPA would be an invaluable partner for
the American Museum. Such a partnership would advance the
objectives of joining scientific and environmental research,
expanding educational outreach, and increasing scientific
literacy across the Nation.
The American Museum of Natural History--I hope it's clear--
is deeply appreciative of the support this subcommittee has
given in the past and looks forward to continuing and
strengthening this fruitful collaboration, and I thank you
again, Mr. Chairman, and members of this subcommittee for the
opportunity to appear before you.
Mr. Lewis. Ms. Futter, thank you very much for your
testimony. Mrs. Meek.
Mrs. Meek. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, we appreciate it.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 467 - 471--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
CYRUS M. JOLLIVETTE, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, UNIVERSITY
OF MIAMI
Mr. Lewis. Cyrus Jollivette.
Mrs. Meek. I'm going to introduce him.
Mr. Lewis. The gentleman from the University of Miami, I
believe that the gentlelady, Mrs. Meek, would like to say a
word before you get a chance.
Mr. Jollivette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. Meek. Thank you for appearing today. We're happy that
you're here. This subcommittee has assisted the University of
Miami in really proving its capability in terms of demonstrated
leadership in developing the world's first licensed medical
waste treatment utilizing electron beam technology. The
University has proven itself in terms of being able to develop
these kinds of initiatives which have a community purpose in
mind but yet has significant impact on research. Today, Mr.
Jollivette--I've known Mr. Jollivette since he was a child, Mr.
Chairman. I was a very young woman, but I've known him since he
was a child. I was very precocious so I was able to know these
younger people. [Laughter.]
He's here today representing the University of Miami. I may
sometimes sound like a cheerleader for the University of Miami,
but they showed me many years ago that they have interest in
the community; not only the university community but
communities surrounding the university particularly inner city
communities. They did a lot to develop those areas. Today, Mr.
Jollivette is going to explain to the Committee what they think
their needs are now in terms of coral reef research. As you
know, in the Miami area there's the largest coral reef in this
country. I hope you don't claim it, Mr. Chairman. There's a
real strong need for this kind of research, and they're coming
today to talk to us about that as well as a need for extended
medical research. Mr. Jollivette is an accomplished young man.
I'm a little biased, but I must say that.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Jollivette, I'm not sure where you go from
here. [Laughter.]
Mr. Jollivette. I'm humbled, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
Ms. Meek for her very, very kind words about my institution,
the University of Miami, where she had the privilege to be
affiliated for the last 20 years and also for her kind words
about me. I deeply appreciate it.
Before I begin, I'd like to say to you, Mr. Chairman and
Ms. Meek, and to those members of the Subcommittee who are not
here how much my colleagues and I at the University of Miami
appreciate the support that you provide for the National
Science Foundation and for the Environmental Protection Agency.
These are agencies that are very, very critical to research in
the country and research in which my colleagues at the
University of Miami participate in. Today, as Ms. Meek
indicated, I'm here to focus on two problems of national
significance. There are two initiatives at the University of
Miami: We hope to establish a National Center for Coral Reef
Research, and we hope to move forward on a demonstration
project of a full scale medical waste treatment facility. Ms.
Meek indicated that the at the University of Miami, Jackson
Memorial Medical Complex in Miami, we have the world's only
licensed medical waste treatment facility for the use of using
electron beam technology. What we are attempting to do is to
build upon what has been a long history of research and
leadership on coral reefs and also what has been some good
measure of success in developing this licensed medical waste
treatment facility.
First, let me talk about coral reefs. They are the only
ecosystems on Earth that are constructed entirely by the
secretions of a complex assembly of marine animals and plants,
as you know. I'm not a scientist; I'm here representing our
scientists, particularly Dr. Leena Thiesmet at our Rosenfield
School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences. Coral reefs are
economically important to us because of food, medicinals, and
coastal protection. Unfortunately, what our scientists are
finding, not just Miami but other places too, is that due to
coastal development, environmental changes tends to be related
to global climate change and overexploitation of coral reef
fisheries, resources are contributing to what is a worldwide
decline of coral reefs at an alarming particularly in the
Caribbean region. Our coral reefs in Florida are downstream of
the entire Caribbean coral reef system and thus dependent upon
that system for larval recruits and maintenance and fisheries
stocks. Also, our reefs could be affected by pollutants
released by other nations in the region and also from our own
rivers via discharge into the Gulf of Mexico.
Historically, coral reef research has been piecemeal with
few attempts at what we see as interdisciplinary process-
oriented research. We hope that we are able, through the
establishment of a National Coral Reef Center, coordinate the
Nation's coral reef policy research and assemble major national
and international initiatives pertaining to coral reefs. We
envision that our center will foster organization and
collaboration within the Nation's scientific community and lead
to the development of a new level of understanding of the
environmental conditions necessary for the establishment,
survival, and sustainable use of these coral reef ecosystems.
We hope that it might be possible for you to allocate through
the Environmental Protection Agency $2 million to establish a
National Center for Coral Reef Studies.
Next, I'd like to turn my discussion to support of the
electron beam technology which we've already referred to. We
have unique facilities at the Jackson Memorial University of
Miami Medical School Complex, and this complex comprises
approximately 5 hospitals with a total bed capacity of 2,700,
and as I have indicated, this site is the world's only licensed
facility for the treatment of medical waste using electron beam
technology.
Why is this important? Recent EPA regulations limiting
emissions from medical waste incinerators have basically forced
all hospitals to reconsider their medical waste treatment
approaches. Considering that most hospitals utilize
incineration in the past, it's clear that there is a national
issue here, and, in fact, many hospitals are turning to other
means of doing it. For example, they're using autoclaves. If
you can imagine the size of an autoclave and what it must--the
odors emanating and the residue resulting from autoclaving
infectious waste. It's also a very, very expensive technology.
We believe that what we have been able to demonstrate at the
University of Miami Jackson Memorial Complex is that electron
beam technology could become commercially feasible to treat
medical waste, and we have, in fact, a working prototype that
can treat 500 pounds of medical waste per hour that we are able
to obtain from the 2,700 beds in those 5 institutions in the
medical center, and we have demonstrated and have been able to
prove that in factthe infectious medical waste is disinfected
by using what is a low-cost technology. This is promising, and we hope,
in fact, that we are able to move forward with it.
What we've been able to do thus far has been through a
public-private partnership. There's been funding from the
Federal Government, from private industry in Florida, Florida
Power and Light, and from other entities to bring us to this
point, to develop the prototype facility which was inaugurated
in 1997 which was licensed by the State of Florida in 1998. We
now are poised to demonstrate that electron beam treatment is
cost effective and that we could use it and could be used very
broadly in the country. We are seeking $1.5 million for this
project. I know, Mr. Chairman, that you and your colleagues
from the subcommittee face very many difficult funding issues,
however, because of the nature of these initiatives that I have
described today and the long range implications that can
benefit the Nation, my colleagues and I hope that it will be
possible to provide support for these two projects.
Mr. Lewis. Mrs. Meek.
Mrs. Meek. Thank you. Enough said, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. I'm curious about the electronic beam procedure,
because there's been for some time a law on the books that
requires disposal sites to be located in the various States;
some by region; some by State of medical and other kinds of
low-level wastes. To say the least, that's been very
controversial in those States where you try to locate such
facilities. In the meantime, this process is one that
technically would disinfect such medical facility----
Mr. Jollivette. Totally. Disinfect it totally and would
allow for mingling with other wastes. It would also allow----
Mr. Lewis. So, after such treatment then the standard waste
disposal facility could receive that waste and not have a
special----
Mr. Jollivette. Precisely. In some instances, some
communities would elect to have the waste shredded; it could be
shredded. In others where it's not necessary to be shredded, it
could be disposed of with other waste that is currently being
disposed of in those communities.
Mr. Lewis. I'll look at it further with interest.
Mrs. Meek. And I visited the center, Mr. Chairman, and it's
working very well.
Mr. Jollivette. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 475 - 482--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
RONALD ATLAS, CHAIR, AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR MICROBIOLOGY
Mr. Lewis. Thank you. Dr. Ronald Atlas, American Society
for Microbiology, welcome.
Mr. Atlas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee.
Mr. Lewis. Your testimony will be received in total, and
you can summarize it as you wish.
Mr. Atlas. Thank you. I'm here today to testify on behalf
of the American Society for Microbiology which is the world's
single largest life sciences organization. We represent 43,000
members in our society, and today I want to address some of our
recommendations concerning the appropriation for both the EPA
and the National Science Foundation.
The EPA budget, as you well know, is a complex and very
fragmented budget request. One of the things we always have
difficulty doing is tying the various intramural and extramural
elements of the program together. We focus part of our
attention on the extramural programs with the hope that these
will be at the highest scientific quality. In particular, we
note within the EPA's appropriation request the Science To
Achieve or Results, or STAR Program, as an important initiative
which, in fact, has instituted a peer review program that
should facilitate it becoming a very high quality program. This
year's request for that program is $99 million, and the ASM is
fully supportive of funding of that full request; that's a $12
million increase over last year's appropriation for that
program. It's particularly important to include it in there or
specific areas for targeting bioremediations, drinking, water
quality, ecology of harmful algal blooms, and other programs
many of which have microbiological components to them.
Beyond that, we are supportive of a funding level of $15
million for the EPA's Fellowship Program. That would be $5
million more than the President's request for that program. We
think the training of the next generation of scientists across
all science, particularly, in this case, the environmental
arena, is very critical. We note that last year the
Administration had requested $15 million; the Congress gave $10
million in that program. This year, the Administration has
elected to request only what the Congress had given it last
year. We think that it's important to move that program ahead
and we are recommending the full $15 million that previously
had been requested.
Let me turn from the specific funding areas to the issue of
drinking water quality. We've been concerned over a number of
years that there has been more emphasis on the chemicals in our
water supplies than on microorganisms, although many
microorganisms are emerging as real problems. We note years ago
the outbreak of Cryptosporidium in Milwaukee and the more
recent algal bloom, Pfiesteria, that probably cost this area
about $43 million in lost economics. We think the EPA needs to
pay more attention to the microset causing these acute
outbreaks to work with other organizations like the Centers for
Disease Control in really identifying and protecting the
Nation's drinking water supply and the recreational waters. We
also note with some concern possible transfer of pathogens to
foods and in particularly shellfish a real problem in this
area.
The American Society for Microbiology is in the process of
preparing a briefing booklet for Congress on these concerns
which we hope within the next month to be able to bring to the
Hill highlighting those areas. As far as the appropriation,
though, we really think that attention needs to be paid to the
basic research programs, the basic development advance of the
information we need for sound rulemaking; rulemaking based on
risk analyses. In this regard, we have some specific language
which is highlighted in our testimony that we are asking for
inclusion. This language would direct the EPA to pay
attention--or more attention to the microbes in the water
supplies and support basic research programs within that
purview. EPA would then be allowed to undertake the sound
rulemaking that we think is absolutely critical. We can then
understand the risks that microbes pose to our water supplies
and control those risks.
Let me turn from the EPA to the National Science Foundation
which is an extraordinarily important organization in terms of
overall scientific research which we're sure will be
highlighted to your subcommittee by many organizations
testifying today. The ASM is a member of the Coalition for
National Science Funding which has proposed an increase of $344
million in the NSF appropriation which would be a 10 percent
increase over the 1998 funding level. We are absolutely
supportive of that. We think it would entitle NSF or enable
them to support additional excellent research into many
important discoveries and innovations.
Within that appropriation bill are a number of specific
programs highlighted in our written text with specific links to
microbiology. We think these programs are pivotal in furthering
this critical science. Among those we are endorsing are the
President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology
request that a minimum of $40 million per year be invested in
the next 5 years in the next generation natural biological
information infrastructure. We think that databases, including
those of microorganisms, are absolutely critical for everything
from new drug discoveries to enzyme production to control of
pests and so forth, and that, in fact, the NSF program increase
proposed for $130 million over a 3-year period on discovery of
new species will help further those goals.
Finally, we are encouraging the NSF to expand its support
for molecular sequencing of microbial genomes. We note that
today many of the microbial genome projects have been supported
by the Department of Energy, and we think it important for the
NSF to move into areas that are not specifically within the
purview of Energy and areas such as biodiversity and other
areas. This has been a very exciting area of discovery in
microbiology that is continuously highlighted whenever a new
genome is sequenced in the popular press leading to as many
questions, I would say, as answers today. It really needs
attention at the basic level from the NSF.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for
the opportunity.
Mr. Lewis. Dr. Atlas, we appreciate your being here. Mrs.
Meek.
Mrs. Meek. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Dr. Atlas.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 486 - 496--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
PETER SAUNDRY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Lewis. Peter Saundry, the Executive Director of the
National Institute for the Environment. Peter?
Mr. Saundry. Well, thank you very much for this
opportunity. My name is Peter Saundry. I am the Executive
Director of the Committee for the National Institute for the
Environment.
Mr. Lewis. We will include your entire statement for the
record as you know.
Mr. Saundry. Wonderful, I'll cut to the chase and get done.
The basic thrust that we are here for is the mission of
improving the scientific basis of environmental decision
making. That's a goal that I think you and full committee
members share, and I think it was so last year when we put into
the report line of accompanying appropriations bill the
statement that the United States needs a trusted source of
scientific information on environmental issues that's separate
from the regulatory agencies; quite an important distinction,
and it needs to address the key questions of decision makers
both inside that Federal government and outside the Federal
government. That was an important statement, and we thank the
Committee for doing so, and I think a lot of people support
this effort. We appreciate your work on this.
The testimony you just heard from the gentleman from the
University of Miami and on microbiology really touch upon the
central issue of how do we get more sides onto environmental
decision making? It's a very, very fundamental issue, and it's
one that we've been grappling with a long time. Now, we have
developed with the help of a lot people around the country an
idea for this thing for the National Institute for the
Environment, something that might do for environmental science
what the National Institutes of Health does so well for
biomedical science. We have had a mission of improving the
scientific basis for environmental decision making, and we've
integrated knowledge assessments, research support, information
dissemination, and education, and we've involved stakeholders
inside the Federal government as well as outside the Federal
government, in the communities that are affected by so many of
our land issues.
Now, last year, this committee directed the National
Science Foundation to study how it would establish and operate
a nonregulatory environmental science institute that would
implement these basic functions of knowledge assessments,
research, information dissemination, education and training. It
was a very, very constructive statement to make, and this
committee deserves a very constructive response from the
National Science Foundation, one that allows you to make
significant progress on these issues.
In response to your statement in this committee, 214
university chancellors and presidents around the country wrote
to the National Science Foundation and urged them to come up
with a bold and creative vision for a partnership of
environmental science and the Earth. The U.S. Chamber of
Commerce had the same statement as a lot of other
organizations. This thing had the support of State and local
government, the National Association of Counties and so forth,
the environmental organizations, business groups, California
Chamber of Commerce, the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce, the
Ohio Chamber of Commerce, and so on and so on, three fellow EPA
administrators, six or seven former EPA research grants.
However, four weeks ago, a resolution was passed by the
National Science Board which indicated that the reports that
they're going to present to you may not be responsive to the
question that you asked them. How would they do this? Mr.
Frelinghuysen asked some very pointed questions at NSF's
hearing three weeks ago raising a concern that the Committee's
direction is not being considered. Now, we don't expect NSF to
come up with the same proposal. We don't expect all the details
and the t's to cross in the same way, but we do expect NSF to
be responsive to this committee and to your desire to improve
environmental science and the decision making. So, we put
forward a statement that if NSF does not clearly answer your
direction, your question put forth to them in the report line
of last year, that the Committee directs NSF to redo the report
so that it is responsive to your request.
Finally, NSF is able to look forward on this issue provided
they've had some time to do so. Finally, I'd like to put
forward a challenge to the Committee that it fund the National
Science Foundation $20 million to $50 million above the
President's request for fiscal year 1999 to allow the
Foundation to move forward on this issue. It's a tough
challenge, I know, because there's a lot more demand out there
than supply for Federal funding, however, it is a political
issue, and it is an issue that costs this country billions and
billions of dollars every year in decision making that is not
best targeted to coming up with the right solution. We ask that
that money not come out of NSF's existing requested budget.
Again, recognizing that's an incredible challenge to put upon
you and you have had a lot of diverse demands today, however,
the issue is one that you--is fundamentally important to this
Nation. This committee has supported it in the past, and,
therefore, we've this wonderful opportunity to move forward and
to make progress on this issue, particularly if NSF's report is
a helpful one. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Mrs. Meek.
Mrs. Meek. No.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Saundry, we appreciate
your testimony.
Mr. Saundry. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 499 - 505--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
RALPH BEEDLE, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, NUCLEAR GENERATION, NUCLEAR ENERGY
INSTITUTE
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Ralph Beedle, senior vice president for
Nuclear Generation at the Nuclear Energy Institute. Mr. Beedle.
Mr. Beedle. Chairman Lewis and Representative Meek, my name
is Ralph Beedle. I'm the Senior Vice President with the Nuclear
Energy Institute. The Institute is a policy organization
representing over 275 U.S. and international companies in the
nuclear energy field.
I'd like to begin by expressing my appreciation to this
subcommittee for its commitment to careful oversight of the
Environmental Protection Agency and its National Priorities
List. I also appreciate the invitation to testify today and I
ask that my full remarks be included in the record.
Mr. Lewis. They will be.
Mr. Beedle. Thank you. Last year, this committee and the
Congress instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to
refrain from devoting time and resources to establishing
radiation protection standards for the public. These EPA
standards which represent a direct conflict with those
established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the
independent agency responsible for setting radiation standards
for commercial nuclear facilities. The NRC rule for license
termination assures full protection of public health and safety
during comprehensive radiation protection programs based on
total exposure to the public. The Commission's rule is a result
of four years of extensive scientific study, public input,
including more than 7,000 comments from the scientific and
professional community, State, tribal, and local governments,
the environmental groups, and the NRC licensees. The EPA was an
active participant throughout the rulemaking process, and the
NRC officials continuously sought that agency's input. The NRC
has provided oversight for successful decommissioning to over
70 sights using this rule.
Last August, EPA released guidance on radiation clean-up
standards that challenge the NRC's rule on residuals radiation
standards, and these standards had been issued just one month
earlier. The EPA guidance raises serious concerns that the EPA
will target decommissioned sites that already have achieved NRC
clean-up standards. This could result in additional analysis of
clean decommissioned nuclear facilities. The process would be
protracted and licensees including the Federal Government,
universities, and medical institutions would face unnecessary
financial burden to these alternate regulations with little
benefit to the public and the health and safety of the public
or the environment. This duplicative and confusing and
regulatory effort by the EPA was specifically prohibited by
this committee in report language last year. In addition, the
Clinton administration in 1993 issued an Executive Order that
restricts Federal agencies from creating inconsistent or
duplicative regulations that result in unacceptable and
unreasonable expense to the American public. The EPA's guidance
is not consistent with the NRC's deliberative approach to
nuclear power plant decommissioning standards. The
Environmental Agency is promoting burdensome and costly
regulations for the nuclear industry and its site cleanup
effort.
The agency also advocates a separate residual radiation
standard for groundwater, although the Office of Management and
Budget has determined that the proposal is cost prohibitive.
EPA does not have any scientific basis for the proposal and the
proposal would not enhance public health and safety, as I
stated before.
Last July, Congress adopted language in its appropriations
report that prohibits the EPA from spending funds to place
Nuclear Regulatory Commission license fees on the National
Priority List, that is commonly referred to as the Superfund
List.
Notwithstanding this prohibition, the Agency appears to be
devoting time and resources to challenging the NRC's authority
to regulate the NRC licensing, specifically in establishing
limits on public radiation exposure on decommissioned nuclear
sites.
NRC Chairman Jackson, in an April 9 letter to EPA
Administrator Carol Browner said, and I quote, ``dual
regulation is wasteful of both the government resources and the
resources of the American citizens to whom the regulations
apply.''
The approach used in NRC's clean-up rules provides for the
regulation necessary for adequate protection of public health
and safety and the environment. The Nuclear Energy Institute
recommends that this committee forcefully direct the EPA to
apply its finite resources to areas where it has jurisdiction
and where those resources can benefit the public. Further, the
Committee should restrict the Agency from establishing
duplicative radiation protection guidelines for NRC licensed
facilities.
Mr. Chairman, Congress can't afford to let the Federal
government waste public and private funds on overlapping
regulation initiatives that do not provide measurable
improvement for public health and safety.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.
Mrs. Meek. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Beedle, your comments are very well taken,
we appreciate you testimony. Sometimes, it is like speaking in
a wind tunnel, but on the other hand I think we need to repeat
that point. We have only so much money to go around and that is
the point I need to make. Thank you very much.
Mr. Beedle. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 508 - 516--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
STEPHEN GORDEN, DIRECTOR OF WATER AND SEWERAGE, CITY OF DETROIT,
MICHIGAN, AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Stephen Gorden, The American Water Works
Association. Mr. Gorden? How are you?
Mr. Gorden. Good afternoon.
Mr. Lewis. You can summarize your statement if you like. It
will be included in its entirety in the record.
Mr. Gorden. My name is Steve Gorden and I am Director of
the Detroit Water and Sewer from the State of Michigan and I am
here on the part of the American Water Works Association. I am
also here on behalf of the Association of Metropolitan Water
Agencies and the National Association of Water Companies. And
the combined membership serves approximately 80 percent of the
population of the United States.
I would like to thank the Committee for what it has done
for systems in the past, we're talking about public health here
and the Safe Drinking Water Act and the water community, and
the water industry. It's been much appreciated.
And I would also like to acknowledge Congressman
Knollenberg from our area.
The issues of public health and drinking water are very,
very appropriate here. In fact, since the past four people have
just testified, I started taking stuff out of my testimony
because they are covering my issues.
I think what it shows is the issues of the environment are
really coming together and the common theme that I'm hearing,
and I would say stuff about it also, is the research.
We have certain things in our research for public drinking
water, we have grants for public water systems supervision
programs, the EPA programs, and the clean water action program,
which the administration is putting forth. That will assist us
in our watershed areas, very important to us, and the Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund which we all know. Both programs
will assist the industry where there are areas of problems with
the financial disadvantage of standards.
The two areas that I would like to talk about though are
the Drinking Water SRF and the budget request for drinking
water research. Those are really important to us. When the Safe
Drinking Water Act came forth, the Administration recommended
$1 billion for the original SRF amount. What has occurred, is
EPA only requesting $775 million. We believe that we need to
have that amount back up because SRF and what it tries to do is
only seed money, very, very much seed money.
For example, in a back of the envelope analysis, EPA
indicated there was about $12.1 billion worth of safe drinking
water needs out there reported by the industry. I will tell you
that, Detroit alone has a capital program of $12 billion over
the next ten years. And that's just these kinds of programs.
The infrastructure is coming into play because what it is is
public money.
What we would also look at is drinking water research and,
again, the three agencies that I mentioned that I'm
representing recommend that at least $20 million of the
drinking water research get added to the set-asides because of
the things in the EPA. There are times that we can cooperate
with our own research and thereby leverage up the funds from
our research foundations. Those are very, very important to us.
The Safe Drinking Water Act reforms require that good
science and risk-based factors be used to make decisions on
what our standards should be. By not having the good research,
what happens or generally occurs is the addition of safety
factors that really impact our infrastructure requirements and
needs and are very costly to the public.
As we talk here, public resources are very scarce. We have
to be really careful with them and that is part of the drive
for the Association.
As I mentioned there is also the $5 million in the drinking
water research including $1 million for arsenic and that went
into our research foundations. Again, we encouraged that to
come forth because the industry will match that. The government
leverages up their ability to have the research done by 50
cents on the dollar.
In closing, I would say this to you again. I remind this
committee that they have done some great work for us and I
would encourage you to continue on, because this public health
issue represents a basic trust between the government, the
citizen, and their belief that we are here to protect their
drinking water health. We never want to be in a position where
a grandparent is fearful of giving a grandchild a drink of
water out of the tap.
That is something that we believe in. We live in our own
communities and we support. So, I guess the request is, please
help us maintain this trust in public health.
If there are any questions, I'll be glad to answer them.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Gorden, Mr. Knollenberg was sorry he had a
conflict and couldn't be here, but I appreciate in his absence
your giving us a heads-up relative to the $4 billion item that
may be caught in the assembly line.
Mr. Gorden. Okay.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you. Nice to see you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 519 - 526--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
ROBERT MARTIN, AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION RESEARCH FOUNDATION
Mr. Lewis. Representing the American Water Works
Association Research Foundation, from beautiful downtown
Redlands, California, Robert Martin.
Mr. Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. I realize a constituent. [Laughter.]
As you know all day, we ask you to summarize your statement
and that which you present will be included in the record.
Mr. Martin. Very good.
My name is Robert Martin, I'm the general manager of the
East Valley Water District in San Bernardino, California. With
me two are two of my directors, Mr. Don Goodin and Mr. Kip
Sturgeon. Also with me is my colleague Whit Van Cott from the
city of Hollywood in Florida, my wife, Elaine.
I am here today representing the American Water Works
Association Research Foundation, the Association of California
Water Agencies, and my own district.
Our request to you today is being supported by a number of
other organizations, the American Water Works Association, the
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, the National
Association of Water Companies, and the Association of State
Drinking Water Administrators.
With regards to AWWARF, AWWARF is an organization that is
supported by approximately 1,000 water utilities in the country
and across the world. Utilities send their own money to help
fund drinking water research. The support that your committee
has provided to AWWARF has led to, I think, a string of
successful Federal-local partnerships for drinking water
research purposes.
AWWARF has always pledged to bring its own money to the
table before we ask your committee for funds. This is true this
year, also.
Last year, in fiscal year 1998, the Committee provided $4
million to AWWARF which put in $1 million for arsenic health
effect research. These funds will be matched by both AWWARF and
AWCA, anywhere from a one-to-one basis up to over four-to-one
by the water utilities.
Again, I think this provides for a very effective
partnership in drinking water research.
This match will also provide funds to us in the coming
fiscal year.
Last year your committee also provided $2 million to fund
East Valley Water District for perchlorate treatment technology
research. Perchlorate is a rocket fuel additive that was found
last year in drinking water supplies in California and Nevada.
It is a chemical that is also used in the manufacture of
ammunitions and fireworks. So far it has shown up in California
and Nevada and I'm convinced if we're looking for it, we'll
find it across the country and it will become a national
drinking water problem.
It's a bit disconcerting in that any of the contaminants we
face, if we throw enough money at it, we can usually solve the
problem by building enough treatment. With perchlorate,
however, there is no treatment technology available to us, we
cannot remove it from drinking water supplies, and that is what
the money you have provided us with has been used for.
Last year an expert panel was funded, both from across the
country, to come together and develop a multiyear research
program. That was done. And the $2 million you provided us has
gone to funding the first set of high priority projects that
were identified by that group of experts.
With any luck, we are looking at contracts, we should have
those awards done this summer and we'll get started.
For fiscal year 1999, we are asking your committee to again
provide a $5 million earmarked add-on to the American Water
Works Association Research of which $1 million will be included
for arsenic research.
These funds will be matched on at least a one-for-one basis
by the water supply community. We are also asking for $2.65
million for East Valley Water District to continue our
perchlorate research program. This will allow us to begin the
phase two work and transfer the results we get in the
laboratory to field applications.
I want to thank you for the past support you've given us
from this committee and I thank you for considering this
current fiscal year 1999 request for funds.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Martin, we very much appreciate your
testimony. I know you will keep this committee informed
relative to your project as it moves forward and any additional
material that you develop will be part of our buy-out as we
develop our record. We very much appreciate it. We look forward
to the 1999 year.
Appreciate you and your colleagues being with us.
Mr. Martin. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 529 - 535--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
RUDY RICE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
Mr. Lewis. Our next witness is Rudy Rice, President,
National Association of Conservation Districts.
Mr. Rice.
Mr. Rice. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, distinguished committee
members, we thank you for this opportunity to come and present
testimony to you.
We've already submitted detailed testimony and these are
the highlights quickly.
Mr. Lewis. We appreciate that.
Mr. Rice. My name is Rudy Rice and I'm here today on behalf
of the Nation's 3,000 conservation districts and the 54 State-
level conservation agencies that provide administrative,
technical, and financial support for their programs.
Conservation district are units of local State government
charged with carrying out natural resource management programs
at the local levels.
Our allied partners in Natural Resource Conservation
Service, part of the United States Department of Agriculture,
provide conservation assistance to more than 2.5 million
landowners and operators who manage nearly 70 percent of the
private land in the United States.
I'm a dairy farmer from Illinois and I can particularly
appreciate the recent attention that has been focused on animal
waste management and water quality concerns.
Conservation districts have been working with local farmers
and ranchers for more than sixty years to help address natural
resource problems. We have been strong supporters of the Clean
Water Act section 319, the State's program because it fits
closely with our cooperative, voluntary approach to solving
resource problems.
With State and local matching efforts, the 319 program has
helped States make considerable progress in controlling
nonpoint source pollution but a lot remains to be done.
President Clinton's clean water action plan released in
February cites 25 years in success in wastewater treatment and
advances in reducing industrial waste discharges, largely as a
result of more than $100 billion in Federal funding for program
efforts during that time. We believe that the lack of funding
has been, and still is, the main reason that States haven't
made more progress in solving nonpoint source pollution
problems.
The President's plan shifts the Federal initiatives heavily
toward nonpoint pollution. We believe it is a step in the right
direction because it calls for substantial increases in
funding, not just the EPA program, but other Federal agencies
with water quality responsibilities as well. The President's
Fiscal 1999 clean water and watershed restoration initiative
calls for an additional $145 million over 1998 for EPA water
quality programs. Most of the increase is targeted for nonpoint
source pollution. While we do not support every initiative
outlined in the President's plan, we do support increased
funding for EPA's voluntary, incentives-based water quality
programs.
Specifically the budget initiative proposes to increase
section 319 grants to $200 million. Conservation district
currently receive about 34 percent of those funds from those
grants and are well positioned to effectively utilize
additional funding through this initiative.
Since EPA is moving forward with plans to increase its
regulatory oversight of animal feeding operations, we urge the
Subcommittee to include in its report direction that increases
is expected to provide for substantial expansion in technical
and financial assistance to farmers and ranchers.
On a personal note, I'm right in the process. I'm a fifth-
generation dairy farmer from southern Illinois and we're faced
with a decision: Do we have the economic ability to update our
waste-handling system or do we get out of the dairy business
and it is going to be quite a tough decision for us, but we're
going to have to face up to it.
We need more assistance for development and implementation
of integrated pest and crop management systems, nutrient and
animal waste management plans, and installation of additional
conservation measures to reduce runoff and erosion.
Additional and specific recommendations for funding EPA's
nonpoint source pollution programs are outlined in my written
testimony. We urge you to keep in mind our collective ability
to address the Nation's nonpoint source pollution problems
depend on a strong Federal commitment to the partnership with
State and local governments.
I thank you for this opportunity to submit written
testimony and a few moments of personal testimony.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, very much, Mr. Rice, for being with
us. We appreciate very much your willingness to participate.
Mrs. Meek.
Mrs. Meek. Thank you. I have no questions.
Mr. Rice. Thank you, sir.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 538 - 544--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
DAVE BOLIN, ALABAMA OIL AND GAS BOARD, GROUND WATER PROTECTION COUNCIL
Mr. Lewis. Our next witness is Dave Bolin of the Ground
Water Protection Council.
Mr. Bolin.
Mr. Bolin. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the
opportunity to testify here today. My name is Dave Bolin. I am
the Assistant Oil and Gas Supervisor for the State Oil and Gas
Board of Alabama and I currently serve as the President of the
Groundwater Protection Council.
I am here today to provide testimony in support of certain
EPA programs that address our Nation's groundwater supplies.
I'll present my verbal testimony at this time.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bolin. My agency is a typical member agency of the
Ground Water Protection Council. We are responsible for the
environmental safeguards related to oil and gas exploration and
production. Many of us are also responsible for State ground
water and surface water protection programs. Through the GWPC,
my agency and our counterparts in other States work together to
protect ground water resources while reducing the cost of
compliance to industry.
We feel that GWPC's mission reflects the future of
environmental protection; that is we, the regulations, must
form partnerships with industry and local governments to
protect the environment. This is the alterative to a command
and control regulatory model which often results in unintended
consequences, such as unnecessary cost to industry and local
government.
These consequences are not just to protect our environment
or effectively utilize our limited resources.
In addition to expressing the State governmental agencies'
appreciation for your assistance this past year, Mr. Chairman,
I would also like to emphasize one main point today, that is
that the success in implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act's
source water protection program, and the Act's underground
injection control program for oil and gas exploration depends
primarily on State government agencies such as the one I'm
associated with.
Because we are the keys to success and workability of these
two EPA-delegated programs, we urge the Subcommittee to look at
increasing funding to innovative State programs as an
alternative to expanding the Federal bureaucracy. In both
programs EPA had requested additional funding.
An example of this environmental innovation is GWPC's
proposal to provide States with data and information to allow
them to comply with the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act's
requirements that States submit a source water plan to EPA next
year for all their public water projects.
We are currently developing a data system that many States
will use as the core of their source water program. There is no
other data system being developed by EPA or anyone else to
assist the States.
We feel that additional source water resources should be
utilized to get this information system to States so that they
can, in fact, comply with EPA requirements.
I have with my testimony five letters from State
governments supporting database systems.
Our other priority is the EPA underground injection control
program. It is our hope that you will consider increasing the
program's funding in this EPA budget. Increasing the UIC grant
to $17 million in this coming year will not only protect the
environment but will also reduce the environmental regulatory
cost burden on the oil and gas industries and the State
agencies.
Currently, as a result of overburdened State agencies,
industry may face slower process of permits which ultimately
decreases production and makes foreign production more
competitive.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, we would like to thank the
Committee for the previous support and ask for your support
again on these two priorities.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Bolin. Questions from
the members of Mr. Bolin?
We appreciate your being here and GWPC has been represented
very well by you.
Mr. Bolin. Thank you, sir.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 547 - 557--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
PATRICK WILLIAMS, MANAGER, VALLEY OF ENCHANTMENT MUTUAL WATER COMPANY,
CALIFORNIA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION
Mr. Lewis. The National Rural Water Association is
represented by Mr. Patrick Williams, who comes to us directly
from heaven. [Laughter.]
Beautiful downtown Crestline in this case. I think you've
heard me today, your entire testimony will be included in the
record and if you'd summarize that for us, we'll see what
members have questions.
Mr. Williams. Good afternoon, Chairman Lewis, and members
of the Committee. My name is Patrick Williams and I am the
manager of the Valley of Enchantment Mutual Water Company in
Crestline, California. I am honored to be here today, this is
my first time to visit Washington.
The Valley of Enchantment Mutual Water Company is a
nonprofit small water system serving 850 homes in the San
Bernardino Mountains. We are run by a seven-member elected
board of directors comprised of local citizens. Our average
monthly water bill for a family of four is approximately $50 a
month. We have some of the highest rates in California due to a
lack of groundwater and the high cost of supplemental water
from the State water project.
Due to our local geology and the fact that we are
surrounded by the San Bernardino National Forest, any
groundwater is precious.
I have over 22 wells and we are constantly studying new
sources. The National Forest Service will not permit any new
wells on their land and the local geology makes finding new
sources a real challenge. Last year we spent over $50,000 to
drill a new well 500 feet into the granite bedrock. Due to
these challenges, I am a perfect candidate for the rural water
groundwater program. I must protect each of my wells. Any
contamination in any of my 22 wells would be disastrous.
My message today is that the funding for rural water
technical assistance and small community groundwater protection
are the most important EPA funds that you appropriate.
It is smaller communities that have struggled to comply
with the Safe Drinking Water Act and it is the on-site
technical assistance and training provided by the California
Rural Water Association and the other State rural water
associations that have allowed smaller systems to comply with
Federal mandates and protect their drinking water.
Rural water works, because it works from the bottom up by
educating small tows on the need to protect our own environment
and then showing them how on a peer-to-per level. This
grassroots approach is the only way to get improvement in the
over 150,000 little water systems across the country.
When our community takes responsibility for our own
environmental protection, it works better and cheaper than
heavy-handed enforcement. All small communities want to provide
safe water, and rural water teaches them how, right in their
own community.
This report, which I will leave with you today, describes
and lists the over 2,000 rural communities that have adopted
groundwater protection ordinances through the EPA rural water
groundwater protection program. My town will be on this list
next year.
The core of the program relies on the active participation
of the local water operators like me. When we recommend the
groundwater protection programs to local elected board of
directors, it moves forward with their official support. Once
the local ordinance is in place, we can take action.
There is a need to identify potential pollution problems
like illegal dumping, gas stations, and industries and make
sure that they obtain permission before they are allowed to
enter into any risky activity.
This is the most progressive groundwater program in
existence and it has been accomplished without Federal
regulation.
Mr. Chairman, I will close with our request that the
committee include $8.8 million in the EPA's budget for all
State rural water technical assistance and our groundwater
protection initiatives.
Thank you for your past support and the opportunity to be
here today.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Williams, I very much appreciate your being
here. As you know, the Committee has been very positive about
these programs in the past as we will do what we can to be
responsive to your quest. You have indicated this is the first
time you've been to the Nation's capital. Have you gone by my
office in Rayburn yet?
Mr. Williams. I'm on my way there, shortly.
Mr. Lewis. I don't see him around here, so if you ask for
Jeff Shockley, make sure you tell him that you and I just
chatted.
Mr. Williams. Okay.
Mr. Lewis. I appreciate your being here.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 560 - 565--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
JOE L. MAUDERLY, SENIOR SCIENTIST, DIRECTOR OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
LOVELACE RESPIRATORY RESERCH INSTITUTE
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Redmond.
Mr. Redmond. I came to hear Mr. Mauderly from my home
district.
Mr. Lewis. Okay. We are exercising the discretion of the
Chair again because my colleagues have ridiculous schedules and
Mr. Redmond, I appreciate you coming.
Mr. Redmond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe the person
who testified right before me was from, you mentioned coming
straight from heaven. He must have gotten off the plane from
Albuquerque because Albuquerque is [speaks briefly in Spanish],
the kingdom of heaven of the Southwest.
Mr. Lewis. I've heard that from you and others. I've been
convinced that I might visit sometimes.
Mr. Redmond. Oh, New Mexico is beautiful. Acoma Pueblo is
the oldest inhabited village in North America. It's south of
where Dr. Mauderly lives.
Mr. Chairman, I'm here to introduce Dr. Joe Mauderly. He's
the Director of External Affairs at Lovelace Respiratory
Research Institute, a private, nonprofit biomedical research
organization in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
He has devoted his entire career to researching and
understanding and preventing human health risks from inhaled
toxic agents.
Earlier in his career, Dr. Mauderly pioneered the field of
adapting the full range of clinical tests of human lung
infections, human lung function to the application of animals
and laboratory studies. His recent research has focused on
health risks from inhaled particles and improving our
understanding of the usefulness of animal models for predicting
particulate inducted human lung disease.
He is especially recognized for his extensive research on
lung health risks from inhaled diesel exhaust, he is a member
of several professional organizations primarily dealing with
toxicology, physiology, and thoracic medicine. He has published
over 242 articles, chapters, books, as well as 100 abstracts.
Today he's here seeking your subcommittee's continued
support for the newly created congressionally-approved National
Environment Respiratory Center, the NERC. The center will
provide information, conduct research, provide research
resources, and facilitate communication concerningrespiratory
health risks of combined exposures to multiple air pollutants and
pollutant mixtures.
I believe this is vital research and if at all possible
that his program be funded at the requested level of $2
million.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Redmond. Dr. Mauderly.
Dr. Mauderly. Thank you, Congressman Redmond. And thank
you, Mr. Chairman, Members. I'm here to ask for your continued
support for the National Environmental Respiratory Center. The
center was begun this year to understand the health risks of
air pollutant mixtures in combined exposures to multiple
pollutants.
Our air quality regulations address air pollution one at a
time. The center was founded on the premise that this strategy
is reaching a point of diminishing returns. Air contaminants
always occur as mixtures. No one in this room ever drew a
breath that had only one air contaminant in it. We all know
that.
Air quality in this country has improved markedly over the
last 20 years and there still seem to be residual effects on
air quality on health. And we don't understand them very well.
It is becoming more difficult to understand them. It is
certainly becoming less plausible that these residual effects
can be ascribed to any one pollutant or pollutant class, yet
that is what we continue to attempt to do, with our research
and our regulatory strategy.
It's becoming nearly impossible to isolate the effects of a
single pollutant and in a way that's good news because it's
becoming more true as pollutant levels fall.
That is, the aggregate effects of the residual pollutants
interact with each other more than when we had high
concentrations of single pollutants that were easier to
identify.
However, there is increasing danger that the effects of
dirty air also will be wrongly ascribed to a single pollutant.
If we continue to chase these health effects on a single
pollutant basis, when in fact they result from a mixture.
Atmosphere reaction products that are not even measured as
part of our air quality criteria are likely to be important in
these effects.
The default assumption that the risks of combinations of
air pollutants are additive, or can be gained just by adding
the risk of the individual pollutants may either overestimate
or underestimate the true risks.
Now I assure you that Lovelace is not the only organization
that has raised these issues. There is broad agreement with the
statements that I just made in industry, in the agency, and
among scientists.
However, the problem is very complex and before now no
organization has taken it on in a serious, integrating way. EPA
has a budding one-atmosphere program in this field, but it does
not yet include health research.
NIHS solicited grant proposals on chemical mixtures, but
this program doesn't focus on air.
NIOSH's strategic plan acknowledges the importance of
mixtures in the workplace, and yet NIOSH has no significant
research initiative in this field.
There are a set of common needs that must be met but these
and other efforts to meld into the kind of initiatives that
will truly move us forward. There needs to be a champion
organization or activity to raise the issue to a critical level
and catalyze the efforts of other organizations.
Some organization has to ensure that the right people get
together to benchmark what we know, to prioritize information
needs and develop research approaches. There needs to be a
resource for information on what is presently known on ongoing
research and research resources in this specialized field.
There needs to be user facilities which agency, university,
and industry researchers can access to avoid the need to
duplicate some of the specialized research facilities that are
needed in this area.
Now meeting these needs and conducting research is exactly
what the new center is intended. The project is off to a
running start. The information resource is already developing,
EPA and other organizations are already proposing how this
resource can meet their unmet needs.
A superb scientific advisory committee of eight individuals
from academia, EPA, and industry have been established and
their credentials, could I recite them, testify to the
creditability and importance of the effort.
The facilities of the center are already being accessed by
other researchers. Significantly to me, several managers within
EPA have already acknowledged, albeit verbally, that this is
one earmark that will actually do the Agency some good.
We fully expect the time will come when a yearly
appropriation by Congress will not be necessary. But this year,
however, congressional support is necessary to ensure the
continuation of the developing of the center. So, we seek $2
million for fiscal year 1999, identical to the 1998
appropriation.
We're also seeking support from industry and other
resources with the intent of eventually matching, or even
exceeding, the amount provided through EPA.
Thank you for the opportunity to give you this update and
make this request.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Dr. Mauderly. There isno
reason why you would have any idea that many years ago I had the
privilege of chairing a subcommittee that dealt with air quality in
California, coming from a district that is probably the most impacted
district in the country, and I remember 25 years ago we were talking
about the need to find the health impact of ozone upon people's who
lives were going to change by regulation or otherwise.
Hope springs eternal. So, please, do feel to come back one
more time, if necessary, next year.
Dr. Mauderly. We'll do that.
Mr. Lewis. And we'll try to do what we can to help.
Questions?
Mr. Price. No questions, Mr. Chairman. I thank the
gentleman for being here.
Dr. Mauderly. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 569 - 580--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
OTTO G. RAABE, PRESIDENT, HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY
Mr. Lewis. Let's see. We'll move on here. Is Otto Raabe,
Dr. Raabe here? Did I pronounce that correctly?
Welcome.
Mr. Raabe. My name is Otto Raabe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you this afternoon
about issues related to radiation safety.
Some of the earlier witnesses talking about the problem of
radiation safety between the two agencies; my testimony relates
to this.
I am a professor at the University of California-Davis, I'm
from northern California and I am a specialist in radiation
biology and biophysics.
I am also the current president of the Health Physics
Society. The Health Physics Society is the association of
professionals who specialize in radiation safety, sometimes
people get confused by the name, but what we're interested in,
what we do is radiation safety and safeguarding the health of
people and the environment from potential hazardous exposure to
radiation.
The society has a number of position statements and I've
included three of them today with my testimony. They are on
Radiation Risk in Perspective, one on Radiation Dose Limits for
the General Public, and one on Radiation Standards for Cleanup
and Restoration and I ask that those be included in the record
with the rest of my testimony.
Mr. Lewis. We'll include your entire testimony in the
record and additional material will be included in our file.
Mr. Raabe. Okay, thank you very much. I think the main
point of my written testimony is that excessively stringent
radiation safety standards will cause the cost to the U.S.
Government for radiation to skyrocket without any real
measurable improvement in human health.
And this is, I think, a very, it's a serious matter to our
society and I think it should be to your committee too, because
I think we can save money by adopting reasonable standards for
protecting health and also give us an opportunity to
economically do the cleanups.
Now I'm aware the Subcommittee has already considered the
interaction of various Federal agencies, and particularly the
role of the Environmental Protection Agency, in these
standards. The EPA, of course, absorbed the functions of the
old Federation Radiation Council in 1970. So they've been given
guidelines and they've been publishing various guidance reports
and most of those reports have been tabulations of dosimetry
models, and so forth, very useful.
But the society is very concerned right now about this
draft report called Federal Guidance Report No. 13, unlucky 13.
We think it is a very unfortunate document because it sort of
continues this process of trying to reduce spending for lower
and lower values.
Now the methodology in this report is complex, but
basically they have combined some very sophisticated dosimetry
models which we believe to be excellent with some very
speculative linear dose-response models that are not proven,
they are strictly speculation and after actually conflict with
existing data.
The report also speaks to risk-coefficients for cancer
based upon this combination. This is done for radionuclides
which are inhaled, injected, or present on the environment
based on external radiation of the human body. The problem here
is that the models used are imaginary, they are unreliable, and
they grossly underestimate the risk.
The tabulated values are wrong, and the reestimated risks
are unverifiable, but people are going to rely on these values
and so this is the risk of these radionuclides
Now the way they do this is by what is called a linear
best-response model. In the commission statement on Radiation
Risk in Perspective, our society has specifically said that we
can assign risk using this model for doses below 10 rem, which
is a pretty large dose of radiation, and this document presumes
to be able to actually assign these risks.
You may ask me, what is this linear model? I can give you
an example I use with my students. Suppose you have a hurricane
in Miami. And the winds blow for 24 hours at 100 miles per hour
and 10 people are killed during that hurricane.
Now if you want to compile a linear risk model for this,
as the EPA does in this document, what you do just say, well,
if the winds blow at 10 miles per hour for 24 hours, then 1
person would be killed.
It's a proportion. Or if the winds blow at 1 mile per hour,
at 10 continual days, 1 person would be killed. I find that
nonsense, but that is exactly the methodology used here which
our society recommends against.
Now I think there is a problem between agencies that was
brought up earlier because of the Commission's 25 millirem
standard and the EPA cutting back funds. This is not protective
enough.
I can say from our society's point of view, from my own
point of view as a professional in this field for 30 years,
there is no known or expected risk with either of these doses.
This is a truly artificial problem that has developed. This
controversy is totally artificial.
The NRC's 25 millirem standard is more than satisfactory
for those patients. It is well established, but the EPA does
have its Federal guidance prerogatives, so there is a problem
here that I think the Congress needs to consider. It is going
to be costly if we continually have this problem, where we have
lower and lower dose estimates and an interaction between the
agencies where problems exist. So I would suggest that perhaps
the Committee can look into the whole standard-setting process
because, as I say, it does involve money.
I think this thing with FGR-13 should be withdrawn. Either
they are going to use the numbers in these tables or they are
going to actually go here and read these numbers off to three
significant figures. I have data that I've discussed with EPA
that show that they are wrong.
Your subcommittee should consider alternate mechanisms for
guidance on radiation safety because right now there obviously
is a problem. Perhaps America needs a new interagency council
that will provide Federal guidance based on some consensus,
using all available scientific and all the expertise that we
have in several Federal agencies. The Department of Energy has
considerable expertise in the radiation safety area, as does
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, perhaps more than the EPA.
I do think that such congressional action will markedly
reduce the costs of safety and clean-up operations.
Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Do the members have questions of Dr. Raabe?
Dr. Raabe, as I indicated, it is important for you to know
that we don't hold these hearings for outside witnesses lightly
and I very much appreciate your testimony and your effort to be
here.
Mr. Raabe. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. It is significant for us to have people of
professional standing with scientific background who will come
and help us communicate to EPA that we need to make sure that
that scientific advice and counsel that is available to our
agencies ought to be used both in terms of their practical
experience in the world out there where people have to live and
work, and we want these programs, if they are going to be
credible, to reflect a world that is both cost-effective, but
also addresses the question of people's health. So your
testimony is welcome and we appreciate your being here.
Mr. Raabe. Thank you very much. I have talked to EPA about
this.
Mr. Lewis. I gathered that.
Mr. Raabe. And I must say the people involved are sincere
but they are members of a healthy society and so it's a sincere
effort but it's a modeling approach that they use that is a
very simplistic one that, unfortunately, just overestimates.
Mr. Lewis. One of our difficulties is that, whether we are
talking about these standards of radiation, or standards that
relate to air quality questions, any number of other regulatory
activities, sometimes it seems that a panel of scientists ends
up being selected to help establish conclusions rather than to
work on not only an effective analysis but solutions that lead
to real public policy change.
So we appreciate your being here very much.
Mr. Raabe. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 584 - 605--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
JARED O. BLUM, PRESIDENT, POLYISOCYANURATE INSULATION MANUFACTURERS
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Lewis. Let's see, next we have Jared Blum, the
president of the--let's see, I'll have to get my glasses on for
that one. [Laughter.]
Jared Blum. Where'd you get the name Jared?
Mr. Blum. Biblical. It's been in the family for quite a
long time.
Mr. Lewis. One of our colleagues, a senior member of the
Appropriations Committee, has a young boy that's now about 5
years old, 4 years old? Joe McDade, his boy's name is Jared,
first time I've heard it since reading the Bible.
Mr. Blum. Thank you sir, and I appreciate your patience and
your attention on a long day. I am Jared Blum and I do
represent the Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers, they
are the leading commercial insulation manufacturers in the
United States, manufacturing high-performance foam insulation.
I am here today in support of, or to paraphrase Shakespeare, I
am here to praise the EPA, not to bury them.
We all have our concerns and disagreements with that
agency, but on this particular day, I think I'm here to praise
a voluntary program that they have implemented over the several
years called the Energy Star Program. It is not climatic
control; it is dealing with a voluntary approach to a very
important issue and that is the quality of the housing stock
that we now are putting together for future generations to live
in.
Energy Star programs, in our view, are well-run, and are
relatively inexpensive. The President's program I think does
ask for approximately $19 million. We're asking for the
Committee's favorable consideration for that.
We believe EPA should be applauded for its creative and
economically-sound thinking in finding voluntary solutions to
environmental problems.
The Energy Star homes program basically is an information
program and labeling program which encourages builders to
participate who construct homes that exceed what is known as
the model energy code by 30 percent. The model energy code is a
voluntary standard adopted by individual States which has the
input of industry entities such as local homebuilders, et
cetera. So it is a voluntary standard. In many States it has
been adopted by States as a mandatory standard, States like
California.
Energy Star homes are new homes, and by our reckoning the
last two years, we've had over 500 homes that have been built
to those standards. These homes have return on investment for
the homebuilder significantly outweighing the initial
investment in energy performance.
The goal of the Energy Star Homes program is to increase
the market share of Energy Star Homes to 10 percent of new home
construction by 2002, which would be about 100,000 homes. They
will have both economic and environmental benefits. The homes
sold by the year 2000 will represent an energy savings over
their lifetime or their mortgage lifetime of 30 years of about
$1.8 billion.
The environmental benefits set out small but grow
impressively over the next 13 years. The construction of Energy
Star Homes will result in annual CO2 emission reductions of
about .3 million metric tons, which is equivalent to removing
more than 55,000 cars from the road. One of the things that we
don't keep in mind as we focus so much on cafe standards and
the role of automobiles is that actually the average home uses
more energy per day than the average car.
One of the programs that we're very familiar with in
addition to Energy Star Homes is Energy Star Insulation. As you
might imagine, we've had some expertise in that area. The
program with EPA is promoting the use of insulation in homes as
well as buildings that are going to be retrofitted. It's an
educational program for the consumer to understand the pay back
of utilizing insulation in their homes. Companies that partner
with EPA get to use an EPA logo on their product.
I will get to the end, so you guys can move forward. The
bottom line is we believe that the use of the EPA's program in
the short term--we don't believe it's one of the programs where
we come back every year, year in and year out, for funding--we
think what you want to do is change the dynamics in the
construction industry to appreciate how you get an Energy Star
Home and energy efficient home built in a cost effective
manner. We think once you plant the seeds of a new and more
sustainable market, that the EPA program, unlike so many
others, can fade away and not be funded any more.
I thank you for your time and I'll be willing to take any
questions you might have.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Blum. Questions?
Mr. Price. Thank you for being here. I have no questions.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. No questions.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much. We appreciate your being
here.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 608 - 615--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
THOMAS YUILL, NASULGC
Mr. Lewis. Dr. Thomas Yuill? Did I pronounce that
correctly?
Mr. Yuill. Pretty close, Mr. Chairman. It's Yuill.
Mr. Lewis. Okay, Dr. Yuill? I won't even try to pronounce
NASULGC. [Laughter.]
Mr. Yuill. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the
Committee for this opportunity to present testimony on the
fiscal year 1999 budget request for EPA. I also want to commend
you on your leadership of the Committee and the focus on the
environment, and for the continuing efforts of the whole
Committee for improving the environmental science capabilities
of our country.
I am Dr. Tom Yuill, Director of the Institute for
Environmental Studies of the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
I am providing this statement for NASULGC, the National
Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. I
currently chair it's EPA partnership task force between EPA and
NASULGC.
For those of you who may not be familiar with NASULGC, it's
the Nation's oldest higher education association with over 190
member institutions. Among them, the 17 historically black
institutions with representation from all 50 States. The
association supports high quality public education by enhancing
the capacity of member institutions to perform their
traditional teaching, research, and outreach missions.
I'll focus my comments this afternoon on EPA's Office of
Research and Development, specifically it's Science to Achieve
Results, or STAR program.
I'm very grateful to the committee for having invited the
previous testimony, which has provided a wonderful segue for
underscoring the need for solid science to undergo public
policy and regulation. We in NASULGC strongly support the
Agency's $100 million request for fiscal year 1999 for
competitively awarded extramural research grants under the STAR
program. We also recommend $15 million for 300 graduate
fellowships, which is $5 million above the EPA request.
The relatively small amount the Agency invests in STAR
within it's $7.8 billion contributes significantly to sound
science. Without which the Agency will not be able to correctly
identify and develop sound management and mitigation strategies
for emerging or existing environmental problems, and some of
the testimony I think we just heard does certainly point that
out.
Before the inception of STAR, the quality of EPA science
was questioned by many authorities, including this committee.
The highly successful four-year-old STAR program was a good
example of a productive, cost effective, university/Agency
partnership, that assures the highest quality of science
through a rigorous peer review process.
Although EPA has been widely criticized for insufficient
use of peer review, the Agency is making important progress. We
strongly support EPA's effort to thoroughly integrate peer
review into all of it's scientific and technical products. EPA
has worked with NASULGC to greatly expand it's base of
qualified peer reviewers. The Association has utilized it's
extensive database of expertise within the member institutions
to help EPA locate the highest caliber candidates.
NASULGC also supports graduate fellowships which are an
investment to produce the next generation of scientists and
engineers, not just for regulatory agencies or for academia,
but for industry as well. The need for knowledge of
environmental science is necessary to remain competitive in the
global marketplace.
Since 1994, NASULGC has worked closely with EPA's ORD in
partnership to help the Agency develop and implement science
and research reform. We will continue to work with ORD on a
variety of joint initiatives to enhance the quality of
environmental science in priority areas and to facilitate
environmental information dissemination to decision makers and
to the public.
Again, I thank you for this opportunity to provide
testimony and will welcome any questions that you might have.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Dr. Yuill. Questions, Mr.
Price?
Mr. Price. I wonder if you could elaborate a bit on the
relationship between the Office of Research and Development
budget and the total research budget. You refer to this in a
critical way in your testimony and what catches my attention is
the reminder you offer of the ORD research agenda--particulate
matter, microbials and disinfectants in water, algal blooms,
endocrine disruptors, and so forth. You're suggesting that the
agenda may not be pursued as extensively as possible because of
this budget shift.
Mr. Yuill. That's our concern. The curious thing that seems
to us is that the ORD budget, which is ostensibly the core
research effort within the Agency, is actually going to undergo
a 9.5 percent reduction. The overall research budget within the
Agency is increasing. So that research money is going somewhere
else. And one of the concerns--it's uneasiness that we have--is
that those resources are not going to go into the high priority
items that have been developed with the strategic plan that's
been done very thoughtfully within EPA with a lot of outside
input. And it's going to go into other things and will not be
as effective as a well integrated focused program would be
within ORD.
It's something that we will be watching with considerable
concern. Of course, we're delighted that they are going to
propose to continue the STAR budget at $100 million, bringing
the best science and the best scientists outside the Agency to
bear on the significant problems that they've identified. But
we don't know why the ORD overall budget has been reduced and
that money is going other places, or if it will be as
effectively directed as it would have been, in our opinion,
within ORD.
Mr. Price. Something that we will want to look at. Thank
you.
Mr. Lewis. Your testimony is very worthwhile in that
connection for following these dollars to make sure they are
not, for example, not being diverted for regulatory activities
when they were meant for science in the first place. Your input
is appreciated. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Yuill. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Committee
Members.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 619 - 626--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
SCOTT SKLAR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOLAR UNITY NETWORK
Mr. Lewis. Our next witness from the Solar Unity Network,
Scott Sklar.
Mr. Sklar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Please come up. It's good to see you.
Mr. Sklar. It's good to see you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Sklar. First of all, I commend you for getting a
bearded director and getting diversity in the political
workplace. I think that's PC. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. It's very important. Some guys are more
conservative with some things and some with others.
Mr. Sklar. I understand that. [Laughter.]
I run the trade association for the solar industry. We have
165 companies that manufacture solar products in the U.S. and
500 companies in State chapters, 40 companies in the State of
New Jersey, 120 in California, and so on. We're growing. We cut
ribbon on 4 new automated manufacturing plants in the U.S. with
200 to 400 each in 1996, another 4 in 1997, and 6 to 8 in 1998.
So we're in a big growth curve. 70 percent of our products are
going to Third World where 2 billion people don't have access
to electricity and another 1 billion have access to electricity
of less than 10 hours a day. We lead the world technologically.
So why do I come here? There are three programs that this
subcommittee has jurisdiction over--and I'm not asking you for
more money, but I am asking you for help and access.
With EPA, this subcommittee added report language last year
that, for the first time, told EPA that instead of looking at
dealing with the end of the smokestack, end of the tailpipe,
let's promote pollution prevention technologies that are cost
effective so that we can solve the problem at the beginning,
not at the end. That, in fact, had a chain reaction and now
we're having a dialogue for the first time.
What we're asking you frankly is to now go one step further
with them in terms of directive language to include us, like my
colleague from PIMA, in the energy STAR programs and in some of
the verification and validation programs. What most people
don't realize is we are in the marketplace now manufacturing
and what EPA can do using it's already existing resources at
ORD and their air quality shop, is to show what we can do.
And I brought commercial, off-the-shelf technology solar
roofing shingles. This is produced in Michigan at a plant. This
part produces electricity; it replaces your existing roofing
shingles. It is very expensive. It's the most expensive tile
shingle in California. But it does produce electricity at the
same time, 25 year life. I'd like you to touch it. A few energy
sources that, Mr. Price, that you can touch without something
happening.
But, at any rate, the fact of the matter is that this
technology as we scale up with these new plants, will come down
in cost. Twenty-one States have already signed into law net
metering legislation which allows homeowners to have an
interconnection and to be paid a rate in excess of what they
used--21 States, by partisan, and growing, in a year and a
half. So you see there's a lot of popular support for this.
VA--the same kind of issue in their lending programs. They
are authorized, just like EPA, to promote energy efficiency and
solar. But when you call up, they don't know anything about it.
All we ask is that they're authorized to do it and they
determine under their own rules we're cost effective, we should
be an allowable commercial like they do insulation or energy
efficient light bulbs.
Lastly, with HUD, the Administration has proposed a program
called the Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing,
PATH. And actually it's a good transfer program. It's a way to
sort of reinvigorate how builders and others, architects, can
incorporate U.S. technology, a blend of them in housing. We are
theoretically one of the things they're supposed to do, and
without some by partisan congressional prodding. In the
industry, we are the largest producers of this technology in
the world--these 165 companies--we have 1/2 the world market.
But you can not sustain the global market unless you have
demonstrably growing domestic market.
So that's what I'm here for. Not asking for big dollars,
but asking for your oversight, your continued support. You've
been really good for us, and we've been growing as a result of
being good for us. But you can bring clean technology to the
marketplace without command and control and just providing what
everybody else's access in the Federal tools.
Mr. Lewis. Very good. I appreciate very much your
testimony. Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. No questions. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Lewis. I appreciate your paying such close attention to
my staff director.
Mr. Sklar. Somebody had to. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Sklar.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 629 - 635--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
VANESSA M. LEIBY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF STATE DRINKING
WATER ADMINISTRATORS
Mr. Lewis. Vanessa Leiby? Hi, Vanessa, who is with the
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators. She is the
Executive Director. You've heard me talk about summarizing
statements and your testimony will be in the record.
Ms. Leiby. It sure will. Good afternoon. I didn't bring any
props, but you've all had some of our drinking water, so we've
already got the props warm. We appreciate that.
As you indicated, I'm Vanessa Leiby. I'm the Executive
Director of the Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators, also known as ASDWA. In that capacity, we
represent all of the 56 States and territories that implement
and enforce the Safe Drinking Water Act.
My written comments are here. I also brought copies of our
annual report for 1997 to give you additional information about
the activities and accomplishments of the States over the
course of the last year.
In the few minutes I have today, I'm really pleased to
report on the successes from both the State's EPA and the water
system in our efforts to move rapidly forward in implementing
the new Safe Drinking Water Act.
To tell you a little bit about that. To date, 49 of the 50
states have received legislative authority for their drinking
water state revolving loan fund. 27 of those States have
received approval for their application packages, and that
translates into about $530 million that's now available for
water system infrastructure improvements and various sites that
are authorized. EPA has and as we fully expect that all the
States will submit their applications by the September
deadline.
In addition, all the 50 States have developed annual
compliance reports that have provided information to the public
on water system compliance and a new consumer public right to
know provisions in the law. And these reports specifically list
the systems that have violated maximum contaminate levels,
treatment techniques, variances in exemptions were significant
monitoring violations. We've also provided that information to
EPA and it will be made available in a national report that
will be published in July.
Almost every State that has indicated a new for a new
administrative penalty authority, some new enforcement
provisions, has submitted legislation. Many States have also
obtained legislative authority to prevent the formation of new
non-viable water systems. States have also actively
participated in the numerous stakeholder meetings that the
agency has held throughout the year, covering operator
certification, capacity development, listing of technologies
for small systems, the SRL, consumer confidence source water
protection, and the list goes on and on and on and on.
I want you to be aware of the fact that this is in addition
to implementing the many and varied responsibilities and
programs and regulations that they've continued to have to
implement to protect public health and ensure the provision of
safe water. This workload's going to continue to increase and
expand over the next few years as EPA and the States move
forward to meet all of the new deadlines and responsibilities
in the State drinking water act.
So I've come here today to inform you of the enthusiasm,
the successes of the past year, the strides that the States are
making, but also to respectfully request that the Committee
provide an additional $10 million for the public water supply
supervision program. This $10 million will demonstrate to the
States that Congress understands and appreciates their efforts,
as well as recognize the many treatments the States have made
in the past year in light of the fact that we have not received
an increase in that level of funding since Fiscal Year 1996.
This new funding will be critical as States move forward to
develop capacity development strategies, source water
assessment, and delineation programs, and revise and expand
their operator certification programs. And these are only a few
of the new program responsibilities that States face in the
coming year.
States cannot continue to expand these programs without new
Federal dollars. While they are willing to meet and exceed the
match requirements and have been historically willing to do
that, they cannot fund all of the new components of the law by
themselves.
I also respectfully request that the Committee fully fund
the Drinking Water SRF at the authorized level of the $1
billion for fiscal year 1999. You've heard many others with
that same request. Obviously, you're aware of the Agency's
drinking water infrastructure needs survey, and you've
recognized the incredible short term infrastructure needs that
really far surpass the current funding that's available. The
increase in the $225 million to that authorized level of $1
billion will ensure that funding is available for more water
systems and will allow the fund to begin to revolve at the pace
that's been projected by EPA.
We also support the authorized the funding $10 million for
small systems to collect and analyze samples, water samples, so
that EPA can develop new regulations in the future based on
sound science and occurrence information.
We support funding of $2 million for EPA to continue
development of an assiduous State database to ensure that
accurate, quality data is available at the national level for
critical decision making and also public access to the
information.
In addition, we support the $5 million that you've also
heard testimony on for the AWWA Research Foundation to continue
it's health affects research and we support adequate funding
for drinking water health affects research at EPA.
We also support EPA's drinking water program and also funds
available for technical assistance, which you've heard about
already.
The States and EPA water systems have taken the challenge
of providing drinking water very seriously. We have
collaborated in the stakeholder process and have taken the
necessary steps to begin expanding and enhancing our programs.
I hope that you will join me in acknowledging these efforts and
demonstrate Congress' continued support for providing the
necessary increases for fiscal year 1999 to ensure that these
programs continue to meet congressional intent as well as the
needs of the American people.
I thank you for your time and I'd be happy to answer any
questions that you might have.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Ms. Leiby, very much for being with
us. Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Okay, thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 639 - 653--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
LINO DE ALMEIDA, NATIONAL UTILITY CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Lewis. Lino DeAlmeida?
Mr. DeAlmeida. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lewis. National Utility Contractors Association.
Mr. DeAlmeida. Yes, sir.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. He's a New Jersey resident, Mr.
Chairman. We're very please to have you.
Mr. DeAlmeida. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Frelinghuysen, and Mr.
Price, thank you very much for having us here today. I'm
President of the National Utility Contractors. We're
approximately a 2,000 member organization of contractors and
associate members that supply the materials, as well as
install, the pipelines of clean drinking water, as well as take
care of our sewers.
I'm a small contractor for New Jersey. I'm down in
Middlesex County. I've been there all my life. I done work
throughout the Northeast, as well as overseas. My company is
called Consolidated Construction Management. We do pipe work as
well as general construction. My family has been in business
for about seven years. My grandfather immigrated from Portugal,
started working in New York City, and my dad got into the
business when he was in his 20's. I started when I was about 9
years old as a water boy and worked my way up after about six
years of being a mason's helper, doing supervision and
eventually getting actively involved in the company.
You've got our text. I don't want to read it into the
record, but I would like to make a few comments if I may.
Mr. Lewis. We'll include it in it's entirety in the record,
so we appreciate that.
Mr. DeAlmeida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to talk to
you about why the State Revolving Fund program is important
us--both the wastewater as well the drinking water.
The drinking water, as you know, is a public health issue.
Twenty percent of our population drinks water that is
contaminated either by lead, fecal bacteria, radiation, or
toxic chemicals. I've got here a cutout that one of our
contractor members up in Rhode Island took out a few years ago.
We've made many of these and brought these to some of your
committee meetings and other committee meetings. That's an old
water main and that's what we call a crud--that's the best word
I could give you. [Laughter.]
Not very technical, but that's what it looks like, that
develops inside the pipes. So if you had--I guess that was
originally a six inch pipe--so now you've got maybe an inch-
and-\1/2\ of flow through there and you can imagine all those
rotten little particles that are in your water when you turn on
your faucet. It's especially evident if you have broken water
main or if you have a fire and you've got all that volume
rushing through. This stuff breaks out and you wind up with
brown cruddy water for a few days or even longer until it all
flushes out of the system.
There's something like 2 million people every year in the
United States that become ill because of water-related
illnesses from pipes like these. There's something like 1,200
deaths every year as a result of that. So you could see why
it's a very important issue, not just to utility contractors,
but to the entire country.
Regarding our wastewater, it's important to us, Mr.
Chairman, because of number one, development. Obviously, if our
country is going to continue to develop, if our children are
going to have their own homes, they need to have sewage pipe.
They need some place for that sewage to go. For every private
development--every development that's built--there is a trunk
sewer that's taking that sewage to a treatment plant.
I'd like to just share with you, by the way, the first job
I did as a sewer contractor as a helper on a sewage job for my
dad. I asked one of the superintendents my first day on the job
when I got out of high school--and I was wearing clean boots,
everything was clean--I asked him, ``What should I know about
working in the sewers?'' We were working on the live sewer in
the City of Newark. We were taking a sewer line and replacing
it. And he says, ``Well, just remember, it flows downhill and
never suck on your fingers.'' I think you know why that was the
case.
Some of the other important reasons for wastewater cleanup
are obviously our estuaries need to be maintained as clean--our
rivers, our oceans. Plus, a good portion of our wetlands are
destroyed as a result of sewage flowing into our streams and
rivers.
By way of a little bit of history, I've probably been
responsible for I'm sure at least $200 million worth of sewage
projects or clean water projects in the State of New Jersey,
and that doesn't include overseas and other work we've done
throughout the country. I've worked on CSO projects that have
cleaned up Arthur Hill, Woodbridge and Carterette, New Jersey.
I've worked on a major interceptor sewer down in Camden County
that basically was responsible for cleanup of the Cooper River
and obviously the Delaware River as well. I did, obviously, a
very small part of it. I've also worked on the Guanque Water
Treatment Plant up in North New Jersey that supplies the cities
of Newark, Jersey City, Hoboken with water, so I've been
actively involved in this business.
In closing, we're in support of the SRF program. We thank
you for all the help you've given us in the past. We are in the
midst of preparing some studies--or having studies prepared by
Apogee--which will be available in several weeksthat will give
you the benefit of what we think are the funding levels that are
required not just for this year, but over the next 20 years.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. DeAlmeida, we appreciate very much your
testimony, your being here today. Mr. Price, do you have any
questions?
Mr. Price. No questions.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Let me say that we welcome this fellow
New Jerseyan and for his very refreshingly blunt testimony.
This is a national situation and you've certainly given us a
very personal and familial flavor which we appreciate. Your
words won't be lost on the Committee in terms of our work on
this committee. We thank you for your time and effort.
Mr. DeAlmeida. Well, thank you, sir. And just in case I had
problems I brought my son who's a weight lifter. He lugged this
around for us, so I should thank him too.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We're pleased and I'm sure the Chair is
pleased to have you both. What's your son's name? We'll put it
in the record.
Mr. DeAlmeida. Christopher DeAlmeida.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. It's good to have you here. Where do you
play football? We're pleased to have a father and a son
combination here. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 657 - 661--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
BILL FRANK, JR., CHAIRMAN, NORTHWEST INDIAN FISHERIES COMMISSION
Mr. Lewis. Let's see, Mr. Bill Frank, Jr., with Northwest
Indian Fisheries Commission? How are you, sir?
Mr. Frank. Just fine.
Mr. Lewis. You've been waiting patiently. We appreciate it.
Mr. Frank. You're waiting patiently. It's a long day.
[Laughter.]
My name is Billy Frank, Jr., Chairman. I've been in front
of the Committee for the past seven years now. I appreciate the
Committee and the Chair allowing me to testify.
Mr. Lewis. We appreciate it.
Mr. Frank. We have a lot of salmon management work going on
for the State of Washington up in the State of Washington. We
have endangered species now as well as California clear to
Alaska. Several species are being listed and all of it goes
back to the need for clean water and work in model programs and
working as a partnerships with the Federal, the State, and the
local governments and the tribes. A lot of the model programs
initiatives are out there that we've been working on with the
industry and making sure that we're all finding a balance and
working together for the future.
I'm not going to read any of my testimony. I just wanted to
say how important the salmon is to all of us. As the Chairman
knows, we're all involved in putting a comprehensiverecovery
plan from California to Alaska now and all the watersheds along the
Pacific Ocean and that's a very big job. It takes a long time. It isn't
an overnight thing that's going to happen. It's going to be a long
time.
We support what the Committee is doing and we support our
clean water act and all of our other acts. Our testimony pretty
well spells out where we are and what we're doing. It's a
pleasure to come here and hear the testimony here. There's some
good people in this country, still doing some good things, and
it's very important to all of us.
Mr. Lewis. Right. Well, Mr. Frank, we will include your
entire testimony in the record. We appreciate your being here.
I particularly like that salmon around your neck. [Laughter.]
Mr. Frank. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lewis. We appreciate it very much. Hello Mr. Stokes.
Mr. Stokes. Yes sir, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 663 - 668--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
R. MICHAEL MC CLAIN, SOCIETY OF TOXICOLOGY
Mr. Lewis. Next on our list is Dr. R. Michael McClain. Dr.
McClain is from the Society of Toxicology. Welcome. And if
you've heard us say that your testimony will be summarized and
we'll include it all in the record----
Dr. McClain. Yes, yes, I'll try to be brief.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much.
Dr. McClain. I'm Michael McClain, President of the Society
of Toxicology, and I really appreciate the opportunity to come
here today to testify on the behalf of research support for the
Environmental Protection Agency. I don't have a prop, but I am
wearing a button and it's for doubling NIH funding over the
next five years.
In any event, the Society of Toxicology is a professional
organization that brings together about 4,000 toxicologists
from industry, academia, and the government and the government
agencies. A major of the Society is the incorporation of sound
science in the legislation and regulation.
We work closely with the Environmental Protection Agency
and also the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences, and believe that the research supported by these
agencies is important to ensure the policies affecting health
and the environment are based on sound science. And in
particular, we appreciate the support of this subcommittee and
the Superfund basic research program. Each year the
Administration has recommended the cut, but this committee has
provided leadership to restore the funding for that and we're
most appreciative of that. But, as you know, the funding for
the Superfund basic research program is funding through the
Environmental Protection Agency and goes to the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to support
university and medical research on health affects and superfund
issues. Currently this involves more than 1,000 scientists from
70 universities that are supported for this and it's really the
only scientific research program which is dedicated to these
specific kind of sites. We hope that you'll continue funding
this year again at the level of about $40 million.
I'd also like to mention the Worker Training Program.
Again, that's run by the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences and this provides classroom instruction and
field expertise for Superfund site and emergency workers.
Today, over 450,000 workers nationwide have been trained in
this program. And we hope that you will continue the same level
of support for this program.
With respect to the airborne particulate matter research,
we are very pleased by the approach that was taken by the
Subcommittee last year to initiate a comprehensive program for
airborne particulates. We support the involvement of the
National Academy of Sciences in developing a research plan. The
report by the National Academy proposes a comprehensive
research program with short term research efforts focuses on
developing a better understanding of how these particulates
affect human health. We would recommend support of at least
$49.6 million to support this program for this coming year.
I'd also like to mention the endocrine disruptors, which
are compounds in our environment which may have an affect on
thyroid, reproductive, or development. At the present time,
however, there is diverse scientific opinion with respect to
the extent that such environmental agents affect human health.
The Society is supportive of the congressional initiatives to
pursue research on the affects of environmental agents. We
believe, however, that Congress should use scientific experts
to assist in the development of legislation but should refrain
from mandating specific approaches such as the development of
testing and screening procedures for widespread use. The
Society recommends the Congress should involve a scientific
body, such as the National Academy, to assess the extent to
which these environmental agents are a human health problem. In
the case of the particulate air pollution that I mentioned
before, Congress did involve the National Academy and required
and the development of an integrated research strategy to
address this issue in the absence of mandating any specific
approach. And this example, I think, is more keeping with the
scientific process and what we would recommend that the Congress now do
in the case of the endocrine disruptors.
Sound science is essential to environmental health policy
and the Society is made up of many of the leading experts in
the field of toxicology who would be willing to serve as
resource to Congress on environmental health and safety issues.
The public wants to know whether their communities are safe
from hazardous contaminates in the air they breathe and the
water they drink and we believe that the research supported by
the Environmental Protection Agency and NIEHS provides policy
makers with the data you need to make decisions on
environmental health regulations.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here on behalf and be
happy to answer to any questions you might have.
Mr. Lewis. Dr. McClain, we appreciate very much your
testimony and you're being with us as well. Could I ask, Mr.
Price, any questions? Mr. Stokes?
Mr. Price. No questions, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate Dr.
McClain's testimony on the importance of this basic research
program passed through EPA to the NIEHS, administered by NIEHS.
That's helpful information.
Mr. Stokes. Let me also join the same comment on the
importance of this type of testimony as we undertake this
particular area of our appropriation function and we appreciate
very much your comments.
Dr. McClain. There is so much many spent on the Superfund--
we would actually even like to see more money going into
research. I think that could really help the situation. We
appreciate your support so far.
Mr. Lewis. You're going right to the heart of Mr.
Frelinghuysen interest.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, thank you, Dr. McClain, for being
here. Mr. Chairman and Members, as a constituent of mine, I
could have used him when I was speaking on some of the
proposals for Superfund reform before the National Council of
Jewish Women last night in my home town. Our own State has had
more sites than any other and that track record isn't very
good. And I'm also for more funding for the NIH and certainly
whatever the EPA is doing ought to be basing it's decisions,
it's actions, on sound science. We need to get about the
business of acting on sound science and getting things cleaned
up. So, to the extent that your society can work towards those
ends, whether provincially or nationally, that would be most
beneficial. You've been here before and we appreciate your
testimony because you know of what you speak from a very
personal standpoint coming from our State. We really appreciate
it.
Dr. McClain. Well, we appreciate that. And, like I said,
that we in the Society are willing to help out when we can, if
you need our expertise. I don't know what we can do with the
Jewish women in New Jersey, but----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. You'd be surprised. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Dr. McClain.
Dr. McClain. We're certainly available to help out.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 672 - 685--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
PAUL HANLE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES
Mr. Lewis. Our next witness of The Academy of Natural
Sciences is Paul Hanle. Dr. Hanle?
Dr. Hanle. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very
much for giving me the opportunity to testify today. I wanted
to say hello also to Mr. Frelinghuysen, who served as the
Acting Chairman of the Committee last year, when we had a
chance to testify. This is the second time and we hope we have
the opportunity to convince you that this is an exciting
program for funding and pursuing the Urban Rivers Awareness
Program. Thank you, the rest of the Members of the Committee,
for having me.
I wanted to introduce The Academy of Natural Sciences,
which is the oldest operating natural history museum in
America. It's also one of the leading research institutions,
research museums. We do research and provide public education
programs that study the environment and it's diverse species.
Our impact is not only regional, but national and
international. Among the things that we do is a major program
of water quality research that was started by Dr. Ruth Patrick.
And in fact, we have the longest standing program of assessing
the quality of U.S. waterways founded by Dr. Patrick, who was a
National Medal of Science recipient in 1948. And although we
have one of the finest collections of specimens, 25 million
specimens in the natural history museum, it is that active
program of research and public outreach which we think is very, very
important. And in fact, I would say that the unique aspect of The
Academy is that we combine this extraordinarily strong research program
with public outreach and education about the research that we are
undertaking.
And one of our new visions is the program that I will be
talking about today, the Urban Rivers Awareness Program, which
is a comprehensive effort designed for students and the public
to better understand the natural and human history of urban
water sheds. We have partners in this in the Philadelphia Water
Company, Historic Bartram's Garden, the Philadelphia Park
Commission, and we have also extended this program to include
the Patuxent River and the Tapsco River Watershed so that it
covers both the Delaware River Watershed and the Chesapeake
Bay.
The Urban Rivers Awareness Program is very important in
trying to engage youngsters and the general public about the
significance of maintaining--understanding, maintaining, and
improving--the water quality in these rivers, these urban
rivers. It is astonishing, but true, that many of the
youngsters that we take out in our educational outreach
programs think of water quality and river conditions as
something that is out in the country, but indeed the rivers
that we study are also rivers that go through major urban
centers and are part of the urban landscape. Members of the
communities that surround these rivers need to, and we find
want to, find more about the watershed through programs such as
this.
What we're proposing is to develop an 8,000 square foot
exhibition and a public outreach program, an innovative web
site, as well as conditions of the watershed annual conference.
And perhaps the most exciting program is what we call the icon
of the program, that is, a scientific and educational
experience that is carried out on the water from research boats
with research scientists as well, students who will have
opportunities in Wilmington, Delaware, as well as Calvert and
Baltimore Counties, Maryland, and of course, in Philadelphia,
our home base, to undertake these programs. On the water visits
which will be able to hold at least two classrooms of
youngsters per each program that we run and we'll have a series
of stations that will do water monitoring, biological sampling
of the water. These programs will get youngsters and families
involved in the water process--understanding the water process,
as well as some of the exciting things that surround the water,
overview of historical landmarks, and so forth.
The Academy is excited to begin this Urban Rivers Awareness
Program and we've designed it to study the specific watersheds
where the Academy is present, that is in Philadelphia, near
Wilmington, and on the Chesapeake Bay. But we think that this
is so innovative that it will be a national model and we're
hopeful that we can apply this to other institutions.
We thank you all for giving us the opportunity to testify
and we do request that the Subcommittee provide sufficient
funding for the Environmental Protection Agency to enable the
Agency to support the Urban Rivers Awareness Program.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Dr. Hanle, for your
testimony. Mr. Stokes?
Mr. Stokes. I'd just like to commend Dr. Hanle for his
testimony. This is very important as it relates to urban areas
throughout the Nation and we appreciate your testimony.
Dr. Hanle. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you for your testimony and we
certainly have a number of urban of rivers that need attention
as well.
Dr. Hanle. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Stokes. How much are you asking for?
Dr. Hanle. We're asking for a current year $1.25 million to
expand this program into these 3 areas that we're talking
about.
Mr. Stokes. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 687 - 697--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
JERRY ERICKSON, PRESIDENT, METROPOLITAN FAMILY SERVICES
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Jerry Erickson, the Metropolitan Family
Services. Mr. Erickson? Here he comes.
Mr. Erickson. Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity
to testify. I am Jerry Erickson, President Emeritus of the
Metropolitan Family Services. Congressman Stokes, you might be
particularly interested in my successor who joined our staff a
few days ago, Dr. Richard Jones, coming to us from the Center
for Children and Families in Cleveland.
Mr. Stokes. I know him very well. He's a fine young man, I
can tell you that.
Mr. Erickson. Indeed. I'm very pleased that he is going to
succeed me in a job where I've been in for some 25 years.
Metropolitan Family Services is an historic agency in Chicago
formed actually by a number of colleagues of Abraham Lincoln,
including the man who nominated Lincoln for the presidency in
1860. And a group of Chicago business----
Mr. Lewis. That's a very good friend of Mr. Stokes.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Erickson. Not quite that old. [Laughter.]
It's very interesting that those gentlemen--and they were
all gentlemen in those days; no women in the crowd I guess--got
together to form basically a safety net. This was long before
there were any government programs or anythinglike that to
support families, but they were interested in keeping families
productive, but also in having a ready work force when the economic
times called for that. And that kind of mission has been our base for
all 140 years. We were chartered by the general assembly of Illinois in
1857.
Currently, we have contact with about 100,000 families in
the Chicago Metropolitan area. Along the lines of our original
mission was to build the capacities of families and support
their capacity so they can function as fully as they can as
parents and as productive citizens in the communities. We
operate through some 25 neighborhood sensors around the Chicago
Metropolitan area.
Today, I wanted to talk with you about the Roseland
community which is one of those centers which is on the far
south side of Chicago. It's a community that has been impacted
heavily by the loss of the steel industry and all of the jobs
that they provided. It's a community very much on the edge and
trying to find its way back. We have been operating programs
for families in this community for some 40 years.
Some four years ago, we went into the community and said to
groups of ministers, to groups of businessmen, to groups of
school teachers is what we are--the way we are extending our
resources in this community. Is it doing any good or is there
something or some better way we should be using them? We've got
strong support for what we were doing, but to my surprise, and
to our surprise generally, they said that they thought we could
work with a community in the same way we work with families--in
other words, helping a community establish, what is its
agenda--to bring, to bear some strategies to start working on
those things.
It's a community with a lot of strength but a lot of
disorganization as well. So we put into effect a community
development program that has been, I guess, successful far
beyond our expectations. It has resulted in a very significant
expansion of our direct service to families, but also to
communities and increasingly is moving into the area of some
economic development things.
Just to give you some examples. One of the first things we
did was help the community to get itself together to develop a
program that we call Youth Net. The community said that their
greatest need was for when a mother or impacted family or both
parents are working and there's nothing to do with their kids
when they come home from school. It's a community where there's
a lot of violence.
So we put together--we are the administrators of the
program and the planners of the program, but most of its
carried out to the YMCA, the Chicago Youth Center, to parks
districts and other things like that so that families can stay
where--parents can stay at work when their kids are coming home
from school with some reassurance that they're going to be
safe.
More recently, we've developed some things like the Family
Loan Program. We developed--we raised $300,000 for a loan
program. A lot of people who are living in marginal
circumstances are not eligible for loans. This money is used to
loan people who will not--have not been approved, cannot get
approved by a bank for unexpected expenses. Usually a car
breakdown is something like that, but they can't manage, they
can't get to work. So we're able to make those kinds of loans.
We're also doing some work with individual development
accounts which you may be familiar with. It's a masking fund
program for Walker Recipients and other low-income people who
are not necessarily in the habit of saving and trying to build
their assets so they can become longer term and more productive
members of the community. We're harboring on a number of those
kinds of programs with Shorebank--which you may have heard of.
It's headquartered in a community very nearby.
The results of all of this activity has been a need for
expanded facilities. We have a plan for a $2.25 million
facility to accommodate not only the work we're doing with
family but with these community groups, as well, we have raised
$1.25 million with some significant help from the Kresge
Foundation and from the Amoco Foundation and a large number of
private donors. We're looking for an additional $1 million so
that we can get underway with this building program which we
think is going to make a major impact in the and affecting this
community.
Mr. Lewis. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Erickson. We
appreciate your testimony. Mr. Stokes, you have a question?
Mr. Stokes. I'd just like to say to Mr. Erickson that I
thought your testimony was very interesting. It's fascinating
to see what you are doing in a community such as Chicago and
the type of good that's being done. It just points to the fact
that there is a very real need in our urban communities, in
particular, for these types of organizations to function and to
have an impact upon people who otherwise have nowhere to turn
for the kind of help and sociological approaches you take to
their lives.
Mr. Erickson. Well, thanks very much. I guess as we've
gotten in to this program, we've been impressed with the
strength and resilience that is there in the community that has
some help in mobilizing. It's pretty exciting and we're very
pleased with it. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Well, thank you for coming in. We appreciate
your testimony very much.
Mr. Erickson. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 701 - 710--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
VA-PROJECT 541-029
WITNESS
EDWIN M. ROBINS, NATIONAL SERVICE OFFICER, JEWISH WAR VETERANS,
REPRESENTING THE DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS
Mr. Lewis. Our next witness is Mr. Edwin M. Robins,
National Service Officer, who's with the Jewish War Veterans,
representing the Disabled American Veterans.
Mr. Robins. All right, thank you. Good afternoon, Mr.
Chairman, Members of the Committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to come here today to speak to you----
Mr. Lewis. You will summarize your statement, I'm sure,
won't you?
Mr. Robins. Yes I am, sir.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you.
Mr. Robins. As a senior citizen, but also as a veteran,
speaking on behalf of VA-Project 541-029. This is to alert you
of serious problems involving the ambulatory care facilities of
Wade Park campus of the Cleveland Veterans Administration
Medical Center. We are pleased that the VA has recognized this
name for over 12 years, but are alarmed at the fact that it's
not in this year's budget. On behalf of all veterans in the
State of Ohio, I want to address this group and bring to their
oversight. There is a great need that exists for over 570,000
veterans in northeastern Ohio.
Veterans are currently not being served with dignity and
respect. The conditions in which we treat veterans at the Wade
Park campus are overcrowded, unsafe, and they have been cited
as deficient by the Joint Commission on Veterans--Accreditation
of Hospital Organizations and numerous service organizations.
The Cleveland VA Medical Center, sir, was built in 1964 as
an inpatient facility. The Wade Park campus was never intended
to be an outpatient facility. This facility is antiquated,
inadequate for outpatient services, and it's over 34 years old.
Outpatient clinics were never intended to be part of the Wade
Park campus.
Currently, the VA Medical Center provides over 50,000 male
and female veterans with inpatient and outpatient health care
services in a 25-county area in northeast Ohio. More than
400,000 episodes of outpatients were provided and they serviced
800 veterans who traveled to Cleveland for this service.
Veterans are men and women who have served this country--and I
want to stress the women, because as males we generally say
veterans and think men. Even with this success, there are
serious limitations at the Wade Park campus 34-year-old
physical plant. These facility limitations have grown more and
more troublesome and now constitute a serious impediment to the
delivery of effective health care to the thousands of veterans
who rely on the VA. Following are some specific examples:
Outpatients are required to travel to multiple floors of a
seven-story building with a vertical transportation that was
never built or designed to carry that much traffic. Patients
are provided outpatient care on every floor and in every
available space.
The outpatient admissions area of Wade Park is designed
like a bullpen. As such, it's inadequate for ambulatory care
services for outpatients--and believe me, I have seen it. It's
like a nightmare.
Diagnostic procedures are inefficient since laboratory
tests and radiology procedures have to be performed in remote
basement locations, far from the outpatient activities.
Patient privacy is compromised because outpatient
examination rooms open directly into corridors used by general
people that traffic as they walk the halls. Many of them are
partially disrobed and awaiting an exam. There are also other
privacy issues involved. Customer satisfaction is guaranteed
when veterans are treated in small, overcrowded waiting areas
and interviewed in spaces that lack privacy and it's a lack of
dignity many times for these veterans.
Access to care is hampered by the distance between parking
facility and the hospital entrance, behooves patients to walk
outside, amongst traffic, and for a minimum distance of a
quarter-mile. To compound the problem, the access ramp to the
hospital entrance does not meet the American Disabilities Act.
Emergency outpatient services are archaic and undersized
for today's ambulatory care. Inadequate ambulatory care space
forces outpatient clinics into locations away from the current
outpatient setting. Of necessity, they are located throughout
the facility in areas converted from inpatient units.
Customer satisfaction is lost when patients are treated in
an environment lacking proper heating and ventilation because
the outpatient area is juxtaposed with a hospital's emergency
entrance. During the winter, the wind blows through there like
you think you were in Alaska.
Quality of care is jeopardized when veterans are treated in
substandard, antiquated treatment areas. Veterans experience
difficulty in finding the Wade Park Division Ambulatory
entrance because it is shared with the Emergency Room entrance.
This entrance is cramped, crowded, and inappropriate for
outpatient services. Once inside the building, patients have a
tendency to walk right into the Emergency Room.
The ambulances must compete also with trucks delivering
materials to the hospital. To remain cost-efficient and
competitive, the Cleveland VA Medical Center has established an
outpatient surgery program and expanded all its outpatient
clinics. The results has been a huge increase in outpatient
visits. The Medical Center has been cited for space deficiency,
violation of safety codes and a lack of patient privacy by
external agencies. And I may say, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to
see another Prime Time expose in Cleveland. As a result of the
critical need for ambulatory care space, the Cleveland VA
conducted a thorough cost-benefit analysis for the cost of new
construction versus the cost of contracting care for veterans
with other private sectors.
The results have indicated none of these health care
organizations provide the care at a better cost than could be
provided by the Cleveland VA Medical Center. In response to the
growing concerns cited by the JCAHO, the Department of Veterans
Affairs has accomplished the architectural design face for $28
million. After extensive review, the direct patient care
implications of this project have been found to be so great
that it was ranked as the number one health care priority in
the VA. Unfortunately, the project remains unfunded and
progress has been halted.
I can just say to you that we have waited 12 years for this
project to be funded--and so far, it still hasn't been done.
Funding for the highest-ranked clinical construction priority
of the Department of Veterans Affairs ought to be approved. Our
veterans deserve nothing less. The claim for this project is
sound. The benefits it will have on lives of many veterans
throughout the region is real. May I add, we've waited 22 years
to get a garage and just this year,ground was broken. It is
clearly evident that the outpatient services being provided at the
Cleveland VA Medical Center have been seriously hampered by outdated
and physically limited structures built in the early 1960's--34 years
ago.
The Cleveland VA serves over 50,000 unique veterans and
potentially you'll be able to provide care to over 570,000
veterans given adequate facilities. Veterans are not being
served with dignity in regards to such basic conditions as:
access, privacy, efficiency, customer satisfaction and quality
of care. The Cleveland VA Medical Center has fully embraced Dr.
Kizer's prescription for change in the VA strategy.
If the VA hopes to modernize property and update its
standards of care to meet the driving forces of today's health
care market as well as that of the future, it needs to be
right. Funding for the project is absolutely essential. I beg
of you that this committee reinstate the Ambulatory Care
Addition Project. Adequate resources and facilities such as the
Ambulatory Care Addition need to be allocated and approved in
order for the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Cleveland
Medical Center to provide the care that our veterans deserve
and have been promised. The time for action is now. The urgency
cannot be overstated.
With this in mind, I took a day off as a National Service
Officer to come here today to plead to you. I have spent over
3,000 volunteer hours at that hospital with my wife so I know
what their problems are. I have one last thing, that I had a
veteran who came to me. His wife died, he had a stroke, and he
could not get into any other nursing home. I called the VA, the
man was admitted. Now after two years, I just received his
death notice yesterday.
So, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of listening to me and my
constituent, Mr. Stokes--I happen to be his constituent--may I
just also say this man has served this Congress 30 years. On
behalf of all the people in Ohio, we thank you, Mr. Stokes----
Mr. Stokes. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Robins. Members of the Committee, for your sensitivity,
appreciation and support of veterans over the years. I thank
you very much.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Robins. I must say
here, that of all of the constituents that we have on this
committee, the Nation's veterans have the highest priority and
that's true--not just in this committee--but in the Full House.
Especially, I wanted to mention relevant to your last
comment, your constituent, Mr. Stokes, has served you long and
very effectively. I watched him fight for that garage, by the
way, over a period of time here. With the competition in this
committee, it is not a simple matter. So, indeed, you're going
to miss the Louis Stokes, as we will.
Mr. Robins. Oh, absolutely.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Stokes.
Mr. Stokes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me personally just
say that it's always a pleasure to see Mr. Robins here.
Veterans have a great advocate in this gentleman and his
testimony is always very poignant and very personal to the
veterans of this country. With this facility being located in
my congressional district, I do very much appreciate the
testimony that you've given here.
I do want to acknowledge that the $22 million that was
appropriated for our garage was done under the chairmanship of
Mr. Lewis----
Mr. Robins. Thank you.
Mr. Stokes [continuing]. For which we're very appreciative.
I didn't know--what are you requesting here at this time?
Mr. Robins. It was $28.3 million.
Mr. Stokes. Okay, good. Well, again we thank you for your
testimony. It's been very helpful.
Mr. Robins. It's our loss, but the community's gain to have
you back. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Robins.
Mr. Stokes. Thank you very much.
Mr. Robins. I thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Appreciate your being with us.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 715 - 719--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
RONNY LANCASTER, MOREHOUSE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, THE ASSOCIATION OF
MINORITY HEALTH PROFESSIONS SCHOOLS
Mr. Lewis. Let me call upon Mr. Ronnie Lancaster, Morehouse
School of Medicine, The Association of Minority Health
Professions Schools.
Mr. Lancaster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. [presiding]. Mr. Lancaster, have you
received a copy of your prior testimony? I move that a copy of
your prior testimony will be put into your record and you may
summarize.
Mr. Lancaster. Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Welcome.
Mr. Lancaster. Thank you and the Members of the
Subcommittee for the opportunity to appear before you this
afternoon. I am Ronny Lancaster, Senior Vice President for
Management and Policy at the Morehouse School of Medicine in
Atlanta. However, today I appear before you as President of the
Association of Minority Health Professions Schools. This is an
association, which collectively, has trained over half of the
Nation's black physicians and dentists. Over 60 percent of the
Nation's pharmacists and black PhDs in science and 75 percent
of the black veterinarians in this country. We are an
association comprised of 12 member schools located throughout
the country.
Our association has two goals. First, to improve the health
of all Americans--including African-Americans and other
minorities--as well as poor citizens living in other
underserved communities all across the United States. Our
second goal is to improve the representation of African-
Americans and other minorities and to help professions.
I am here today to support and to request level funding for
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry--or ATSDR.
As you do know, ATSDR is the agency which, among other things,
is concerned with the relationship between human illness and
exposure to hazardous substances.
My supplement consists of only three points--and so, I
believe I may not use all of my time. However, before
mentioning these three points--very quickly--I would request
that the record reflect our sincere appreciation to this
subcommittee for its outstanding work and particularly that of
Congressman Stokes for his outstanding leadership in helping
the safeguard the help of all Americans, especially that of our
most at-risk citizens or foreign minority citizens.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Consider that done. [Laughter.]
Mr. Stokes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lancaster. While we are saddened to learn of Mr. Stokes
impending retirement, we are very appreciative for his 30 years
of service to this Congress and to the Nation. In our view, it
has been exactly that. Service which has been his hallmark, not
only to the very fortunate residents of Cleveland, Ohio and the
residents of the State, but to all Americans. I would only add,
Mr. Chairman, that it has been a personal privilege to be able
to sit across from Mr. Stokes during this hearing in this his
last year of service to the Congress and to this committee.
Mr. Chairman, now as promised--three very brief points.
First, the ATSDR, in our view, is important. It is performing
very important work in the field of environmental and
technological studies. This work has a very important impact on
public health. The Administration's budget proposal for fiscal
year 1999 of $64 million--which is a reduction of $10 million
below its current funding--would in our view severely hinder
that agency's ability to carryout its important activities. We,
therefore, recommend current funding at $74 million to allow
that agency to continue its important work.
Second, ATSDR has a cooperative agreement with our
association. This agreement, which I will add, has served as a
national model between Federal agencies and academic
institutions, allows our member institutions to conduct a
search which examines the consequences of exposure of hazardous
materials to at-risk populations in medically underserved
communities. We request continuation of the $4 million which
allows us to conduct this work--which could be accommodated
within level funding. I would add that this is the report which
I will be delighted to leave with the Subcommittee which
details, Mr. Chairman, the work of our member schools with this
agency. While we're delighted--I'm sorry that Mr. Lewis had to
leave--because I wanted to point out----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. He'll be sure to get a copy of this
report and if there's not objection--we'll have a copy of this
in the record, as well.
Mr. Lancaster. Thank you. I was looking forward to pointing
out that one of member schools--an outstanding school--the
Charles Drew University of Medicine and Science--in Los
Angeles. We're not fortunate enough to have one in New Jersey
or in Ohio--but there are 11 other institutions located across
the country.
Mr. Chairman, my third and final point is this. The work
being conducted under the cooperative agreement has important
implications for at-risk populations. For example, the National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey indicates that poor
children who are affected by lead poisoning are up to eight
times a greater risk than non-poor children; or that one in
five African-American children living in housing which was
constructed before 1946, is affected by lead poisoning. The
work that we're doing at our institution helps to examine the
way in which lead is transmitted in utero from mother to
infant. So the work that these schools are doing collectively,
help to identify and helps to determine how illnesses can be
prevented and treated. Illnesses resulting from exposure to
toxic substances.
So in closing, Mr. Chairman, I'd only like to express my
appreciation and the appreciation of our member schools to the
subcommittee for your outstanding work. To Mr. Stokes,
particularly, and finally to simply request continuation of
funding at the current level.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Lancaster for your
recommendation and your perspective on a number of very
important programs. To you and to your group, as well as
certainly to our committee members, as well.
Mr. Stokes.
Mr. Stokes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want the record
to show that I've had the privilege of working for a number of
years with this organization, AMPS, on the Labor, Health and
Human Services and Education Subcommittee under the leadership
of Dr. Louis Sullivan with whom Mr. Lancaster works at
Morehouse College--Morehouse School of Medicine.
Dr. Sullivan, of course, was the former Secretary of Health
and Human Services. Due to this organization, we have a number
of programs that were established at theinstitutions that he
makes reference to--a significant number of programs that were
introduced through that particular Subcommittee. But I'd like the
record to show something--Mr. Lancaster in trying to come in up under
his five minutes--was very considerate of the Subcommittee's time. I
think it's important for us to have this in the record.
AMPS is an organization which represents 12 historically
black health professions schools in the country. Combined,
these institutions have graduated 60 percent of the Nation's
African-American pharmacists; 50 percent of the African-
American physicians and dentists; 75 percent of the African-
American veterinarians. Moreover, recently according to the
Department of Education--of the 4,645 PhDs awarded in the
biological life sciences in 1984-1985 school year--only 87 PhDs
were granted to African-Americans. In the health professions,
related scientists among the total 2,069 degrees conferred only
90 were awarded to African-American. But the majority of these
degrees are granted by historically black colleges and
universities. In 1989, of the 23 percent of the doctoral
degrees awarded to African-Americans were by Meharry Medical
College.
Since 1975, over 10 percent of all doctorates and
biomedical sciences, awarded the African-Americans, have been
awarded by Meharry School of Graduate Studies. In 1995, Meharry
Medical College graduated six PhDs in pharmacology and one PhD
in medicinal chemistry. These numbers may seem small, but they
are a significant representation of the contributions made by
these 12 organizations. To the education of African-Americans
of the graduate level of biomedical sciences. I just thought,
Mr. Chairman, that ought to be a part of the record here so
that we can understand the importance of this particular
organization that Mr. Lancaster is the president of. I thank
you again for your testimony.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Absolutely. Thank you very much, Mr.
Stokes. Returning to Mr. Lancaster.
Mr. Lancaster. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thanks to Mr.
Stokes for pointing that out. Less than 2 percent of the
Nation's PhDs are black and less than 3 percent of the Nation's
physicians are black. So you can see, as a result, we've got a
lot of work to do and thanks to the efforts of these
gentlemen--we're on our way in helping our communities.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you.
Mr. Stokes. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 723 - 728--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESSES
HON. KAREN L. THURMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
FLORIDA
HON. BRUCE DELANEY, MAYOR, CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA
Mr. Frelinghuysen. The Committee is pleased to welcome one
of our colleagues, Congresswoman Thurman, who is here to
introduce our next witness, the Mayor of the City of
Gainesville, Florida--The Honorable Bruce Delaney.
Congresswoman, welcome. Thank you very much for being here on
behalf of Chairman Lewis who had to step out.
Mrs. Thurman. I understand.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. From all Committee members, we're
thrilled to have you.
Mrs. Thurman. Thanks. I'm certainly glad to be here, Mr.
Chairman. Mr. Stokes, thank you for participating in these--
we're also glad to see you here.
Mr. Stokes. Thank you, it's good to see you.
Mrs. Thurman. Actually, I told the Mayor that this is the
third time we've been able to be before you all for this
particular project, so that the third time ought to be a charm.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Stokes. Absolutely.
Mrs. Thurman. We even brought pictures this time because
first of all, we wanted to thank the Committee for some of the
other things that we've been able to do in Gainesville under
the leadership of the Mayor and his commission. At the end,
there's the Martin Luther King Center, it's a--multipurpose
center, thank you. Cedar Grove which was actually some
affordable housing issues that we've worked on and then--I
can't even read it.
Mr. Delaney. Those are the two major projects that we're
thankful for and then the other pictures all relate to the
project that we're here discussing.
Mrs. Thurman. I guess there's two things that I would like
to say. One is that this is such a huge issue, not only for
this area but also for the State because of our aquifer. This
is one way for us to get this cleaned up where we're not going
to have anymore of the problems which those detect.
The second thing is that it's also going to help us within
this area that we've talked about that you've helped us so much
with already. This is kind of what we think is the linchpin for
economic development in that area. I know that we're all very
concerned about that and what's going on in this country; and
rebuilding and revitalizing areas that have come somewhat under
depressed. So we've done some great things already. As I've
said, this time is the third time is the charm, and with that
certainly I will give over to the expert of the mayor of the
city of Gainesville. We very pleased to have him with us today.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Welcome, Mayor.
Mr. Delaney. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and members
of the Committee. What we're here seeking funds for is what we
consider to be an important initiative--the Sweetwater Branch
Stormwater Project. The 1,700 acres drained by Sweetwater Creek
is that thin blue line is really the industrial and commercial
heart of old Gainesville. It was created before there was any
kind of stormwater retention or anyone ever gave any thought to
that. The branch which is just a thin blue line leaves--please
follow the arrows down to where it says Payne's Prairie. It's
actually into Payne's Prairie, which is a 20,000-acre State
preserve. It's home to a lot of endangered and threatened
species. It's really a place that it's like the Okeefenokee;
it's like the everglades. It's an absolutely wonderful place
and it's become a key for eco-tourism in north Florida. It has
tremendous visitorship. But the nutrients that are carried out
there by that Sweetwater Branch are actually changing the
vegetation that's on Payne's Prairie and making it no longer
hospitable for many of the species that rely on it. You'd have
to know what it looked like before to appreciate it.
But generally what the Prairie should look like is just
grass as far as the eye can see. That lower right-hand picture
shows all kinds of woody vegetation springing up. That's one
problem. Kind of separate from that on Payne's Prairie is an
Alachua Sink--it's a natural sink hole. It's about two and one-
half miles from where the creek enters Payne's Prairie just off
this map. Our creeks in Gainesville don't go to rivers and then
to the oceans, they go underground and become tomorrow's
drinking water. That's what's happening--it's carrying all this
gook off the streets, fertilizer off people's yards and it's
only in a distance of three miles going into what amounts to
our reservoir. So with these problems in mind, the City and
actual county and the Water Management District in Florida and
Department of Environmental Protection formed a partnership for
solutions.
The first step was to do a study, naturally, which was
needed. That should be completed by next year. With this
partnership is now seeking in its ecosystem management
solutions to the problem. The project devised by these groups
would reduce or eliminate the sediment, the nutrients and the
other pollutants being discharged through the branch and into
the sink hole. The project consists of three components. One is
the purchase of needed sites--the two sites of that gaudy, sort
of purple color that says Sweetwater Limited. The other side is
up higher--it's yellow. One of the sites is a brown field.
We've already received a $100,000 EPA grant for the assessment
of that site which is an ongoing project.
The second thing these sites would do--what the money would
do--would be for the construction of sediment and debris
removal systems and the construction of nutrient removal
systems which would probably be vegetation-based. The benefits
of this requested appropriation would be environmental which
I've summarized and social which are just as critical to our
healthy growth and development in the City of Gainesville.
What's happened in Gainesville--off to the left--you can't see
it, is Interstate 75. It was completed in the 1960's at which
point Gainesville got up and headed West. Here's what happened.
Leaving the eye and virtually the entire African-American
community and lower-income whites on the Eastern side of town.
The resultant problems--you're all familiar with them, even
more familiar with them than I am, I'm sure. The problems of
crime, poverty and emptiness of stores at home--what have you--
as the city has fled West.
We've tried to attack that. In fact, I feel at times like
I'm the Mayor of East Gainesville, rather than the Mayor of
Gainesville. Because West Gainesville takes care of itself--
pride and investment goes there--it's not a problem. The
problem is in East Gainesville. We believe that these basins
will help East Gainesville in three ways. They'll help us to
continue the redevelopment of the old downtown by permitting
more intense use to each building site. They'll help us with
the creation of jobs.
I might add that we've used the section 108 loans--the HUD
section 108 loans--to attract major developers to the downtown.
We have one project underway and 200 considerations. They
haven't used section 108 loans, but that's been an important
part of the conversation that got them there, and hopefully,
we'll be able to use one of those yet.
The creation of jobs, redeveloped; the creation of a park
at each stormwater site--there's been similar parks created in
Tallahassee; there's been similar parks created in Orlando; and
they've had the impact of bringing back the neighborhoods
around them. So if you can visualize particularly that yellow
site which is--the purple site doesn't have much in the way of
people living around it, but the yellow site has severely
impacted neighborhoods around it that would benefit from the
creation of that park. So I'm here to respectfully request an
appropriation of $2 million as an EPA grant to help us with the
resurgence of East Gainesville. I appreciate your time and
interest.
I might say, Mr Frelinghuysen, that I grew up in your
district----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. My loss. [Laughter.]
Mrs. Thurman. Obviously, yes. [Laughter.]
Mr. Delaney. Your father was the first person I ever voted
for, I think, in 1968. [Laughter.]
I just want to say I heard that.
Gainesville is about to experience the same kind of growth
that Morris County did in the 1950's and 1960's. Right now,
it's pretty much in urban form and rural on the outside just
like Morristown was. The same thing is about to happen. We're
about that pretty intensive growth and we need to--if we can't
control the growth better--at least control the impact of it.
We're restoring clean water--7 million gallons per day--that's
7 billion gallons in three years. We could be storing clean
water, instead of storing polluted water. So any help you can
give us, we'd appreciate it.
Mr. Lewis [presiding]. Mayor Delaney, we sure appreciate
your being here. Thank you, Ms. Thurman.
Mrs. Thurman. I appreciate it.
Mr. Lewis. Mayor Delaney, if you come up to Morristown, the
mayor of Morristown, is Jay Delaney. [Laughter.]
Mr. Stokes. I just want to let you know, Mr. Mayor, that no
mayor in America has a more fierce advocate than you have in
Karen Thurman. [Laughter.]
She is relentless on behalf of her congressional district.
Mr. Delaney. Well, I appreciate that.
Mr. Stokes. It's to the point where every time I see her,
she mentions water. Keeps me conscious at all times on water
projects in that State.
Mr. Lewis. I'll never forget last year Mr. Stokes came up
with an amendment on the floor and said, ``Jerry, you know
we've got to do something here. Karen Thurman is all over me.''
[Laughter.]
Mr. Delaney. I hope you take his advice.
Mrs. Thurman. Thank you. I want you all to know that I only
bring those projects that get support from our State, our
counties and our cities so that we're not sharing the whole
burden--this is really a joint effort.
Mr. Stokes. We appreciate that.
Mrs. Thurman. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 733 - 736--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
HOWARD GELLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR AN ENERGY-
EFFICIENT ECONOMY
Mr. Lewis. From the American Council for an Energy
Efficient Economy, Howard Geller, the Executive Director.
Welcome.
Mr. Geller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear. I'm the Executive Director, as you
indicated, of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy, a nonprofit research analysis and advocacy
organization.
We are here today to support the funding increase for EPA's
global Climate Change Technology Initiative. Particularly the
energy-efficiency and pollution prevention programs done by
EPA's Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Division. We recommend
that the Congress fund as much of the Administration's $205
million request in this area in fiscal year 1999, as is
possible. There are three or four key reasons we seek for this
funding increase.
First, these programs are really a success. EPA has shown
great creativity in developing cost-effective programs that are
having a substantial impact. The Green Lights program has
convinced thousands of businesses to implement cost-effective
energy-saving lighting upgrades in their facilities. Ten
percent of the commercial building space in the country has now
signed up for this program. Over 500 manufacturers are
participating in the Energy Star Labeling program which is
educating consumers about energy-saving appliances, air
conditioning equipment, heating systems and so forth. These are
just a few examples of the impact that this program is having
in the marketplace. These programs are good for our Nation's
economy. EPA estimates that as of last year, these programs
were saving consumers more than $1 billion on their energy
bills. For every dollar by EPA, consider a saving over $60.
This ratio is growing year-by-year as the programs mature and
its implementation expands.
Thirdly, of course, these programs are good for the
environment. Energy efficient and pollution prevention are a
major component of our Nation's efforts to reduce the emissions
that are contributing to global warming and climate change. EPA
estimate programs cut emissions by 11 million metric tons of
carbon this past year which is equivalent to taking about eight
million cars off the road in terms of the avoided emissions.
In addition the programs are reducing the pollutants that
cause acid rain, urban smog and lots of other environmental
problems. Most important, they're doing this as an economic
benefit for the country, not an economic cost as is typically
associated with a smoke-stack, tailpipe-type emissions
controls. Of course, the program also has very broad support.
The Subcommittee, I believe, has received letters from hundreds
of companies in the past. Supporting these programs, you have
major companies like Mobil, GM, electric utilities, like
Southern California Edison and American Electric Power in
Ohio--that are supporting, participating and embracing these
programs, even though they do have some problems with the
climate treaty negotiated as assembled in Kyoto.
In short, these programs make good business sense. If
they're so effective, I think it's reasonable to ask why is
more funding needed. They are successful, but much greater
energy, economic and environmental benefits can be achieved if
the programs were expanded. So far only 10 percent of the
commercial cost basis are participating in Green Light. More
work is needed to convince other companies to participate in
and provide the services that EPA is providing--information
training, technical assistance for participants. There's also
additional products that could be covered in programs like the
Energy Star Labeling program.
So to summarize, the climate change and pollution
prevention programs provide many important benefits to the
Nation. By helping to eliminate energy wastes in a highly cost-
effective manner, the programs are a sensible response to the
threat of global climate change. They are justified even if
climate change turns out not to be a major concern. I hope
members of the Congress will support greater funding for these
programs, independent of opinions concerning the Kyoto climate
treaty. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr.
Geller. Appreciate your being here. Mr. Stokes.
Mr. Stokes. Thank you very much. Appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Geller. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 739 - 744--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
S. WILLIAM BECKER, STAPPA/ALAPCO
Mr. Stokes. Thank you, appreciate it. Mr. William Becker is
our next witness, of STAPPA/ALAPCO.
Mr. Becker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee. My name is Bill Becker. I'm the Executive Director
of two national associations representing the 54 States and
territories and 150 major metropolitan areas having air
pollution control programs throughout the country. We
appreciate this opportunity to testify on EPA's budget request
for fiscal year 1999 and specifically on the two sections of
the Clean Air Act that relate to the funding of air pollution
programs in the State and local level--sections 103 and 105.
We believe the President's budget request is grossly
inadequate to fund State and local activities in two principal
areas. One with regard to the PM fine or PM 2.5 monitoring
network and the other with regard to the rest of the
implementation activities under the Clean Air Act. Accordingly,
we are requesting that an increase of $121 million be made
available to fund in two parts; $23 million for the monitoring
network; and $98 million for the implementation of the rest of
the Clean Air program.
I'd like to spend the next three minutes to tell you why.
With respect to the particulate matter, EPA has estimated that
it's going to cost about $98.3 million to deploy a national
particulate matter PM 2.5 program--monitoring program
throughout the entire country. This program would fund the
purchase of equipment, as well as the analysis of the data and
the operation and maintenance of the facilities. On numerous
occasions, EPA has promised that they will be funding this
fully and with new money. Unfortunately, this is not what
happened. Instead of providing $9.3 million to fund the $2.5
monitoring network, EPA has in fact only funded $75.3 million
in new money to date--a shortfall of about $23 million what EPA
promised to provide.
We're pleased that the Senate, who invented the ISTEA, has
recognized this problem and we're hopeful that the House during
conference committee on ISTEA, will also recognize the problem.
We're more hopeful that the Appropriations Committee will
appropriate those funds. We urge you to increase the section
103 funding for those funds that the monitoring network which
is so sorely needed by the $23 million. While monitoring is
very important, State and local agencies, as you know, ranging
from New Jersey DEP to South Coast Air Quality Management
District to the heart of EPA, have numerous other activities to
carry out. Small control measures, air toxic implementation
activities, enforcement of air quality rules and laws and
assistance of small businesses as a few examples.
Yet while the need for Federal funding is increasing, the
funding for operating programs since the year 1995 has
decreased by $40 million or 23 percent during this time of
increasing responsibilities. These cuts have seriously affected
the ability of State and local air pollution agencies around
the country not only new emerging activities, but also to
maintain the successes that many existing agencies, including
today's New York Times article about the South Coast Air
Quality Management District have acknowledged. It is not only
State and local agencies who recognize the need for additional
funding. EPA has as well.
Last year, in cooperation with our associations, EPA
published a study that estimated the additional costs that were
needed to fund State and local air pollution programs,
particularly the Federal portion of those costs. And the study,
which we shared with the subcommittee, concluded that to
operate a good, not perfect, program, we would need an increase
in Federal funding of $98.3 million over last year's levels.
This would not include the monitoring network.
These estimates included savings from eliminating
completing programs and curtailing lower priority initiatives
that simply weren't necessary any more. So, in spite of the
significant shortfall identified by the meat survey, we are
chagrined that EPA has not only not proposed budget increases
in fiscal year 1999, it has actually called for decreases in
funding and has proposed reprogramming funds away from these
activities.
So, in conclusion, we're here to ask for an increase of
$121 million--$23 million for the monitor network, $98 million
from the rest of the Clean Air Act. And we hope that you'll do
whatever you possibly can to make certain that happens.
Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Becker. Mr. Stokes?
Mr. Stokes. No; thank you Mr. Becker, very much.
Mr. Becker. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lewis. Appreciate your being here very much.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 747 - 753--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESSES
ANDRIJ HOLIAMAN, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, MICKEY LELAND NATIONAL URBAN AIR
TOXICS RESEARCH CENTER
MARCUS M. KEY, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON, HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER
Mr. Lewis. Our next witness, Mr. Raymond Campion, of the
Mickey Leland National Urban Toxics Center. I don't see him in
the audience. Is there somebody?
Mr. Holiaman. Yes, I'm Andrij Holiaman. I'm representing
him----
Mr. Lewis. All right.
Mr. Holiaman [continuing]. And the center today. He had a
tragic loss----
Mr. Lewis. I understand he did, yes.
Mr. Holiaman. I appreciate your consideration of the change
of speakers.
Mr. Lewis. Would you give me your name for the record?
Mr. Holiaman. Andrij Holiaman.
Mr. Lewis. Holiaman?
Mr. Holiaman. Right.
Mr. Lewis. Right. Thank you.
Mr. Holiaman. I appreciate the opportunity to report to the
Subcommittee on the progress of the Mickey Leland National
Urban Air Toxics Research Center. I want to introduce one of
our members of our board, Dr. Marcus Key, professor emeritus at
the University of Texas, Houston, Health Science Center, who
was the original head of NIOSH, I believe. Our board is now
complete, with the recent nomination of Dr. Felton Lewis, from
the Urban House Corporation, who was recently appointed by
President Clinton. Our board represents a very good
partnership, and what we have is a good example of the type of
partnerships that exists at the Mickey Leland Center.
The Subcommittee has been most helpful to the Center in the
past. We now have a very active research program with two major
initiatives that have been funded to address key risk
assessment questions that we face by the EPA and by Congress in
the next few years. These are going to be conducted at Columbia
and at the Environmental Occupational Health Sciences
Institute, in New Jersey. They have been very well received by
the scientific community and by the EPA, and they will measure
the relationship between personal exposures and ambient air
concentrations of air toxics.
We've also established partnerships for the conduct of
these studies with the Health Effects Institute, the State of
California, and are working to a partnership with the State of
Texas at this time. This leveraging of partnerships with
government agencies, States, industry, and public interest
groups has greatly assisted the Leland Center's research
program.
In addition, we are working with the CDC National Center
for Health Statistics in the NHANES program that begins this
year. The Leland Center is the only non-governmental agency
working with the NHANES program, and we are carrying out
studies on personal exposures of human subjects to air toxics
as part of this national survey on people's health and
nutrition.
New research programs will also begin this year. The first
will develop an approved methodology for assessing personal
exposure to fine particulates and the metals of these
particulates. This work represents an extension of the ongoing
effort that we currently have to make a relationship between
personal exposures and anti-concentrations of air toxics. The
second program will start a study on the human health effects
and need being caused by these metals on these particulates.
And as you recall from the recent National Research Council
report, these are two of the primary areas that have been
identified as gaps in knowledge that need to be filled in the
National Research Council report. And we clearly have
established in this area the Leland Center in conducting this
work.
We feel that our research is clearly on target with the
national needs and that these data will be available for the
next round of standard setting by the EPA. In addition, we also
are starting a small grants program that provides funds for
specific community-related projects focused on health effects
of urban air in communities and sub-populations.
Our request for fiscal year 1999 is $2.6 million, which
will allow us to continue our ongoing studies and allow us to
move forward with these additional research programs on
fineparticulate exposure, metals effects, and the small grants programs
as detailed in our prepared testimony.
In summary, we feel strongly that this private-public
partnership in environmental health research, as envisioned by
Congress in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, has come into
fruition. Again, we thank the subcommittee for their support
and their patience of our program. We'd be happy to answer any
questions.
Mr. Lewis. We very much appreciate your appearing today,
and, for the record, I think it needs to be said that Raymond
Campion, who was going to be with us, who is President of the
Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics Research Center, had a
tragic tragedy in his family last week. His wife passed away,
and we appreciate the both of you being here. I don't have
additional questions.
Mr. Stokes.
Mr. Stokes. No, I just would join with you in thanking the
gentlemen for their appearance here this afternoon. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Holiaman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Key. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 756 - 766--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
ALBERT GRAY, WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Albert Gray, Dr. Gray, Water Environment
Federation.
Mr. Gray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today.
The Federation has testified before before this subcommittee,
and we appreciate the opportunity to do so again.
Mr. Lewis. We'll put your entire statement in the record,
as you know----
Mr. Gray. I understand.
I'm the Deputy Executive Director of the Water Environment
Federation, which is headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia, and
I'm here today on behalf of this Federation, which is an
organization of some 40,000 plus engineers, scientists, and
practicing professionals who work in the water quality
industry. The Federation is urging you to support an adequate
level of funding for the National Water Quality programs that
are administered by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency in their fiscal year 1999 budget request.
The three areas that we're specifically highlighting today
in this summary of the testimony that we think are very
important from a funding standpoint are watershed management,
the financing of infrastructure through the State Development
Loan Fund, and the area of research.
The Federation believes that the EPA activities that
support watershed management and the reduction of non-point
source pollution should be made a priority. We have seen
substantial improvement in the quality of our Nation's water
since the Clean Water Act passage in 1972 established
technology-based treatment primarily for point sources, but to
achieve the further progress that's needed to clean up what's
been estimated to be the remaining 60 some odd percent of
pollution loads on our streams and bodies of water, we really
need to adopt the watershed approach. We need to address
sources of pollution which include runoff from farm fields,
city streets, atmospheric deposition among others. The current
approach really provides no means to effectively set priorities
for those types of pollution. However, the watershed approach
will allow for a comprehensive and integrated approach to
protecting all water resources, including uplands, drainage
basins, wetlands, as well as surface and ground waters.
We feel that Congress should support those activities which
provide flexibility and encourage management of water quality
on a watershed basis, including specifically funding for
President Clinton's Clean Water Action Plan. We strongly
support the additional $145 million requested in EPA fiscal
year 1999 budget allocated to this implementation of this Clean
Water Action Plan and water restoration initiative.
One area where the Federation is currently working to
implement watershed management is through biosolids recycling.
Land application of biosolids, which is a by-product of waste
water treatment, will effectively recycle this nutrient-rich
organic product, and it's comparable in nutrient value to
commercial fertilizer. To promote this practice, the
Federation, in cooperation with the Associate of Metropolitan
Sewerage Agencies and the EPA, recently a few months ago,
formed the National Biosolids Partnership. And we're urging
Congress to support this partnership as it promotes
environmentally sound alternatives for biosolids management.
One other key budget item that will support watershed
management, including non-point source pollution program
funding and funding for water quality research, and
capitalization of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, the
SRF.
We are supporting funding for addressing non-point sources
of pollution. The fiscal year 1999 EPA budget specifically
requests $200 million in assistance to States to address this
problem through their non-point source pollution management
programs. Investments in best management practices and other
measures geared toward meeting localwater quality needs could
result in substantial reductions in overall pollutant loadings from
agriculture, mining, construction, street, and rooftop runoff.
On the topic of research, WEF is supporting an increase in
EPA's water quality research budget. We feel more research is
needed to ensure regulatory and management decisions are
technically credible, cost-effective, and, as was heard from
others testifying, are based on sound science. Watershed
management will only be successful if we have a more thorough
understanding of the ambient water quality conditions and the
impact on those waters of both point and non-point sources of
pollution. We call your attention to the fact that since 1980,
EPA's water quality research budget has steadily decreased
while Clean Water Act requirements, including advanced waste
water treatment, biosolids management, combined sewer overflow
storm water control, removal of toxic constituents among
others, have continued to require additional research to meet
the challenges that is presented by those environmental
stresses. Research and technology development are vital to
improving our understanding and base of knowledge regarding
water pollution problems and to developing solutions which will
minimize, eliminate, or prevent adverse environmental and human
health impacts.
We would like to ask the Subcommittee to continue its
support of cooperative research efforts and our foundation, the
Water Environment Research Foundation. This represents an
ongoing collaborative effort between the Federal Government,
cities, and preeminent water quality specialists to further our
understanding of water quality problems and solutions. WEF
urges the subcommittee to support WERF and its water quality
research goals.
Finally, on the subject of financing infrastructure, which
we think is becoming increasingly critical, the Water
Environment Federation supports an appropriation of at least $2
billion for the Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund
capitalization program for fiscal year 1999. Our review of data
based on an annualized basis indicates the annual needs for
wastewater infrastructure to be on the order of $16 billion.
Based on 1990 Bureau of Census data, we estimate the current
level of aggregate spending at all levels of government for
wastewater capital needs is $9.7 billion. So we're seeing a gap
of $6.3 billion every year between what is needed to maintain
the level of waste water treatment and waste water
infrastructure services and the actual expenditures. This gap
is perhaps the single most significant figure in our current
debate about clean water needs.
The Federation, in partnership again with the Association
of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies and others, has undertaken a
study to better quantify the financial requirements of
developing a sustainable infrastructure system related to waste
water. As you know, the Clean Water Act needs surveys that have
been done by EPA show the total capitalization requirement of
about $137 billion, but our estimates would indicate that that
number is low, and doesn't account for some of the needs such
as combined sewer overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, storm
water, and some of these types of water quality management
challenges.
In addition to capital needs, operation and maintenance
costs are also roughly equivalent in magnitude to the capital
costs I've just reviewed.
Given these large funding needs, the Clinton Administration
has requested only $1.075 billion for meeting wastewater
treatment facility needs through the State Revolving Fund in
Fiscal Year 1998. We believe that $2 billion is the minimum
amount that should be appropriated. Continued Federal
assistance for municipal waste water treatment facility
construction is crucial if we are to fulfill this basic public
health need.
The Federation urges Congress to move expeditiously to
approve funding for these important water quality programs.
This concludes our statement, and I'd be happy to entertain any
questions asked.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Dr. Gray. As you know, it's
been a long day, and we have two more witnesses; and we're
about an hour behind. Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you. No questions.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you.
Mr. Gray. Thank you very much for your time.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We have six more witnesses.
Mr. Lewis. I can't stay for six more witnesses. I've got to
be out of here.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 770 - 776--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
DAVID NEMTZOW, PRESIDENT, ALLIANCE TO SAVE ENERGY
Mr. Lewis. David Nemtzow.
David Nemtzow.
Mr. Nemtzow. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lewis. I hope I pronounced that somewhat close, but----
Mr. Nemtzow. You got it right.
Mr. Lewis. I do have to go.
Mr. Nemtzow. I see, and I will be brief with my time and
yours. You'll be here all day, and I thank you for allowing me
to testify.
Mr. Lewis. Let me mention one thing: there is a meeting
that I really do have to go to, and Mr. Frelinghuysen has
agreed to chair the rest of the meeting. Before I leave, I just
want to mention for those who've been through this long day
with us that I especially want to recognize our recorder. He is
highly professional and hasn't bothered us at all outside of
saying, ``Why don't you give me the right name?'' And we
appreciate your help today.
Please go right ahead.
Mr. Nemtzow. Thank you.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Alliance to Save Energy was
founded by Charles Percy two years ago and honored by your
friend, Chuck Embrecht, at our annual dinner. I just wanted to
let you know that this year we are honoring your colleague,
David Skaggs, at our annual dinner and we're having our newest
board member join us. That's William Kies, Governor Wilson's--I
think he is chairman of the CEC, so we maintain our close ties
to your State which has always been the leader in energy
efficiency, as you know so well.
Mr. Lewis. I appreciate that.
Mr. Nemtzow. We were founded in 1977 by Charles Percy. We
are chaired today by Senator Jeff Bingaman and co-chaired by
Senator Jeffords and your colleagues John Porter and Ed Markey.
And we have 75 businesses who join us, and we have 21 years of
energy efficiency expertise. We follow the EPA programs quite
closely and are pleased to share our views. And thank you again
for the opportunity.
I know it's just a comment, but I think Mr. Geller did a
very nice job of explaining the Energy Star program and the
benefits. You know them well. You've been through this.
Mr. Lewis. Right.
Mr. Nemtzow. I took a few notes, and perhaps I can sort of
deviate from the script and sort of cut to the chase if it
pleases the Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. We appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Nemtzow. This is a very successful program. I don't
think you can do much better in the programs that are under the
jurisdiction of this subcommittee. I think it deserves the
substantial and significant increase that the administration
has requested. The numbers are very powerful, and these
programs work, from the Green Lights program that helps
companies like Mobil understand energy savings opportunities to
companies like IBM or Compaq computers who produce these
products that save energy and earn the energy start label.
And so for companies that are very smart--Mobil employs as
many engineers as any company in America. They're a very good
company, but with EPA's help, they found $77 million in energy
savings. This ad ran in The New York Times, and The Post, and
other places where Mobil acknowledges that even a company as
smart as they are still needs the help of agencies like EPA to
identify these energy-saving and, therefore, pollution-avoiding
opportunities. So if Mobil needs the help, you can imagine what
it's like for the small companies in your district or in Morris
County who will not be able to find these opportunities without
EPA's help.
And that is why, as you heard, these programs have led to
$1 billion in savings, and that's very significant. The reason
for the big increase is threefold, Mr. Chairman.
Number one, the number of participants is steadily
increasing, and that means more and more companies and other
players--universities and hospitals--need EPA's help.
Number two, as they grow, the opportunities to work to help
them share energy savings grows. Only one out of five Fortune
500 companies are even participating, and smaller companies
have a bigger challenge.
Number three, most importantly, is that almost each month
EPA announces a new partnership with a private industry.
Perhaps you heard when they announced Energy Star TV's and
VCR's recently. When TV's and VCR's are left off, they still
use energy to run the timer and the remote control and by going
to the Energy Star model, they can save consumers $500 million
a year and cut pollution.
So, there you have it. You have a very successful program
supported by corporate America. We participated in a new poll
that shows 61 percent of Americans, a majority, support energy
efficiency and renewable energy over any other energy source.
But I think what's most important for you to consider as
you consider the budget the challenges before this agency are
fewfold. One is the issue of Kyoto and carbon dioxide. Mobil
doesn't support the Kyoto treaty; yet, they acknowledge that
this helps them create a hedge against carbon dioxide, and
that's something you must consider. Regardless of what you
think on Kyoto, is carbon dioxide a big enough risk that you
want to have some insurance? Energy efficiency is great
insurance on CO2. Never mind the other pollutants.
Number two, this program has great support. Perhaps you
will recall a few years ago when your counterpart in the Senate
proposed cutting back this program dramatically. Senator
Jeffords and Senator Bingaman went to the floor, and were very
successful in overturning that. It resulted in getting an
increase, and you have supported an increase in the program in
the past; and we thank you.
This program is very popular in corporate America, with the
public, and I think with your colleagues. And I think with good
reason.
Finally, I know what you're thinking. You have a big
budget. You've heard all day about programs that are priorities
that produce value. I don't doubt that. But I have a challenge
to you: this program gets $40 million a year. It produces a
billion dollars in savings. That's a 25 to 1 ratio. Any other
program you have, Mr. Chairman, that can deliver 25 to 1, I
think you should give an increase. I know this program can meet
that standard, and I hope you will agree that its a priority.
It lowers all the pollutants that we care about--
NOX, SO2, carbon dioxide, particulates--
the range because they're all produced from energy waste.
And number three, it's voluntary. It has the strong support
of businesses. It's exactly the way that I know you want this
government to operate. The Alliance to Save Energy certainly
does--non-regulatory program.
I think it's a winner. You're still saying, ``Where am I
going to find the money?'' One thing you might want to think
about is that the Federal government is the biggest energyuser
in the country. The Feds spend $8 billion a year on energy, of which
over $1 billion is wasted, according to our estimates. This isn't just
aircraft carriers. This is military housing and those VA hospitals and
the public housing that's under your subcommittee's jurisdiction. We'd
be happy to work with you to identify opportunities to cut the utility
bills for the VA, for HUD, for NASA and all your agencies. You get
those savings, and you can invest them right into programs like this.
You get double duty. You're saving the taxpayers money on energy waste.
Then you can support priority programs to there's less than others
you've heard today. We'd be happy to work with you and your extremely
professional staff on that if you're interested.
Thank you again for your time. I know how busy you are, and
I wish you luck with this important subcommittee. And I hope
that the Energy Star program will become one of your
priorities.
Mr. Lewis. I appreciate your testimony. I want to say to
those who are remaining that we are about to swear in a new
Member of Congress, Mary Bono, from California. I was supposed
to be at a reception for her about an hour ago, so I'm going to
have to go to that. Mr. Frelinghuysen has agreed to help us
work through the balance of our list, but please don't note my
absence for these last few moments as not an interest in the
program to represent. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Nemtzow. We're convinced, sir, you still have the
biggest delegation. Don't you agree? [Laughter.]
Mr. Frelinghuysen [presiding] Thank you again for your
testimony.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 780 - 789--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
DAVID DERMER, CITY COMMISSIONER, CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Mr. Frelinghuysen. The Chair is pleased to recognize David
Dermer, City Commissioner, City of Miami, Florida.
Commissioner, welcome. Thank you for your patience.
Mr. Dermer. Thank you for having me.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. A copy of your full statement will be
put in the record. And our colleague, Ms. Meek, wanted to be
here to endorse your good work. She's a remarkable member of
this committee, and we're always excited to have her
participation. In her absence, we say thank you for being here.
Mr. Dermer. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I also would like
to introduce Mr. Bruce Henderson, who is our environmental
specialist for the City of Miami Beach.
Congressman Clay Shaw wanted to be here as well. However,
he had to chair a 3:00 p.m. meeting and could not attend.
Congresswoman Illeana Ros-Lehtinen also had a prior engagement.
But both of them would have liked to have been here in support
of two issues that I come before you today on.
The first is the Miami Beach Waterway Revitalization
Project, and the second one is the Water Sewer Restoration
Initiative.
The city of Miami Beach exists as a cluster of barrier
islands, with the Atlantic Ocean on one side and the Biscayne
Bay marine estuary on the other. The 6-mile long chain of
islands is subdivided by 39 miles of canals and waterways. Just
after the turn of the century, these natural waterways were
``improved'' by dredging and the construction of seawalls to
improve navigation and to stabilize the shorelines.
Over the years, these once pristine waterways have fallen
into decline. The waterway improvements so altered the
shoreline ecosystem that the mangroves and other native plants
have died out or been overgrown by nuisance species. The steel
and concrete seawalls have crumbled and have collapsed.
The loss of native plant communities and the failure of
seawalls have resulted in substantial erosion of the
shorelines. The shoreline erosion has undercut roadways and
public and private structures. The erosion also transported
tens of thousands of tons of sand and topsoil into the
waterways.
Basically, Mr. Chairman, what we've had is because this is
eroded away, a lot of our canals are being severely polluted
because of that, and that's why it is an EPA issue, an
environmental issue. Plus it is a health safety issue, because
with the erosion of the seawalls, the public roadworks continue
to erode as well.
Silt and sediment from the eroding shorelines havesmothered
benthic communities and clouded the water. In addition, the eroded
shorelines allow rain water runoff to wash nutrients, agricultural
chemicals and other pollutants into the waterways.
These water quality and ecosystem impacts have driven away
or killed off the manatees, porpoises, bait fish, and game fish
populations which used to be in abundance. The loss of the
native wetland plant communities from along the shorelines has
also substantially reduced the available habitat for many key
bird, reptile and animal species, including many migratory
birds which utilize our area as winter nesting grounds.
Through the Miami Beach Waterway Revitalization Project,
the City of Miami Beach proposes to address the shoreline
erosion problem in a truly innovative and environmentally
beneficial manner.
The city plans to replace the crumbling concrete and steel
seawalls with an innovative ``living seawall.'' This would
entail the demolition of the damaged seawalls and the
construction of a new wall comprised of carefully intermeshed
boulders of different sizes. The slope and elevation of the new
boulder walls will be designed to closely mimic the natural
tidal creek shorelines which pre-existed the seawalls. So, with
this program what we're doing is--it's a natural seawall. It's
going to be a lot less expensive and a lot more efficient in
the long run, and will bring back the native plants.
I know that the hour is late. What we're asking for $2.5
million to be able to get this done, and this is both an
environmental and a health safety issue--to be able to protect
the people of Miami Beach.
The other issue that I'm here before on is the water
system, which we already put out a bond issue--we did not wait
on Federal funding--basically to do two things: to improve the
waste water pump stations and also improvements to the gravity
collection system to reduce the amount of infiltration and
inflow into the waste water system. $105 million has been
spent. We're asking just for 10 percent of some sort of Federal
reimbursement, a 90-10 split, where locally we're picking up 90
percent. So those are the two issues that we come before humbly
today.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Commissioner, thank you.
Mr. Dermer. Before I leave, I just would be remiss if I
didn't commend HUD and the committee, especially on their
Community Impact Development Funding program.
So I thank you very much on behalf of the people of Miami
Beach.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you very much, Commissioner. Thank
you both.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 792 - 796--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
JOSEPH SUFLITA, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA, INTEGRATED PUBLIC/
PRIVATE ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSORTIUM (IPEC)
Mr. Frelinghuysen. It is my pleasure to recognize Joseph
Suflita from the University of Tulsa, a survivor of the hearing
process here.
Mr. Suflita Thank you for your patience.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Just because you're a survivor doesn't
mean you can go on at great length.
Mr. Suflita. No, we're not. [Laughter.]
Mr. Frelinghuysen. For the record, we would appreciate if
you would be good enough to summarize your statement. Your
statement in its entirety will be put in the record. Thank you
for being here.
Mr. Suflita. Mr. Chairman, thank you. On behalf of the
Integrated Public Private Energy and Environmental Consortium,
IPEC, I'd like to take the opportunity to thank you for
providing $1.5 million in funding for IPEC in the fiscal year
1998 Appropriations bill for the Environmental Protection
Agency.
Under your leadership and that of both houses of Congress,
the final Appropriations bill included initial funding for this
research consortium. Specifically, the funding provided for the
development of cost-effective environmental technology,
improved business practices, and technology transfer for the
domestic energy industry. It wouldn't have been possible
without the efforts of this subcommittee.
With initial funding under the science and technology
account of EPA, IPEC will implement a comprehensive mechanism,
or Center, to advance the consortium's research expertise in
environmental technology. The operating practices and linkages
of the independent sector will ensure that real problems in the
domestic petroleum industry are addressed with real, workable
solutions. The consortium includes the Universities of Tulsa,
Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Oklahoma State University.
We are pleased to report, as envisioned and originally
proposed, that State-level matching funds have been pledged to
support of IPEC, creating a true Federal-State partnership. In
fiscal year 1998, IPEC secured a pledge of $375,000 from the
Chancellor of Higher Education in the State.
IPEC officers met with EPA on several occasions to ensure
that we meet the Agency's requirements for funding a research
center and for the successful funding of IPEC. And IPEC is
proceeding in its solicitation and review process so that we'll
be in a position to fund projects as soon as possible. And part
and parcel of this, the Industrial Advisory Board of IPEC has
been formed and met for the first time on January 20. This 20-
member board is composed of environmental professionals
anddomestic petroleum--professionals from the domestic petroleum
industry and is dominated by independent oil producers. We are pleased
to report that this advisory board has recommended five projects at
this point to go forward for funding, and we anticipate more in the
coming months.
And this board, this Industrial Advisory Board, is our
measure of relevancy of research within the consortium, is
truly unique, and ensures that the consortium is meeting the
needs of the domestic energy industry. In fact, IPEC has
secured significant matching funds from industry or industry
organizations. The first five projects total $492,000, and the
investigators have secured another $502,000 for pursuit of
research.
As we have previously testified, the ability of small-and
medium-size producers to compete in a global market is
complicated by two factors: the cost of regulatory compliance
and the declining cost of crude oil. With your help, IPEC is
developing cost-effective solutions for environmental problems
that represent challenge to the industry. However, the fiscal
year 1998 appropriations is only a beginning. For example, our
Industrial Advisory Board has identified 26 critical research
needs. With the current funding, we can begin to address only a
fraction of these. There is much work to be done and we are
again requesting support of the subcommittee in the form
appropriations for fiscal year 1999. Specifically, IPEC is
seeking appropriations of $4 million for fiscal year 1999 and
the succeeding fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002 through the
Environmental Protection Agency.
The Consortium will be responsible for at least a 50
percent match of Federal appropriations with private sector and
State support over the 4-year period. The Consortium will be
subject to annual review to ensure the effective production of
data, regulatory assessments, and technology development
meeting the stated goals of the Consortium.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for your
attention, and to also thank you for your prospective support.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you very much, Mr. Suflita. Thank
you for testifying.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 799 - 850--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
DAVID SLADE, ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAMS
Mr. Frelinghuysen. David Slade, representing the
Association of National Estuary Programs. Gentlemen.
Mr. Slade. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Good afternoon.
Mr. Slade. Good afternoon. This is Bill Kerr from Florida
on my left and we're here with the Association of National
Estuary Programs. We are here so you could get an idea of the
programs out there. We're both citizens. We're both supporters
of the program. We're both private businessmen, and strongly
support the National Estuary Program. I'd also like to
personally thank you and your staff. They've been very helpful.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. A copy of your formal comments will be
put in the record, and I guess your comments are going to be
largely informal?
Mr. Slade. Yes. There's 28 national estuary programs, and
this is the tenth year; this is a Clean Water Act Program, so
it's like many of the Clean Water Act programs. It remains
unauthorized since 1992. Mr. Saxton, from your State, has
introduced a bill to reauthorize it, and we have 20 co-sponsors
of that and would reauthorize this program at $30 million,
which is our appropriations request. Twenty-eight NEPs. The
program has been in the developmental stage for a decade for 10
years--11 since 1987. And at this moment, 17 of the 28, and
next year 28 of the 28, are expected to be implemented. So
that's roughly $1 million per NEP.
We support it as citizens and as private businessmen
because this is not an old school command and control
regulatory program. This has really developed from the ground
up, and I'll have Bill describe with you his experience down
here with Indian River Lagoon.
Mr. Kerr. I'd like to make it short. I need to tell you the
reason that I have donated over 6 years of my life to this
program.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. And your name for the record?
Mr. Kerr. William W. Kerr. I'm from Melbourne, Florida.
When I was first involved with the Indian River Lagoon
program, it was 6 years ago. There were 150 State and Federal
agencies that had jurisdiction, each working in their own
little area of activity. Five years later, we brought everybody
to the table--all the environmental people, all the business
owners, everybody to the same table. Everybody that was
affected by the plan was at the table. They agreed to the plan.
The plan is effective. The plan is in place, and it is now
currently working effectively. Why do I know this? I spent like
15 or20 years as an environmental consultant, getting people
through the permitting process, both State and Federal, and it's
usually an antagonistic position. In this particular program, everybody
meets together, everybody comes up with the solutions, locally. And
it's supported by Federal dollars and also supported by State and local
agencies, and it is a very effective program.
Mr. Slade. We're asking for $30 million, which is a slight
increase from last year, and we have a special request within
that, if we are fortunate enough to get an increase in this
funding, we would like this funding to go to the programs. EPA
has automatically been taking 25 percent out.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. The Committee will so note that.
Mr. Slade. They have--and we would like to keep that level
there, and if there is an increase in appropriations out to the
programs.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I think philosophically that's where a
lot of us come from. I won't speak for the Committee, but
certainly I'm familiar with the work of a lot of the estuary
groups. I wasn't aware that you all worked together, but I
think that coordination is obviously important because that's
why you're here.
Mr. Kerr. The younger programs had to do it in 3 years, so
the older programs helped them. We feel the coordination is
essential to our programs.
Mr. Slade. The Administration has made the Clean Water
Action Plan proposal, and we, of course, support anything
that's going to clean up the waters. I guess in response to
that, all we have to say is that this program is up and
running. It's out there. It's in the implementation stage, and
for $30 million, it would be very beneficial.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, thank you for your testimony, and
thank you for your own personal contributions of time and
effort.
Mr. Kerr. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 853 - 858--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
JEROME SIEBERT, INSTITUTE FOR FOOD TECHNOLOGISTS
Mr. Frelinghuysen. The Chair recognizes Dr. Jerome Siebert,
Institute for Food Technologists.
Dr. Siebert, welcome this afternoon. Sorry you're almost
last on the batting order.
Mr. Siebert. It's okay. It's still 2:00 p.m. in California.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, for some of us here, I'm not sure
what it is.
Mr. Siebert. Understand yes.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. A copy of your full remarks will be in
the record.
Mr. Siebert. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. By way of
background, I'll just summarize the statement. My name is
Jerome Siebert. I'm an economist with the University of
California. I also serve as a public member of the Ruling
Marking Board and also on the Farm Services Agency as ex
officio. I do a lot of work with the California commodity
groups in terms of the application of farm technology.
The purpose of me being here today is that I represent 11
scientific societies whose recommendations are attached to the
testimony, and this coming together of 11 scientific societies
is rather unprecedented, and it really is over a proposed rule
by the Environmental Protection Agency which would assert
jurisdiction under FIFRA over all substances that plants
produce to protect themselves against pests and diseases as
well as the genetic materials necessary to produce these
substances. Due time materials developed through more
traditional plant breeding practices would be exempted from
registration requirements, but plant materials developed
through biotechnology generally would be subject to regulation.
The causes of concern for these 11 societies are numerous.
First of all, we're concerned that the development of new plant
varieties through biotechnology would be greatly discouraged.
Secondly, the registration requirements would create a major
barrier to market entry for entrepreneurs, college
laboratories, and small businesses that have been instrumental
in the advances made in this field. And thirdly, it would
render uneconomical the promising efforts to develop resistance
characteristics to address a variety of modern crop disease
problems. Furthermore, most Federal agencies and officials take
the position that there is no difference between genetically
modified food crops and traditional food crops, which this
particular regulation would violate.
In addition, APHIS has determined that genetically
engineered plants are generally safe. They do not require the
level of regulation that the Agency has enforced in the past.
The end result is that farmers and ranchers would be denied the
benefits of new developments, would see their costs increase,
and productivity slowed significantly, if not decreased.The
ultimate loser is the consumer, who could see higher prices, a possible
decrease in quality, and a possible decrease in choice. Ironically, the
proposed rule would result in the continued use and perhaps an even
greater dependence on chemical pesticides because of the limitations on
the development of chemical alternatives that biotechnology would bring
to the particular equation.
I have done a lot of work with the California commodity
groups, and quite frankly a lot of the chemically-based
alternatives are being lost either through re-registration
procedures or through resistance, and the alternative would be
biologically engineered products.
Attached to this statement is a letter from the seven
leading agricultural organizations in California, and just by
summary, paraphrasing them, ``by adding substantial new costs
to plant breeding, the proposed FIFRA regulations will
discourage integration of effective new genetic methods into
plant breeding program. Added costs present potent
disincentives to companies whose products target small acreage
crops and low acreage margins.''
By EPA's own estimates, the proposed regulations would
impose substantial new costs on plant breeders, ranging from
$200,000 to $500,000 on average, and it would make difficult
for many firms to justify the cost of developing and
registering new plant varieties, let alone raise the necessary
capital to finance this biotechnology.
So, therefore, Mr. Chairman, and behalf of these combined
societies, we commend you for giving the opportunity today to
provide some testimony on this very important topic, and we ask
the committee to continue in assisting us, that EPA promulgate
rules that make sense scientifically and that comply with
Federal policy and regulation of products developed through
biotechnology.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Doctor, thank you for your testimony,
and going through it so rapidly and giving it a particular
California flavor. I'm sure if the Chairman was here, he'd want
to probably make a statement to your work and dedication.
Mr. Siebert. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 861 - 914--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Frelinghuysen. The Soil Aquifer Treatment Research
Program, anybody representing that group? Is there anybody else
here for the good of the order?
[No response.]
If not, I'd like to thank the recorder for his time and
effort. We are recessed until tomorrow morning until 10:00 a.m.
Thank you.
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
CHRISTOPHER COX, VICE PRESIDENT, MYSTIC SEAPORT MUSEUM, INC.
Mr. Lewis [presiding]. Ms. Meek.
Mrs. Meek. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lewis. I think we're going to exercise our discretion
one more time. We have a colleague here with a number of
difficult conflicts in his schedule. Sam, could you introduce
your other guests.
Mr. Gejdenson. Yes, you want to come up here.
Mr. Lewis. You want to come up here, Mr. Cox?
I think Mr. Cox represents Mystic Seaport Museum.
Mr. Cox. I do.
Mr. Lewis. Sam.
Mr. Gejdenson. I just want to thank you for your time. I'm
not going to take up a lot of time, just to say that one, I
invite you to come up and see it, because it really is a
spectacular site. If you saw Amistad, the movie, you saw some
of Mystic Seaport in there. And the story there, you know, I
think the focus is the old whaling ships and what have you, but
it's a much broader story. There's one story that I'd tell you
about, and let Chris do the substantive work. There was a
family who fled Cuba in a small boat, and they got out in the
middle of nowhere. And they were picked up by one of the ocean
liners, and so they left the boat behind. And, I don't know if
it was days or weeks later but a family, basically going out
there on a rubber raft on its last leg, found the boat, crawled
into the boat, and then took it to Key West. That's in the
museum and everything from the earliest settlers. It's an
incredible information system that they're now on the Web. I
think Chris will tell you that when the Amistad thing hit, it
had a million and half contacts to his Web page in one day. So
this information is going out.
We all come here for our local interests. I obviously have
a local interest in it. This is a national issue. It's a
national resource, and the resources we're asking for will help
us do a better job serving the Nation.
And with that, I give you Chris Cox.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Sam.
Mr. Cox. Sam, good morning. Good morning.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Cox, we do have a Chris Cox in the House who
represents none other than Newport Beach, California. No
relative, I assume?
Mr. Cox. I'm afraid that it's not. [Laughter.]
Very different sides of the world.
Mr. Lewis. All right. Your entire statement will be
included in the record, and you can summarize as you might.
Mr. Cox. Well, I think I will.
We have submitted a statement, but just for interest sake,
we're the Williamsburg of wooden boats. We're the Smithsonian
of ships. We're the largest maritime museum in the United
States by ten times.
We have some success problems, in that we have a very
successful visitor relationship, and the town of Mystic and the
Stoneage and Groton towns hosts millions of people in this
little New England village every year. And we've gotten pretty
successful at it so that our parking lots are full and we have
parking problems. Success in the museum world comes down to
parking.
Economic development is the key to our future. And it isn't
just yesterday that we are talking about. But we have 2,000,000
objects; 487 boats; and a reasonably large facility. This is a
map of the grounds of the museum, and perhaps some of you have
been there. That large building in the foreground there is the
object of our interest because we are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
with a $22 million a year operating budget, with 26,000
members, and it's a pretty established institution from 1929.
But we don't have a lot of cash, and so that investment in
the intellectual property development of our place: putting
content and knowledge online and available to teachers and
students and learners of all ages. And older people are
probably one of the fastest growing--seniors, I guess I've
learned to call them--are very interested in their own history.
What the history that we have is about how America was built.
It's about what we have in common as Americans, and we don't
have a place to put it. It's all spread out all over the place.
So this back part of this mill building here has been rebuilt
with State and Federal and some small private number of
dollars.
The private dollars are interested in the public space, and
the boat hall, and the conservation facility. So that we have
raised $8 million so far. We're looking for another $4 million
to finish the back of the house, consolidate all of the
collections and the 27 staff so that we can begin to do more
intellectual property development--CD ROMs, online--we're
finding that online is much better because it's free and so
that anybody can access it. And we've got technology that we're
using from, in fact, a public-private partnership that I think
you started, Sam, called Techcon. And we're using locals and
schools and all this, and we're looking----
Mr. Gejdenson. This will go into every school in the final
analysis.
Mr. Cox. Or be available to every school in the country.
Mr. Gejdenson. Available to any kid doing a research
project, whether it's on whaling or any stage of marine
development. They also have the largest collection of the
photographs, which you might----
Mr. Cox. Well, we have 1.2 million photographs in the
collection. The photographs, now with digitalization, it's
possible to actually use them. Where previously it was just a
preservation problem.
What we have discovered--there are some maritime museums
all around the country and the world, but we're beginning to be
asked by, for instance, in Cincinnati, this new Underground
Railroad Museum that's being built on the Ohio River--they need
to put the river into perspective. Where do they go to do that?
What was the river was a highway. The Columbia River, the coast
of California, how was it developed? How was New York City
built, with what? Well, it was ships that were tractor trailer
trucks of the 18th and 19th century that were coasting vessels
that took stuff there. So it's very practical stories that are
accessible to anyone, at any level of intellectual inquiry.
And, in fact, through the Getty Art and Architecture
Thesaurus Project, we've developed a system where we can go
across collections. And this building, this American Maritime
Education Research Center, will be a place where, for the first
time, museum collections will be online because we had to
invent the standards by which they were catalogued and put in
order. So that finally you'll be able to use a museum
collection like a library or university, which never before was
probable----
Mr. Gejdenson. Let me say this: as articulate as Chris is,
that what you really need to do is come up and see it.One,
you'll have a great time, and there's some good restaurants there. But
also, I think you get a real sense of how comprehensive an activity
this is and important, not just in my region.
Mr. Cox. And it's a town and local and regional economic
development force because of the intellectual side of it. It's
not just visitors, but there are new kinds of software, new
kinds of products that we're interested in. It's difficult to
project exactly how many jobs. We've had the obvious and
standard surveys and research projects done. I think that
they're just formulas that project into the future, depending
on what you're saying. They all come out heroic--above what
anybody else has been able--it's not 8 times; it's 11 and 14
times the invested dollar return. So----
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Cox, just so you'll have an idea, we haven't
really received our budget allocation yet. Frankly, between Mr.
Stokes and Members on both sides of the aisle and my committee,
we will be talking about how we handle questions like this as
we move forward. Sometimes we find ourselves in a circumstance
where members decide to focus on individual projects. If Sam
were to give special kinds of funding, some people might get an
amendment and eliminate it. Then, you have difficulty down the
line. Timing is everything in these things, but we will be
looking carefully at your project. And frankly, it's this kind
of thing that's of interest to me as well, so I appreciate----
Mr. Cox. Well, thank you, sir----
Mr. Lewis. Appreciate your being here----
Mr. Cox. We appreciate the chance----
Mr. Gejdenson. We invite the whole delegation, the whole
Committee obviously.
Mr. Cox. We are, in fact, building the Amistad now--an 81-
foot traditionally built vessel. And Captain Bill Pickney, who
is the first African-American to sail around the world by
himself, I think he's slightly mad, but he's wonderful.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. He had to be. [Laughter.]
Mr. Cox. And he's going to be the captain of the boat. So
we have a lot of things happening----
Mr. Gejdenson [continuing]. Some relatives of the original,
you know, the people who were captured. Yes, they had his great
grandchildren----
Mr. Cox. The four Pie brothers--one's a medical doctor;
one's the administrator of the business school at the
University of Michigan--very interesting people came----
Mr. Gejdenson. Down doing some work on building the model.
Mr. Cox. You know, it's a thrilling time for us.
Mr. Lewis. Not too long ago, they got some of us to go up
to Woods Hole and look at another aspect of a similar thing----
Mr. Cox [continuing]. Yes, sir. Well, it's a sister
institution. Absolutely.
Mr. Lewis. Correct. Correct.
Mr. Cox. They go down the sea, and we go on top of it.
Mr. Lewis. That's right. They took me a mile down under the
water one time, so some people go a long ways to sell their
projects. [Laughter.]
Mr. Gejdenson. Well, when you get over a mile down, that's
when you cut the deal. [Laughter.]
Mr. Cox. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you everybody. Thank you, Sam.
Mr. Cox. Thank you so much.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 921 - 925--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
WILLIAM POLF, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
Mr. Lewis. Let's see, we have Mr. William Polf, Dr. Polf.
Please come. From the university.
Mr. Polf. Thank you, Congressman. Good morning. How are you
doing?
Mr. Lewis. I appreciate your patience with our adjustment
of schedule there.
Mr. Polf. That's perfectly all right. Anyone from
Connecticut is almost a New Yorker.
Thank you for allowing me to come. I'm 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 before the Committee
again. I have submitted testimony----
Mr. Lewis. Appreciate that.
Mr. Polf [continuing]. And so I will just summarize a few
key points for you, Congressman. As you know in my previous
appearances here, we have a unique project in New York City.
Columbia University is developing the only university-related
biomedical research park in New York City. And we have the only
biotechnology business incubator in New York City. And what
that allows us to do is to not only expand biomedical research
in important disease areas, such as cancer, diabetes, do basic
genetic research, but also to stimulate the creation of new
business, and to literally incubate start-up companies in an
urban environment. We are in the New York City Empowerment
Zone. Congressman Charles Rangel, who is our good friend and
congressman, is one of the longest supporters of the Audubon
Project for many years, and he is thrilled to see it reaching
the level of maturity it has.
With the support of this committee, we have done some
wonderful things just during the past year. I might mention a
few highlights. We have opened the first comprehensive diabetes
research and clinical care in New York City, doing everything
from studying the genetic origins of diabetes to the most
advanced level of care and integrated care with other medical
disciplines. We now have reached the point of having started 17
companies in the Audubon Project in two years; some of whom
have been so successful that we've already graduated one or two
to our regret. But that's the point of an incubator. And we
have reached a point now I think of being a major presence in
terms of new science, new medical science and a major force in
economic development.
In my previous appearances here, we have always
respectfully asked for the support of this subcommittee,
understanding its importance. And this year, we hope for the
consideration of a support of $10 million, if that's possible,
for work on our third Audubon facility, known as Audubon Three,
which will continue to integrate and expand our biomedical
research base with the incubation of newcompanies. So with that
Congressman, and Congressman Meek, nice to be here today. I'm happy to
answer any questions you might have.
Mr. Lewis. Let me pose a question: is it your intention to
make a similar appeal with Labor, HHS where sometimes there's
more funding available than sometimes we're allocated?
Mr. Polf. Yes, we do seek whatever funding is available
through Labor, HHS in both Houses. And we continue to seek that
as the opportunities are available to us.
Mr. Lewis. I presume that you had some sense for that.
Mrs. Meek.
Mrs. Meek. Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm still looking for his
testimony. Oh, here it is. I'm sorry.
Mr. Lewis. That's all right. Mrs. Meek was at a meeting
earlier today talking with senior citizens about 202 housing.
She just about blew them away.
Mrs. Meek. I had such good backing. The Chairman was there.
I could go a little bit further than I normally would. Well,
how's the park doing? I missed that.
Mr. Polf. It's doing terrifically. We have two buildings
constructed now. We have 17 companies in our incubator, that
have gone through our incubator. We have expanded our research
programs. One of our big moves last year was in diabetes. We
have a comprehensive diabetes center doing both genetic work in
diabetes as well as new clinical outreach and clinical care. I
should also mention we have a new--with support of this
committee--a new program of direct medical care to the
neighborhood, which is a neighborhood that is medically under-
served, and so we're able to expand our medical care services
to the Washington Heights and the Harlem neighborhoods.
Mrs. Meek. You think you'll generate some more jobs?
Mr. Polf. We're certain we are. We have generated probably
about 800 now in the two facilities that we have, and when we
ultimately have completed all five facilities, there will be
somewhere around 2,500 new jobs. I was saying to Congressman
Lewis that we're in Congressman Rangel's district and
Congressman Rangel has been one of our longest supporters since
the origin of the Park.
Mrs. Meek. Thank you so much.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Dr. Polf. We appreciate
your being with us.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 928 - 936--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
DICK STEINBERG, WEST CARE
Mr. Lewis. Our next witness is Mr. Dick Steinberg with
Westcare. Oh he is? Hello, George. I didn't see you come in.
George Radanovich, my colleague from California, is going to do
the honors.
Mr. Radanovich. I'd like to introduce Dick, please. Carrie,
good to see you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to introduce Dick Steinberg
from Fresno to talk about--actually from a group called
Westcare from Fresno that's seeking funds for the establishment
of resident community health care campus center, which is
substance abuse. Mr. Steinberg knows the subject much better
than I do, and I want to introduce Dick and let him make his
presentation.
Mr. Lewis. I told you I appreciate your being with us.
Mr. Radanovich. Good to be here. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Go right ahead, Mr. Steinberg.
Mr. Steinberg. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
allowing Westcare to come before you this morning and testify.
I've been with Westcare for the past 20 years as the President
and CEO, I'm really fortunate to be in a non-profit
organization such as Westcare. We're kind of made up of
programs--serving programs in Arizona, Nevada, and California.
You've had an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, I understand to visit
one of our programs actually in the Mojave Valley, about 20
miles out of Needleswood. Your namesake, Jerry Lewis, who's one
of our board members in that part of the region.
Mr. Lewis. Several years ago.
Mr. Steinberg. Yes, sir. And we're doing similar types of
programming obviously in Fresno. We've been operating a program
over there for a little over six and one-half years. And we
have an opportunity right now to purchase a rather large
facility. It's a hospital that originally wanted $20 million,
and we now have them down to a potential purchase price of $12
million for the whole project--some 85,000 square-foot
building. This will be a collaboration to a whole health care
facility system with substance abuse, homeless treatment, and
volunteer issues with the community serving our needs.
We think we can really bring all the programs together by
doing this in one simple little piece. I think that's the main
thing, and we have some real vocational training issues that we
can also provide at the Center. We served a little over 2,700
people last year. There's a growing need in the community
unfortunately in that community for more services of this kind,
with a tremendous amount of homeless transitional services
needed at the same time.
Drug abuse, just like everywhere else, is definitelyrampant
in the Fresno area, and we think that this project here would turn
things around. We're calling it the Fresno Community Health Care
campus. We think it's got a lot of possibilities to bring about under
one roof.
We're asking the committee for $2 million to assist with
approximately 50 percent of the cost of putting this whole
thing together, with the board and the community working on the
balance in Fresno to put it together.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Steinberg, you may have heard my comment
from a question earlier of Dr. Polf, in which I suggested that
there is one more than one source around the Congress.
Sometimes--as budget allocations take place over time, it's
good to look around. So George will I know will be of
assistance. I know that HHS is a prospect here as well. And so,
I'd urge you to do that. We have not seen our budget allocation
yet, but we appreciate your coming, and we'll do everything we
can.
Mr. Polf. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Lewis. Mrs. Meek.
Mrs. Meek. Thank you. Thank you for coming.
Mr. Lewis. Appreciate your being with us.
Mr. Polf. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lewis. Thanks, George.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 939 - 949--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
NAN ROMAN, THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE TO END HOMELESSNESS
Mr. Lewis. Our next witness is Nan Roman, representing the
National Alliance to End Homelessness. Hello there.
Ms. Roman. I have my disclosure form.
Mr. Lewis. Your disclosure form, all right.
Ms. Roman. Thank you so much for giving us the time to
speak to you today about the homeless programs at HUD. These
programs really overall are working well. They're
oversubscribed, of course. But largely they're keeping people
off the street, and HUD has done a really good job we think of
improving the administration of the programs so that they're
more comprehensive now, and so that the assistance is more
comprehensive and there's more coordination locally.
But having said this, there is something that I do want to
bring to your attention, an emerging issue that we very much
ask you to address. It's our belief that the homeless
assistance that's delivered by HUD should be very much outcome
driven and that the desired outcome of it is that people who
are homeless aren't homeless anymore.
Mr. Lewis. That's a reasonable idea.
Ms. Roman. Yes. We think if the system isn't outcome-based,
then we're just always providing band-aids and not only is that
not good for homeless people, but it means that you all--we're
going to be here before you every year asking for money to
continue a system that's not outcome driven.
The question, then, is can we make the existing system more
outcome-driven? Well, it's our opinion that we can do that, and
that you can do something about. And in this, we concur with
the major thrusts of Chairman Lazio's legislation, 217, that
reorganizes the homeless assistance system.
Let me explain a little bit about that. The major users of
homeless emergency assistance are people with chronic
disabilities, chronic mental illness, and chronic substance and
alcohol abuse illness. This is population that's relatively
fixed in size. It doesn't keep expanding. There's not sort of
an unending need in that population. And we're serving this
population largely through emergency shelters now, which is not
an end game-oriented way to serve them. We think that rather
than serving them through the shelter system and then the jail
and hospital system, which sort of is associated with that, we
ought to be serving them with permanent supportive housing,
which is better for them and cost effective for us. But the
share of homeless assistance money that's going to permanent
housing for homeless people has decreased to I think about 18
percent, as near as we can tell in the last round of assistance
at HUD, which is rather a small percentage of that money.
On the other hand, families who are experiencing economic
crises tend to get from this money longer-term transitional
assistance with a lot of services that we don't have any real--
they probably need those services, but it's not really
demonstrated that that helps them get on their feet in terms of
housing. So the system is a little bit off kilter, despite the
fact that it's locally controlled, which is positive, and it's
getting people off the street. It's not really very outcome-
driven.
So to address that, we would like to ask you for the
following:
First, of course, we support the Administration's request
for $1.15 billion in homeless assistance. I know you've
received a letter signed by Chairman Leach and Lazio supporting
that as well as several other people. We'd like to ask you to
increase that to $1.15 billion in order to do the following,
which is to ensure that 30 percent of those resources are
spent, at least 30 percent, on permanent housing. I think this
would give us the potential really over time to end
homelessness for people with chronic disabilities and then to
free up resources for families and people who are experiencing
an economic crisis. And this would make the system much more
results-oriented.
We also strongly support the Administration's overall
fiscal year 1999 request for funding HUD's request for funding.
Certainly, the current housing trends are startling. We have
worst-case housing needs that seem to be unaffected by the
robust economy. We have rents up, and working families
increasingly having housing problems. The suburbs are
increasingly having housing problems. So obviously these sorts
of things contribute to homelessness. We think Secretary Cuomo
is making progress on the management stuff and that money given
to the Department is going to go to good causes, so we're very
supportive of their overall request as well.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Lewis. I very much appreciate your testimony. Mrs.
Meek, do you have a question?
Mrs. Meek. No, I do not.
Mr. Lewis. Do you have some questions, Joe?
Mr. Knollenberg. You're done.
Mr. Lewis. I might mention that one of our difficulties
involves the reality that about 85 percent of our bill is not
authorized.
Ms. Roman. Right. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. And yet the authorizing committees are very
hesitant about our putting authorizing language on those bills,
so two points I guess. Not really a question. But outcome-
driven objectives as it relates to homelessness are pretty
fundamental, and some of that relates to new authority. So far,
we've had great resistance to relative toputting authorizing
language on our bill. You might be able to help us with that.
Ms. Roman. I'd be happy to try.
Mr. Lewis. But secondly, even more importantly, you might
be able to help us in making sure that all the forces recognize
it would help us all if we got a bill through the Senate, went
through conference, and actually got to the President's desk.
Ms. Roman. Well, I'd be happy to work on that. I think
there are a couple of things that you could do on the bill.
Even asking--I mean, this could really be accomplished with the
existing program with points incentives because now services,
for example, service programs don't require a match, whereas
housing programs require a match. Right there, that's an
authorizing issue. But that's a problem. I think if you
instructed the Department to incentivize it with points that
would probably help.
Mr. Lewis. If we get a broader view that took a look at the
fact that we've made public policy decisions over many, many
years. The promises that we were making to solve homelessness,
never quite followed through at the local community level with
clinics and otherwise to make sure that people take their
medicine and so on. We do need some help from the authorizers,
and so we just raise that point.
Ms. Roman. Yes. Okay.
Mr. Lewis. Well, thank you very much for being here, Ms.
Roman.
Ms. Roman. I brought some information. I'll just give it to
Valerie about the amendment.
Mr. Lewis. Yes, thank you very much. We'll include that in
the file and we appreciate it. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 953 - 961--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
ALBERT C. EISENBERG, U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS
Mr. Lewis. Let's see. Mr. Albert C. Eisenberg, representing
the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
Mr. Eisenberg. Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate
the opportunity to be with you. Actually, I'm representing
NACO, the Conference of Mayors, a number of other organizations
today, and generally local officials. I'm Vice Chairman of the
Arlington, Virginia County Board, and pleased to present the
views of these groups on programs you are well familiar with.
We are looking at CDBG and HOME programs. We are not asking you
to authorize anything, we're just looking for some more money,
with a couple of flips and twists to that. We do commend you
for your past support of these programs, for the increases
you've provided in the past.
Let me note an issue with respect to set-asides. We've
found that over the last several years, the set-asides have
grown from $95 million within CDBG to almost $.5 billion, and
as a result, the basic program has reduced 3 percent a year for
entitlement jurisdiction. So we would urge you all to take
another look at the way the program is being balkanized and
turned away from its principal purposes of block grant program.
We would like you to increase the overall CDBG program to
$4.725 billion. This is the president's recommendation. I won't
go into why this is a successful program. You all know that. I
was amazed to learn that as many as 17,000,000 households
benefit from this program, and almost 115,000 jobs have been
created.
Mr. Lewis. I know you're not going to read all those
figures, are you?
Mr. Eisenberg. No. No, that's why I'm turning quickly to my
notes and respect your time, and hope this would be included in
the record. We do support as a general principle the regional
connections initiative, and we just simply indicate that a lot
of work gets done at the regional level and the government
should help facilitate that.
In terms of the HOME program, you yourself have noted that
this program has worked. You've seen this for a long time. It
was a bipartisan creation. We would like to see that program,
which is returning, as I understand, as much as 80 percent on
the dollar--80 cents on the dollar to at least $1.55 billion,
again as proposed by the administration.
Two last issues and then a personal comment. We would also
like to see the FHA limits increased to $227,150. It's a
program that, as you well know, was supposed to be a broad
program, in terms of the broad spectrum of American home
buyers. And we think that by expanding to this level, even
though you've got to--people have to pay that mortgage at that
price. It's not at that price for very low income, but it would
by spreading the program benefits help make sure that the
program is actually viable and strong.
We would urge, with all due respect, that in the
supplemental appropriation bill, the emergency bill, that we
not use section 8 reserves. We think, again with all due
respect, it would be ironic in the extreme congressional
compassion for people who have lost their homes to natural
disasters. The price of that was paid by people who, because
expiring contracts weren't renewed adequately, lost their homes
as well. It's been rather than representing community--
represent the entire community, not just a section.
If there's one problem we have that is probably our
greatest problem, it's affordable housing. For people at 30
percent median income, probably 3,500 households--I'll correct
the record for the exact number--there are only 337 units
technically affordable to these people in the entire Arlington
County where we have 85,000 housing units. We have a desperate
situation in terms of housing--affordable housing. And when
you're poor in an affluent community, you're really poor. And
these programs are vital to us in our community, to Northern
Virginia. We appreciate your support in the past, and we
appreciate your paying attentionto our views today. And again,
to respect your schedule, that concludes my testimony.
Mr. Lewis. We appreciate that very much. Thank you, Mr.
Eisenberg.
Mrs. Meek.
Mrs. Meek. Thank you. I have no questions.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Knollenberg.
Mr. Knollenberg. Just one comment. I understand that you're
in favor of raising the FHA limit. You mentioned also in your
testimony, written testimony that some 350,000 households were
denied credit. Was that because of the limit? Or was it for
some other reason?
Mr. Eisenberg. This is in the conventional mortgage market
because FHA, of course, provides some break, even in these low
interest times and provides some flexibility in their programs.
I served for a time on the Virginia Housing Development
Authority, and we were able to partner with FHA to provide some
very creative programs for very low-income people. Now, of
course, we're asking for the increase here because even people
in the median and somewhat higher incomes can find that the
interest rates and the down payment requirements particularly
can affect their ability to secure mortgage credit.
Mr. Knollenberg. What was the denial based upon the limit
being imposed?
Mr. Eisenberg. I will have to ask for some assistance
there. We don't know that particular item.
Mr. Murphy. Since they were reached by the conventional
market.
Mr. Knollenberg. Okay.
Mr. Eisenberg. That was my impression.
Mr. Murphy. Well, if the limit were raised, chances are
they'd get the proposal.
Mr. Knollenberg. Chances are a lot. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Before you leave. The reporter couldn't hear
you. They got to get people on record, George. We give that to
yourself, John. Respond.
Mr. Murphy. I'm John Murphy. The Association of Labaz
Clients Agencies, one of the organizations that's data that was
complied by the Federal Reserve Board and released in a
statement by Secretary Cuomo to the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee. The inference being that, because they were not
served by the conventional market, FHA was available to them
that potentially we could serve another 300,000 plus
households.
Mr. Knollenberg. Potentially.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you.
Mr. Knollenberg. Thank you.
Mrs. Meek. I have a question. I believe in your testimony
you mentioned that the CDBG program works most effectively when
communities practice concentrated investment. Would you clarify
that?
Mr. Eisenberg. Yes, I'm glad you asked that question. It
applies to my community and a number of others. We've found
over the years that it makes sense to approach problems in our
communities in a holistic, coordinated fashion. The enterprise
zone program that this Congress was wise to approve is very
much in that spirit, and we can apply Community Development
Block Grant program and a variety of HUD programs with programs
from the Department of Health and Human Services,
Transportation. We can put these programs together in a
workable, flexible fashion at the local level in areas where
we've identified a particular need, a particular problem, and
people together devise the solutions and CDBG and home are
important--actually, they're an important part of the glue that
makes those programs work.
Mrs. Meek. All right. Thank you. I understand that.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Eisenberg, before you leave, I do have a
couple of questions that may or may not be fair. But I know
that you represent an area in Arlington County, so you may or
may not be aware of the National Conference of Mayors press
release in the last couple of days that deals with an issue
that involves public housing. Specifically, the Conference of
Mayors suggests by way of their press release that HUD's
Inspector General has some way been involved in a nefarious
sort of activity that essentially would have her conspiring in
some special way that might involve racism in selecting certain
cities for evaluation of the way money is flowing to public
housing programs. Are you aware of this?
Mr. Eisenberg. I am not, Mr. Chairman. Arlington County
itself has no public housing per se. Our voters have not
approved housing authority. We operate entirely through the
private sector partnership approach, non-profits and profits
with their arrangements, and to address our public----
Mr. Lewis. Maybe you can take a message back. The Committee
has been very carefully moving forward with an expression of
its concern about sizeable volumes of housing dollars that may
be going to urban centers in the country but may not be getting
to the people that they were designed to support or help in the
first place. It has been suggested by some Conference of
Mayors, that in some way HUD's Inspector General selected
cities with some design of racial intent--Black mayors et
cetera. She has not announced publicly the cities she's
selected to my knowledge, and we asked her not to at our last
formal hearing. We are going to have an ongoing discussion
here. But, the National Conference of Mayors, by way of press
release, came to conclusions that would suggest otherwise is
not helpful to any of us. I hope somebody would get that
message.
This is a very important issue that involves the basic
question: If we're going to appropriate dollars that are
designed to help the poorest of the poor, are they getting
there? And can we independently evaluate those questions
perhaps it's staff people with the National Conference who are
coming to conclusions that appear to me to be totally
erroneous.
Mr. Eisenberg. Representatives of that organization are in
the room today, and I'm sure they've heard you loud and clear.
Mr. Lewis. I hope so. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Sorry to throw that at you.
Mr. Eisenberg. It's understandable.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 966 - 971--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
ANTHONY COLE, VICE PRESIDENT, HAYMARKET HOUSE
Mr. Lewis. Let's see. Next. We are going to go one more
time and exercise discretion. We have Mr. Danny Davis here from
the beautiful State of Illinois to introduce one of his
friends, and take that testimony. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. He wants to be able to sneak out. [Laughter.]
Mr. Davis. You have a tremendous chairman to testify before
who's done an outstanding job. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you
for the opportunity to be here--you and members of the
Committee--to introduce Anthony Cole from Haymarket House, and,
of course, Mr. Cole will tell you about their program and the
needs and what we're attempting to accomplish. But I would just
mention the fact that Haymarket House is one of the outstanding
innovative organizations when it comes to the treatment of
substance abuse. It's founder, Father McDermott, throughout the
Chicago-land area is fondly known as Father ``Mac'' because he
started a street ministry and has built from that an
outstanding social service agency that is on par with any that
you would find anywhere in the Nation. And they just do
outstanding work, and certainly Mr. Cole will be able to talk
about the needs that they're trying to meet. And I just
appreciate the opportunity that you've give me to be with him
this morning.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Cole, welcome to the Committee. If you'd summarize your
statement, we'll include it in entirety in the record and from
there we're anxious to hear from you.
Mr. Cole. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Lewis, for
providing Haymarket House the opportunity to present testimony
to your subcommittee this year. I am certainly honored to have
our congressman here to share his very favorable comments about
services and our programs and our founder.
My name is Anthony Cole. I am Vice President of Haymarket
Center. We are the largest drug treatment in Chicago. We
service about 13,000 clients annually.
Our primary service population, as you said, is the poorest
of the poor. It's the indigent population. In addition to our
conventional treatment programs, for both men and women, we
offer targeted high-risk populations such as pregnant post
partum. In that regard, we have delivered over 354 drug-free
babies, whose drug-addicted mothers became drug-free, as a
result of the treatment they received at Haymarket House. They
received full treatment to deliver drug-free babies. And we had
a study done on that, and we saved over $250 million to the
taxpayer as a result of that.
We also have some very innovative programs in terms of HIV.
We received regional and State awards for our services for HIV,
and we also had to do a diagnose program for the homeless
mentally ill. So we try to be innovative. We've recently
brought on board a health clinic, on site. We also have a day
care center on site that we want to expand. We want to do a
full continuum of care for our clients.
Having expanded well beyond our building's capacity
currently of 150,000 square feet, Haymarket was fortunate to
acquire a 10-year renewable lease in a large building directly
adjacent to our main facility. Approximately one-fourth of the
available space is now being utilized to care for the children
of our long-term clients. An opportunity currently exists to
utilize the remainder of this space for a new community and
family learning center, whose programs will address the needs
of our clients and their dependents and will allow for
substantial community and economic development.
We began to recognize the need for the community and family
learning center as we studied the effects of family unification
and the accessibility to affordable child care on those
suffering from substance abuse. A major barrier to the
treatment for our women clients is the affordable child care.
When we try to provide residential treatment, many of these
women have young infants and newborns, even, and we have to
have a way of providing affordable and accessible child care
for them.
In addition to that, as they transition from our
residential programs to our outpatient or after-care programs,
there is a continued need for child care services. So we've got
that started, but we need to do more for that. There's just not
enough of it. So this is a type of opportunity in terms of the
community and family learning center will allow us to expand
our child care and also provide some learning opportunities,
vocational services for our clients.
The lack of very accessible and affordable child care again
is a major barrier for women seeking treatment. In addition,
approximately 60 percent of clients lack a high school diploma.
That's a major barrier to employment. A high percentage lack
permanent housing and many of our clients have not developed
social relation skills apart from the drug culture. Most of our
clients lack the skills and job readiness necessary to
complete--compete rather for even unskilled employment, adding
the burden of unemployment to their substance abuse problems.
So Haymarket proposes to address these needs of our high risk
population with our new community and family learning center.
The center will provide hands-on training, expose learners to
the demands of today's information-driven workplace. Community
resources and technology will assist in building upon the
individual strengths of our clients and families. Reading,
writing, information management and organizational skills will
be emphasized.
In addition to expansion of our newly-opened child care
center, Haymarket will assist in augmenting services provided
to our infants and toddlers and provide services to children on
our waiting list. We have a waiting list on any given day. We
have about 70-80 calls come in every day. To foster community
interaction, flexible rooms in the new center will allow for
meetings among program participants as well as the larger
community. The total cost of our proposal would be $1.4
million.
Haymarket understands the Federal government has limited
resources. However, we think that this is a good bang for the
buck. We have looked at various studies and we have found that
whenever you deal with substance abuse, you reduce crime.
Whenever you address the issue of substance abuse, you reduce
health care costs, and on and on and on. So we know in terms of
taxpayers' dollars, when you fund substance abuse services and
make those services holistic, that you significantly impact
other areas, particularly crime and health.
So in conclusion, in fiscal year 1999, Haymarket Center is
seeking $1.4 million to complete the learning center through
the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Economic
Development Initiative. I understand it's called EDI.
Mr. Chairman, Haymarket House appreciates the opportunity
to present this testimony this year.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Cole, thank you very much for your
testimony. We very much appreciate your being with us. I might
mention one item. Mr. Davis, especially to you, as we struggle
with these dollars around here, the Child Development Act of
1972 was a piece of legislation I had a the privilege of
carrying when I was member of the State legislature in
California. It had some firsts, I think, in the country in
terms of quality day care with educational components and
health components et cetera. In the last four years, the
Congress has discovered child care. We're a little bit behind
the curve, so we need your input and we very much appreciate
your being here in connection with that and we hope to be able
to work with you further.
Mr. Cole. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Ms. Meek.
Mrs. Meek. Thank you so much, Mr. Cole. Good to see you
again.
Mr. Cole. Yes, nice to see you.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Knollenberg.
Mr. Knollenberg. No questions. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thanks for being with us.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lewis. My pleasure.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 975 - 980--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
JAVIER SALAZAR, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AIDS ACTION COUNCIL
Mr. Lewis. I might mention to members that we are only
about 20 minutes behind our normal schedule at this point in
time, and that's usually the chairman's fault because I like to
be flexible with people who are making presentations before,
but we've got to move right along if we're going to get our
work done.
So our next guest is Javier Salazar, speaking for AIDS
Action. Javier. Mr. Salazar.
Mr. Salazar. Good morning. My name again is Javier Salazar
and I'm a legislative representative with AIDS Action Council.
AIDS Action, as you may know, is the national voice of over
2,400 community-based AIDS service providers from across the
country and the people living with HIV/AIDS they serve.
Mr. Lewis, Mr. Knollenberg, and Mrs. Meek, I want to thank
all of you. I want to thank you as a person living with HIV and
on behalf of all people living with HIV in this country, their
families and their care givers, for all the work that you've
done in support of the Housing Opportunities for People with
AIDS Program.
Your work has made a critical contribution in achieving the
tremendous strides that our Nation is making in the fight
against HIV and AIDS. The CDC's statistics continue to
demonstrate this trend--that started in 1996--towards a
dramatic drop in the number of AIDS-related deaths. Since then,
it's been about a 45 percent drop in AIDS-related death.
However, while the overall numbers of people dying with
AIDS declined significantly last year, the number of people
living with AIDS has increased.
This increase translates directly into a greater need for
health care, treatment, and social services, including housing.
When once there were few treatments for HIV disease, now we
face the rationing of care, drugs, and vital social services.
Now that we have new and effective treatments, we must
ensure their availability as well as access to the care and
services needed to ensure their success.
Housing is a critical component of this strategy. It has
been the commitment of this committee to this small, but
invaluable, program that has ensured that thousands of
individuals have a fighting chance at living longer and better
lives.
Today, people living with HIV have a real cause for hope.
HOPWA, part of the Federal housing response for people living
with AIDS, has helped thousands of needy individuals face these
challenges. Although HOPWA funding has increased significantly
in the past two years, thanks to your leadership and the
leadership of this committee, the programhas been historically
underfunded. The amount of housing provided has never, never, been
nearly sufficient to meet the true needs.
Today, as a result of recent advances in care and
treatment, people that are currently being housed are living
longer causing less turnover in existing housing programs and
creating longer and longer waiting lists. HOPWA fulfills a need
not met by other Federal housing programs. Many programs like
section 8 have waiting lists that are even today longer than
the average lifespan of a person with AIDS. Other programs like
CDBG fund activities far more politically popular than housing
people with AIDS. And many people with HIV still have access in
HUD programs that serve people with disabilities because of
HUD's historic position that such programs cannot be used for
targeted housing that meets the needs of people with particular
disabilities such as HIV and AIDS.
HUD serves thousands of people living with HIV and their
communities ranging from New Jersey and North Carolina to
Florida and Mississippi, from Ohio and Wisconsin to Texas and
California. In fiscal year 1998, 88 jurisdictions, 59 cities
and 29 States, qualified for HOPWA formula grants, and HUD
estimates that 7 to 10 new jurisdictions will qualify for
fiscal year 1999.
The President's request seeks to increase HOPWA funding by
10 percent to a total of $225 million. While below what we
estimate is needed in Fiscal Year 1999, this increase would at
least--the $21 million increase--would at least ensure that
cities and States, and housing projects in your community, can
work to address the ever-increasing needs of their citizens
with HIV and AIDS.
This committee can help us to ensure that no American
living with HIV disease is denied care, treatment, even life
itself, just because they do not have a stable place to live.
Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Salazar, for being with
us. Mrs. Meek.
Mrs. Meek. I just wanted to compliment him on a very good
presentation.
Mr. Lewis. And brief, as well. [Laughter.]
Mrs. Meek. And brief.
Mr. Lewis. Let me mention to you, Mr. Salazar, that it was
in 1981--I remember it very clearly--that the first funding for
issues questions relative to HIV and AIDS was reported in this
very subcommittee at a time when Members of Congress across the
board had little idea of the problem. We've been involved for a
number of years. I think you know that there are other
subcommittees that address the question as well, as we're happy
to work with you and I appreciate you being here.
Mr. Salazar. Thank you. It's clear that when people think
about--or when the public thinks about the work that's being
done on AIDS, and where the advances have come, it's typically
another receptive committee is mentioned first, but I have to
say that the work that this committee is completely invaluable
and the role that you play, you can't put a price on it, for
the help that your offering people today.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Salazar. We appreciate it.
Mrs. Meek. Thank you, thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 983 - 989--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
DOUGLAS MACDONALD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES
AUTHORITY
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Douglas MacDonald is the Executive Director
for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.
Mr. MacDonald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. MacDonald.
Mr. MacDonald. I have had the privilege of talking to you
before and the support of the Committee and I thought I would
just give you the quickest of updates for the benefit of this.
There's plenty of material on this. But I know that a question
for you has to be with regard to the project--
Mr. Lewis. We've heard of this project.
Mr. MacDonald. I know you have. [Laughter.]
I know you have, and I can't tell you how much difference
your support has meant, but I think that showing it to you in
the form of this graph might make it very clear. You can see in
these sort of environmentally greens and blues, with
contributions that come through this committee to this $3.8
billion project, that dark red is the share that has remained
for our ratepayers, so the local contribution, and the pink is
the contribution--early on when we came to talk to the
government about helping the project, they thought it was
essential that the State of Massachusetts also made a
contribution--in that time, the pink is what has come from the
State of Massachusetts.
Four pages on in the brochure, but I can show it to you
with this, is the picture of what has happened to household
rates, the significant increases and impacts that people have
borne as a result of this federally-mandated project. And you
can translate the differences that your contributions have made
into the diminishing scale of the increases. We are continuing
to push water and sewer rates up in Massachusetts because we
know this is fundamentally in force--our project to pay for it.
So it has not meant that our rates have even offered the
crisis that people feel about rates has stopped, and because of
the need to finish the project, which I have to tell you, is
now 91 percent complete, so we are close to the end of this
exercise. But the prospect for the next few years is a
resumption, this includes some other extending for combined
sewer overflows and so on.
Mr. Lewis. I understand.
Mr. MacDonald. So you can see dramatically that each year
that you have given us the help that you've given us, it has
made a direct difference while not diminishing our
responsibilities in Boston to carry the major burden of the
project. I thought it was a simple way of showing you what----
Mr. Lewis. It is very helpful.
Mr. MacDonald [continuing]. What you have done for us year
after year, and what a difference it makes if you can continue
it this year.
Mr. Lewis. Okay, thank you.
Mr. MacDonald. But I want to talk about, just very
briefly----
Mr. Lewis. Let me just mention that while your entire
testimony will be in the record, the charts are helpful and
they'll be included in our file as well.
Mr. MacDonald. And we have submitted testimony for the
record----
Mr. Lewis. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. MacDonald [continuing]. And not included was one thing
I thought you would like as members of the Committee. This
project is about the Clean Water Act, it's about public health,
it's about people using beaches, and it's about a national
symbol, if you will, of communities undertaking to do the
projects that have to be done.
But we do every now and then get some serendipitous
evidence of what this project means in an environmental sense,
and I thought you and members of the staff would enjoy a recent
article from the ``Boston Globe'' that points out that
porpoises now are all along the shoreline of the harbor,
feeding on the herring. And so we do, in fact, have evidence in
nature. We don't have to--we can go right to the key
determinants of this and know that this project actually makes
a difference.
Mr. Lewis. Excuse me, is that the correct English? Is it
porpoises or ``porpii?'' [Laughter.]
Mrs. Meek. If I was a major, I would say porpoises.
Mr. Lewis. Okay, all right. Thank you very much.
[Laughter.]
Mr. MacDonald. Well, as you can see, the way the writer
here dealt with it is saying that, ``We have a growing sense of
porpoise around our project.'' [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. Well, for goodness sakes.
Mr. MacDonald. So I thought that--we are doing this project
for the porpoises, we're doing it for the Clean Water Act, and
we're doing it public health, and we're doing it as a matter of
environmental responsibility, but it is helpful to know that
some of the broader purposes that we pursue by these
environmental projects make a difference.
Now I'd be glad to answer your questions. I know you know
the project intimately, and I really come each year to thank
you for what you've done.
Mr. Lewis. We appreciate very much your coming and your
testimony. We do know the project very well, and while I don't
have any questions, I do look forward to continuing to work
with you, sir.
Mr. MacDonald. Thank you very much. Members of our
delegation are going to be here tomorrow.
Mr. Lewis. We will ask them about the project.
Thank you.
Mr. MacDonald. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lewis. Mrs. Meek.
Mrs. Meek. I don't have anything.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much.
Mr. MacDonald. I appreciate you having us again this year.
Mr. Lewis. Good.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 992 - 997--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
TOM SMITH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RURAL ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Tom Smith who is the Executive Director of
Rural Enterprises Incorporated. Mr. Smith, welcome.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have accompanying me
today, off to the side with Congressman Wes Watkins' office,
Jeff Strongberg, and Laura Beneton with Government Affairs at
Fannie Mae.
Mr. Lewis. Good, thank you.
Mr. Smith. As you have stated, my testimony has been
submitted and hopefully the oral testimony will be as well.
Mr. Lewis. Appreciate that. It will be in the record.
Mr. Smith. Great. I have my summary request. I'm pleased to
have this opportunity to represent Rural Enterprises of
Oklahoma. I appear before you today to request an appropriation
of $450,000 from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development Economic Development Initiative Special Projects,
EDI.
The appropriation request is for rural economic activities
to meet the needs of small businesses with the ultimate result
of creating jobs in rural Oklahoma. The need for such
appropriation is substantiated by the increase in demand for
rural Oklahoma entrepreneurs for financing business assistance.
Currently, the services of Rural Enterprises of Oklahoma
include the most recent in this year, a taxable, single-family
mortgage bond program, 1998 Series A, of $12.5 million in
commitments from local rural banks, financial services,
including U.S. Small Business Administration, lending programs,
as well as serving as an intermediary lender for the Economic
Development Administration and the Rural Development
Administration, business development and small business
incubator services, technology services, international trade
assistance. Our organization just recently received grant
authority from the Federal Trade Zone's board here in
Washington for the operation of a general purpose board trade
zone in southern Oklahoma.
The demand for such financial assistance by small
businesses is evidenced by public financing secured by our
organization of $24 million for 70 Oklahoma businesses in 1997.
This financing helped create and retain over 2,400 jobs in
rural Oklahoma. Also, the number of business incubators has
grown to include facilities in 11 rural Oklahoma communities.
To try to facilitate our services, the REI board of
directors, which number 13, recently passed the resolution to
participate as an issuer of taxable single-family mortgage
revenue bonds with down payment assistance included. This is
the first rural taxable bond issue initiated in Oklahoma in a
total nationwide program. The second bond issue is already
underway to serve the remaining 40 rural Oklahoma counties to
provide affordable housing for our growing workforce in
ruralOklahoma. The requested appropriation from HUD will help
facilitate and expand this rural housing program.
Rural Enterprises of Oklahoma is nonprofit 501(c)(3)
economic development firm headquartered in southeastern rural
Oklahoma. Our combination of business services and our ability
to envision the needs for the future of small business is what
sets Rural Enterprises apart from other economic development
firms. The testimony of the organization's vision is the
current construction of a 3,000 square foot foreign trade zone
center with two business incubators inclusive. This project
further testifies to the need for HUD appropriations since it
would require additional resources to assist rural Oklahoma
small businesses wishing to enter the foreign markets.
Rural Enterprises has obtained a credible reputation for
its economic development programs and affords accountability
for finding resources for small businesses. HUD appropriations
are essential to continuance of our economic development
programs to serve these rural Oklahoma communities and their
businesses.
Thank you for your consideration.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith. As you
indicated, your entire statement will be included in the
record. We appreciate you being present. We very much
appreciate the work of your Congressman, Wes Watkins, and we'll
try to work very closely with him as we go forward from here.
Mrs. Meek.
Mrs. Meek. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1000 - 1006--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
JOHN HISCOX, PUBLIC HOUSING DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Hiscox, how are you sir? You know the
routine.
Mr. Hiscox. Thanks for the opportunity to appear before
you. Before we address the 1999 appropriation, I'd like to
speak just for a minute to some pending business, the current
situation regarding section 8 reforming. We know that we're
headed for a section 8 budget crisis. We think that----
Mr. Lewis. Thank you for that. [Laughter.]
Mr. Hiscox [continuing]. Reducing the section 8
preservation account which is intended to buffer that crisis
was probably not a good thing to do. We hope that's taken care
of in conference committee. I come from a State that was
ravaged by the recent floods, so we know the importance of
disaster relief, but I don't think there's a single family that
was rendered homeless by the flood that would want their home
restored to the extent of making another family homeless, and
we implore you not to let the flood strike twice.
Concerning operating subsidy, since the Brooks Amendment in
1968 and subsequently, the section took income completely out
of the control of housing authorities. It's been replaced
primarily by operating subsidies, and we believe Congress
really only has two choices. One is to fund the operating
subsidy at 100 percent of our eligibility which represents a
realistic assessment of what it takes to run a housing
authority, or to deregulate us seriously and give us back
control of our income. There really isn't much in the way of
middle ground. We cannot continue to treat the Brooks
Amendment, as we want to, treat the Brooks Amendment as sacred
and treat subsidy as profane.
And PHADA strongly recommends that we get 100 percent
funding of our PFS eligibility until such time as we're
substantially deregulated. Lots of folks who fear this fear
negative impact on low-income families, but as Congressman
Knollenberg is certainly aware, because of your sponsorship of
rent reform legislation a few years ago, there certainly is
strong, friendly byproducts for our residents in real rent
reform. By eliminating negative incentives to employment, we
benefit low-income families without hurting the very lowest-
income families that we serve. And we thank you for that past
support.
Concerning modernization, modernization is the lifeblood of
our CLPHA plan. We were first, foremost and always will be, a
fiscal plan program. There's been over $90 billion invested in
it since the inception of the program. We've been cut from $3.7
billion to around $2.5 billion now.
HOPE VI consumes far too much of the pot. Yes, I know it's
not in the same account as conventional modernization but it
was created about the same time that MOD was reduced and it is
capital funding for housing authorities, at the same time small
housing authorities are getting killed.
In my home State, we had the 155 housing authorities that
are less than 250 units. I'm not one of them so I'm not
speaking for my own interest here. Ninety-nine of those in 1996
applied for modernization funds. They applied for a total of
$172 million and only $15 million was available to fund them.
Of that, over $13 million was emergency needs such as replacing
furnaces with burned out combustion chambers. At the same time,
one Georgia housing authority received a HOPE VI grant that was
more than three times that size, in the $50 million range, at a
time when they had hundreds of millions of dollars worth of
modernization backlog.
We support the principles of HOPE VI, the flexibility, the
use for demolition for replacement housing, for mixed-income
housing, all of those things, but we believe that HOPE VI
should be folded back into the pot and that formula grants
should include small PHAs, as well, with the ability to borrow
as in section 108 that we have a community development block
grant against that for future needs.
Last but not least, we support continued funding of
thePublic Housing Drug Elimination Program. This is a survival issue
for many of us. We use Drug Elimination to make great headway against
crime and gangs and drugs in our neighborhoods, and it has been a
terrifically successful program. We urge you to resist the tendency to
block grant the money, unless you are prepared, of course, to roughly
triple the appropriation. Generally PHADA favors block grants but in
this case, it's the exception that proves the rule--competitive funding
with drug elimination to make sure that the money goes to places that
have identified real needs, that have demonstrated that they have a
plan that addresses those needs and have demonstrated administrative
capability to handle the funds when they receive them. And only by
doing that can we make the limited pot of money go to the places where
it is needed most and will be spent best.
I stand ready to answer any questions you might have, and I
thank you for your attention.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Hiscox, first, your statement is very much
appreciated. Your pointing early on to the challenge that we
have relative to section 8 is important for this committee. You
are a convenient pot, but it's not a pot that we can afford to
ignore as we go forward, and all of us knowing that is very
important if we're going to be able to effectively carry
forward our work. Further, let me say to you that I come from
rural America, and Small Housing Authorities have a special
place in my own mind. But, nonetheless, the pressures are very
real and I know that you appreciate that.
Mrs. Meek.
Mrs. Meek. I don't have any questions. Thank you for your
testimony.
Mr. Hiscox. Thank you for your kindness.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much for being with us.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1009 - 1016--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
LIZA BOWLES, PRESIDENT, NAHB RESEARCH CENTER
Mr. Lewis. Liza Bowles who is the President of the NAHB
Research Center.
Ms. Bowles. Hi, how are you?
Mr. Lewis. Fine, thank you very much.
Ms. Bowles. I just wanted to make a few points this morning
to kind of add emphasis to parts that were included in my
written testimony and I will be brief. In trying to think about
what we do and what to say to the Committee this morning, we
represent the National Association of Home Builders, and we are
the technical arm. And there are State and local associations
throughout the country. In all districts, you have a local
association and you have a State association. And it's our job
to help builders and help remodelers understand technology and
understand where things are going.
The Committee has been pretty supportive of having that
technology initiative and keeping HUD a little bit focused on
technology, the need for technology in housing. And we all
understand how important housing is to the economy and what a
driver it is in the economy. But there are other issues too,
and I was on the internet this morning, actually checking how
the Orioles did last night, and they beat Anaheim. [Laughter.]
What I looked at was the ``USA Today'' page and it had an
article on there that says for most Americans, it's not easy
being green, and it's not. And it says in here that housing has
increased in average square footage from 1,400 square feet to
2,100 square feet. So we can look at environmental issues and
we can look at energy issues, but unless we do something to
make it easier on the technology side, to build more
environmentally and more consciously on the environment, were
still not going to get more environmentally sensitive housing,
and that goes for land development, that goes for the structure
itself. We have to make it easier for builders; we have to make
it easier for remodelers.
Another issue on the need for our technology initiative has
to do with labor. It's great that we are in an environment
right now where there is very low unemployment but the
construction industry is pretty much at the bottom of that
labor chain. And that means that when you look at the numbers,
productivity in construction is actually going down. So we need
simpler systems. That has real implications for how we build
and what we do. We have very high turnover. We're attracting
people to the industry at the bottom, and it's taking more
hours to build a house now than it did five years ago. That's a
trend that really does need to be reversed, and technology can
help reverse that trend.
The second point I wanted to make is HUD's role in this
initiative. We asked the Committee last year to ask HUD to play
a stronger role in building technology. HUD has responded and
has accepted some leadership from an initiative called PATH,
which we're very pleased to see. We have some concerns about
HUD's ability really to lead Federal agencies and get everybody
working in one area and building technology, and the initiative
will not achieve its ultimate impact unless they can bring
those other Federal agencies along. It's not going to work if
everybody goes their separate way.
We still feel strongly that HUD needs to be in that lead
role because HUD understands the affordability issues. They
understand the cost issues. But we do want to keep the emphasis
on HUD that they really do need to pull the other agencies in,
and the other agencies need to be cooperative.
My last point I want to make on technology and the
initiative is that, if it's going to be successful, we can't
just concentrate on new housing. We add about a million units
to the housing stock every year. There's a hundred million
existing units out there. If we're going to have impact on
housing and what it means to the country, then we can't ignore
the existing housing stock. To a large extent, the initiatives
that have gone forward in the past focus on new housing and not
on existing housing.
So thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Ms. Bowles, very much.
Ms. Meek, do you have questions?
Mrs. Meek. I have no questions.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. On this other coordination issue, you're
asking for language or direction or what?
Ms. Bowles. We'd be----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. And you're not doing it alone here; I
assume you're doing it in other forums?
Ms. Bowles. Yes, we are. I think language would be great,
but there are definite areas where there is cooperation going
on. FEMA, with Project Impact and using some things with
bringing technology into that, I think are very strong, but
there are areas where there is not good cooperation.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. As I'm sure you know, Ms. Bowles, this
subcommittee has been involved in at least attempting to take
some steps in the direction of dealing with existing stock.
What we can do by working together--you also know full well
that authorization will be very helpful for us.
Ms. Bowles. Sure.
Mr. Lewis. I know you're always working there. So thank
you.
Ms. Bowles. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. We appreciate it.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1019 - 1025--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
ALFRED MUNZER, AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION
Mr. Lewis. Let's see, our next witness is Dr. Alfred
Munzer, the American Lung Association. Dr. Munzer.
Dr. Munzer. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you. I can see that you've summarized your
statement already. [Laughter.]
Dr. Munzer. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I'm
a physician specializing in lung disease and past president of
the American Lung Association. I'm here today to talk about the
funding needs for the Environmental Protection Agency's clean
air programs.
Lung disease remains the third leading cause of death in
the United States, and is responsible for one in seven deaths.
More than 30 million Americans suffer from chronic lung
disease, and lung disease has cost the U.S. economy an
estimated $84 billion annually.
Nearly all lung diseases are either caused or affected in
some way by air pollution. While we've made tremendous strides
in improving air quality, substantial deficits in air pollution
protection continue to exist. The EPA has estimated that, as of
1996, 46 million Americans lived in areas that did not meet the
current clean air standards. Tens of thousands of Americans
still die prematurely each year from complications associated
with exposure to air pollution, and many others have
respiratory problems.
I'm pleased that the Administration's budget requests an
increase in funding for the EPA. However, in light of the
mounting scientific evidence of the damage air pollution
inflicts on our citizens and unfinished work of EPA for
existing clean air standards, more resources are needed. And
I'd like to highlight a few important clean air programs.
As the Subcommittee no doubt is aware, the EPA has recently
revised the standards for ozone and particulate matter. While
much work needs to be done to implement these new standards,
there is also a lot of unfinished business, and to attain these
air quality standards and to appropriately plan and implement
the new standards will require significantly more funds than
have been requested by the Administration.
The Administration has requested an increase in the EPA air
toxics budget for fiscal year 1999. The American Lung
Association agrees that there is a need for additional funds.
We'd like to point out that this is a very significant program
of work for the EPA, and we are concerned that, without greater
additional funds, the establishment of new terms for the
maximum achievable control technology rules will not proceed on
schedule, and we recommend additional funds be provided.
The American Lung Association is also very concerned that
the Administration has made a recommendation to cut programs
for other criteria pollutants. The EPA needs to provide more
technical assistance to States for developing control programs
for all other criteria pollutants, especially sulfur dioxide.
The American Lung Association strongly opposed EPA's
decision not to set a national standard for short-term SO2
levels. While the EPA is currently advocating that these health
threats be addressed at the State and local level, its budget
has failed to provide any funding to States and localities to
achieve that.
Similarly, the Clean Air Act, much work that's done under
the Clean Air Act is done at the local and State level. The EPA
has provided very effective leadership, but, again, there, too,
we feel that there is a greater need for funding, for State air
grant funding, over the level that has been recommended by the
administration. We support the numbers that have been
recommended by the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrators.
The NIEHS Superfund basic research projects focus on the
health effects of toxic chemical exposure at Superfund
hazardous waste sites. The American Lung Association believes
that the EPA has made an excellent investment in the NIEHS, and
we recommend the transfer of $40 million from the EPA to the
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences for
toxicology research.
Finally, we'd like to comment very briefly on environmental
justice. We applaud the efforts of the EPA in this particular
area to make sure that all Americans are equally protected from
the dangers of air pollution, and we urge the subcommittee's
full support of this initiative. The American Lung Association
is pleased with the progress made at the EPA in approving our
Nation's air quality, and the subcommittee should take pride in
knowing that your investment in EPA is achieving results, and I
hope that you will continue to provide the needed leadership
and resources to protect the environment.
Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Dr. Munzer, for your testimony. We
very much appreciate it.
Ms. Meek
Mrs. Meek. No questions.
Mr. Lewis. No questions? Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1028 - 1035--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
ANN MILLER, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS
Mr. Lewis. Our next witness is Ann Miller, the American
Association of Retired Persons. Ms. Miller.
Ms. Miller. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. How are you?
Ms. Miller. I'm Ann Miller, a member of AARP board of
directors. We want to take this opportunity to express our
appreciation for your efforts last year regarding a section
202, elderly housing program. The Subcommittee's recommendation
to preserve section 202's appropriation is a critical benchmark
as the fiscal year 1998 bill worked its way through Congress.
The demand for this specialized housing program is strong.
Research indicates that eight people are waiting for every one
vacancy that occurs. Features provided, such as grab bars and
nonskid floors, are particularly helpful to the frail elderly
and help prevent early admission into nursing homes.
AARP is deeply concerned about the Administration's
proposals regarding section 202. The $109 million recommended
for new construction next year is an 83 percent reduction from
the existing appropriation. To make up for this shortage, an
additional $50 million in rental assistance vouchers is also
requested to help the elderly find affordable housing in the
private market.
These proposals not only jeopardize new production under
section 202, but also they also force the frail elderly to
compete for scarce, low-income housing. While AARP recognizes
the usefulness of vouchers, Mr. Chairman, we do not believe
they should be used as a replacement for the production of
specialized housing. The Association intends to work closely
with the authorizing committee regarding any changes that may
be considered to section 202. Meanwhile, we urge that, as a
minimum, funds be provided next year to maintain current
production levels.
We also urge at least the current funding levels for
service coordinators. The need for such management staff is
especially achieved in public housing projects for the elderly,
which often includes substantial numbers of residents with
mental and physical disabilities.
AARP appreciates the Subcommittee's support of these
critical personnel. In that regard, we note last year's
directed that HUD provide a report no later than February 1998
concerning the best means of funding service coordinators. AARP
believes such costs should be made part of the routine
operating expenses of elderly housing projects.
For the Congregate Housing Services Program, AARP
recommends no less than the current level of funding. Many of
the 4,000 frail and disabled low-income tenants presently
receiving these supportive services would have to relocate to
expensive nursing homes without this program.
Finally, we recommend that sufficient funds be provided
next year to continue the housing counseling program. This
program provides independent counseling for elderly homeowners
serving reverse mortgages. These mortgages allow them to use
the equity in their homes. Given the scam artists who prey on
older Americans, the need for such a program is critical.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on some of the
administration's budget proposals. We trust our recommendations
and our complete statement will receive the Subcommittee's
favorable consideration. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Ms. Miller, thank you very much for your
summarized testimony. The entirety will be included in the
record.
I think you already know that the two members who happened
to be here at the time you were testifying were the very two
members who led the battle last year relative to section 202
housing, and I've already been assured of their ongoing
commitment for the coming process ahead of us.
Ms. Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Do you have questions, by chance?
Mrs. Meek. No. I just want to thank you for being here.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. It's a pleasure to be working with a
chairman who's so enlightened and with Ms. Meek, on your
behalf, and other Committee members.
Ms. Miller. I appreciate that. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1038 - 1046--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
JORGE SANCHEZ, CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO
Mr. Lewis. Dr. Jorge Sanchez, who's Chancellor of the
University of Puerto Rico. Dr. Sanchez.
Mr. Sanchez. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, distinguished
members of the Subcommittee. I am Jorge Sanchez, Chancellor of
the University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras campus, representing
Norman Maldonado, President of the University. Joining me today
are Dr. Francis Schwartz, Dean of the College of Humanities and
Chairman of the Advisory Board for the UPR Theater project, and
Mr. Andres Gomez, a distinguished businessman in Puerto Rico
who is in charge of raising money in the private sector.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you for being with us. Your statement will
be included in its entirety in the record, and if you would
summarize it for us for the record, we would appreciate that.
Mr. Sanchez. Thank you very much.
I would like to discuss the University of Puerto Rico's
request for a $5 million special Federal grant under HUD's
Community Development Block Grant Program. This special purpose
grant would aid efforts underway to restore one of Puerto
Rico's most treasured community landmarks: the University of
Puerto Rico Theater.
Of all the historic cities in Puerto Rico, one stands out
preeminently as a source of community pride: the University of
Puerto Rico's grand assembly hall, El Teatro de la Universidad.
Built in 1939, the theater, located on the UPR campus in Rio
Piedras, was made possible by a cooperative effort between many
important island and stateside figures, most notably President
Franklin and Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt. Today the 2,088-seat
theater, which is the size of the Concert Hall at the Kennedy
Center, is the largest auditorium on the island. This theater
has a unique and a special significance within the context of
the UPR community.
The theater is the only place available within the UPR
community that provides a viable location for both public and
private events. Ever cognizant of its importance to the
surrounding community, the UPR has always made the theater
available to community organizations for activities which
require the theater's size and stature.
However, the nearly 60 years old structure is now closed to
the UPR community because of its major renovation needs.
Renovation activities are being coordinated by the university,
in an effort to allow the theater to continue to be of service
to the Puerto Rican community.
The renovation of the theater will coincide with current
economic and community development activities already underway
in Rio Piedras. Currently, the township is having to deal with
the effects of a large subway development project, Train
Urbano, that has temporarily placed the community under a state
of duress. I have to mention at this moment that the Puerto
Rican community appreciates very deeply the past contribution
of the Congress to this project.
The completion of the subway will mean greater economic and
community development opportunities. It will also provide for a
greater number of people to come to Rio Piedras to use the UPR
theater for community purposes. The UPR has already allocated
$4.2 million to start the work.
Additionally, the University is in the process of raising
approximately $6 million to support the project. Mr. Gomez is
in charge of that project segment, raising the funds. But
additional funds are needed to reach the total cost of $15
million. Mr. Chairman, to achieve our goal, the University of
Puerto Rico requests that the committee provide $5 million
within your committee's appropriations bill to assist in
restoring and preserving the UPR theater.
This completes my testimony. Again, on behalf of the
University of Puerto Rico, I want to thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today, and I ask that one
written statement be submitted for the record that also elicits
funding for other programs that fall under the Committee's
jurisdiction.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Dr. Sanchez. Gentlemen, if
you would supplement with comments that you might make for the
record, we would appreciate that. We very much appreciate your
being here.
Mr. Gomez. We're the private sector.
Mr. Lewis. Yes.
Mr. Gomez. I'm the Chair of the Foundation.
Mr. Lewis. You're the Chair of the Foundation, yes.
Mr. Gomez. To raise $6 million.
Mr. Lewis. Good.
Mr. Gomez. We're already making activities.
Mr. Lewis. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Schwartz. I would like to say that the theater--as Dean
of the Humanities College--is one of the great cultural
institutions, I would say, of the Americas, and it has been
very, very important in the promotion of democratic ideals in
Puerto Rico and the Caribbean.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Dean. We appreciate your being here.
Any questions?
Mrs. Meek. No.
Mr. Lewis. All right, thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Sanchez. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1049 - 1094--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
FRED CRESSEL, COUNCILMAN, CITY OF COMPTON, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Lewis. Our next witness is the Honorable Fred Cressel,
councilman from the city of Compton.
Councilman Cressel, welcome. Your entire statement will be
included in the record. If you would summarize it for us, we
would appreciate it.
Mr. Cressel. Okay. Chairman and the other members of the
Committee, I am Fred Cressel, councilperson in the city of
Compton, California. On behalf of the mayor, Omar Bradley, and
the rest of the council, and our 90,000 constituents, I
appreciate the opportunity to give you testimony concerning our
city.
In turning to Compton's appropriations request for 1999, we
are seeking funds for an initiative that would support the
growth and development of our most precious asset, our
children. Within this bill on the HUD community block grant
account, we are requesting $2 million for the purpose of
establishing a multipurpose youth development center. There's a
tremendous need for such a center in the city of Compton. The
city of Compton is a 10-square-mile city, and when I say that
there are no multipurpose centers for youth, it's unbelievable.
We are affected by violent crimes, particularly in the area
of youth involvement activities. These activities attribute to
nearly one-half of the homicides that are in the city of
Compton, and this past year we had something like 72.
It has been estimated that we have approximately 9,000 gang
members or affiliates within our city. Forty percent of those
are under 25 years of age. So we need to be able to break the
cycle. It's one thing to tell a child that you must do the
right thing, but it's something else to try to keep them busy
and training them in the way that they should go.
Given these statistics, we recognize the need to increase
our youth programs and efforts in the city of Compton to cut
back on the gang activity and the crime. Currently, we have
programs in the city now--one, in particular, which is the
YWCA. We funded them through our block grant, and they have a
program that teaches intervention and the roleplaying that the
children do. This program has touched this past year something
like 1,000 children, and it's amazing the reports back that the
teachers have on the different attitudes of the children.
What we really believe, we have one center where we could
bring in law enforcement and the different social programs, and
the activities that the youth have at this particular time,
that we could better serve them and train them, and as I stated
before, break that cycle. That's why we are asking you at this
particular time to see if you could possibly help us.
Mr. Chairman, what it boils down to, you are from the area,
and you know we have problems. We know that we need someone
somehow to help us break this cycle. The bottom line, Mr.
Chairman, is our children are dying, and we need help.
Mr. Lewis. Councilman Cressel, I very much appreciate your
taking the effort to come and give this testimony. I think you
may know the last time I was in Compton was when we met at the
high school, and we talked with representatives who were
concerned about the FBI having a special impact upon the
community.
Mr. Cressel. Yes.
Mr. Lewis. Without any doubt, there is a great need there,
and your local Member of Congress, Maxine Waters, is a very
attentive member, as you know. Maxine was the voice that day.
Mr. Cressel. Right. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. Ms. Meek.
Mrs. Meek. I can associate very well with what the
councilman has said.
Mr. Lewis. Yes.
Mrs. Meek. I think it's a very valid reason to seek
funding.
Mr. Lewis. Yes. Thank you for being with us.
Mr. Cressel. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1097 - 1100--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
LORRAINE SHEEHAN, CHAIRPERSON, THE ARC OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. Lewis. Our next witness is Lorraine Sheehan, the
Chairperson of The Arc of the United States. Ms. Sheehan.
Ms. Sheehan. Good morning.
Mr. Lewis. It's nice to see you.
Ms. Sheehan. Thank you. Thank you. And I know you have my
written testimony.
Mr. Lewis. I appreciate your being here.
Ms. Sheehan. My name is Lorraine Sheehan, and I'm the
volunteer Chair of the Government Affairs Committee of the Arc
of the United States. The Arc is the largest voluntary
organization in the United States devoted solely to the welfare
of more than 7 million people with mental retardation in their
families. We have more than 1,100 State and local chapters of
the Arc nationwide.
For two decades, the top priority of the Arc has been to
make community-based services and supports, including an
appropriate variety of housing options, more available to
people with mental retardation. The Arc also seeks the
deinstitutionalization of people with mental retardation living
in large, inappropriate, and extremely expensive institutions,
places where many people with mental retardation have been
forced to live, often because there are no community options.
The Arc is very grateful for the support provided by the
Subcommittee over the past few years, for the recognition ofthe
housing needs of people with disabilities and the recognition that
these needs have to be considered on their own merit, and not lumped in
with the needs of the elderly.
I'm also--more importantly to me--I'm also the mother of
John. John is 32 years old. He has mental retardation, and he's
always lived at home. I am representative of hundreds of
thousands of families who are afraid to die because we don't
know what will happen to our sons and daughters when we are no
longer around to care for them. We are fearful that they will
be forced to live in large congregate settings or forced to
leave family and friends or forced to live in substandard
housing because there is nothing else available.
In response to that crisis, the Arc of the United States
has undertaken a campaign called--and you see our button here--
``A Key of Our Own--Unlock the Waiting List.'' Nationwide, data
indicates that at least 271,000 people with mental retardation
are on waiting lists for community-based supports and services,
including housing. We know of 50- and 60-year-old ``children''
living with 80- and 90-year-old parents. We know of people all
over the country who have been waiting for 15 years or more.
Some States such as California keep waiting list information.
But in New Jersey, our figures show there are 4,996 people
waiting for services; in Florida, 1,765 people. We believe that
those numbers are an underestimation of the real need out
there, and a need that will continue to grow.
While HUD, in its 1994 report to the Congress on the worst-
case housing needs, recognized the housing crisis faced by
people with disabilities, they implemented the elderly only
provisions that apply to assisted housing without requiring
notification of the lost of assisted units, and seemed
unconcerned about the impact.
The Arc believes that people with mental retardation and
other disabilities are entitled to an equitable share of
Federal housing resources, and we'd like to make the following
recommendations.
On section 8, Tenant-Based Rental Assistance. We believe
that section 8, Tenant-Based Rental Assistance is the most
effective tool for helping people with mental retardation with
integrated life in their community. Access to section 8
assistance makes community housing affordable.
Unfortunately, even though most people with mental
retardation work and have jobs, they simply don't make very
much money, and they really can't afford the market rates for
housing, and they need the subsidy.
Medicaid is a source of service funding for the support
services they need, but Medicaid doesn't pay for housing. So
the rental subsidy is absolutely essential.
We seek your report for additional $40 million for section
8, Tenant-Based Rental Assistance specifically for people with
disabilities, and we realize that there have been a number of
problems that have hindered the distribution of these funds
last year, but feel that the language that the Subcommittee
added should help to alleviate these problems.
The Arc gets called everyday for housing assistance. In the
last 24 hours it just so happens we received a call from
California, Massachusetts, and Illinois, and these are families
that are looking for housing assistance, access to housing for
their sons and daughters.
On the issue of section 811, Supportive Housing for People
with Disabilities, we have a major concern that HUD's fiscal
year 1999 appropriations recommendation that the $330 million
for section 811 and section 202 fold into the HOME Block grant.
This proposal not only represents a major cut in funding
for those programs, but is also an attack on the integrity of
the program. And while we support the flexibility of the Home
Program, we fear the consolidation of section 811 into home
will represent a complete lost of funds currently targeted
specifically for people with severe disabilities.
We urge you to ignore the 811 recommendation. As a matter
of fact, we'd like to recommend an increase for section 811
program to $250 million, based on HUD's--of found money. And
you have to note that $250 million is still less than the
appropriations from 1994, 1995, and 1996 in each of those
years.
We'd also seek your support for including nonprofit
disability organizations as eligible applicants for tenant-
based rental assistance funded with section 811. Other
programs--and there's a lot of that with shelter plus care and
HOPWA, so this would not be anything that's brand new.
Nonprofits know people in mental retardation and other
disabilities, and their housing needs, and I think we know
their needs better than perhaps the Public Housing Authority.
We thank you for your ongoing support, or your support in
the past, and we appreciate your ongoing support. We've
attempted to work in collaboration with HUD, but don't feel
that we've been very successful. We're very concerned about the
Department's continued lack of understanding of the depth and
breadth of the housing crisis, faced by people with all types
of disabilities, including mental retardation.
I mean, all our folks want; they want to work, and live,
and play in their communities, and housing is an essential
element to make this happen. So thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Ms. Sheehan, thank you very much for your very
poignant statement. I must say, this is not a problem that is
new to us.
Ms. Sheehan. No, I know.
Mr. Lewis. But, it's a very, very important problem, and
your personalizing it is helpful to me.
Ms. Sheehan. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Mrs. Meek.
Mrs. Meek. Thank you. Just a personal aside.
You've been Arc for some time?
Ms. Sheehan. I've been--well, my son's 32, so I joined the
Arc shortly thereafter.
Mrs. Meek. So you know Dr. Forman from Florida?
Ms. Sheehan. I've met him. I can't say that I am a personal
friend.
Mrs. Meek. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you very much for being here.
We're very blessed on this committee, having a chairman who not
only knows these issues, but he's willing to list some of our
own personal perspectives and frustrations with the HUD
bureaucracy. We're still waiting for a GAO report, which is
analyzing----
Ms. Sheehan. Yes, we mentioned that in our recent
testimony.
Mr. Frelinghuysen [continuing]. Resident issue. And it is
inexcusable, even after Robert Borster's hearing, which I
contributed to somewhat, we still don't have a notice for
availability of funding out of HUD.
I don't know what's going on over there, whether they're
suddenly in paralysis, but it's totally inexcusable. But Ithink
you all will generally find this committee on a bipartisan basis is
indeed sympathetic and wants to be helpful.
Ms. Sheehan. You know on the personal note, all of these
days that it takes, and months, and years to put these things
together, there are people's parents who are dying.
Mr. Lewis. That's correct. And that's the poignant issue
that I was referring to.
Ms. Sheehan. And it's real, believe me, it's real.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much.
Ms. Sheehan. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1104 - 1112--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
ANDREW SPERLING, CONSORTIUM FOR CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES
Mr. Lewis. Andrew Sperling, The Consortium of Citizens with
Disabilities. I don't know how you add to that. So we can just
be brief.
Mr. Sperling. I want to be brief as possible. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mrs. Meek, my name is Andrew Sperling.
I'm director of Public Policy for National Alliance of the
Mentally Ill. I'm going to briefly summarize the statement on
behalf of the Consortium for Citizens with Disability, which is
a broad-based coalition of national disability organizations
concerned with the housing opportunities for people with
disabilities.
Our membership includes the Paralyzed Veterans of American,
The Arc, which was the previous witness, the National Alliance
of the Mentally Ill, the organization I work for, United
Cerebral Palsy, and the National Easter Seal Society; a broad-
based coalition of disability organizations. And we are
obviously concerned with the housing opportunities for people
with disabilities.
In virtually every part of the United States people with
disabilities struggle to find decent, safe, and affordable
housing. We're troubled that for now a number of years the
Department of Housing and Urban Development has failed to come
up with a competence of rational policy to deal with that
housing problem by people with disabilities.
In particular, there was some failure to come up with a
national policy, a national strategy to deal with the impact of
elderly only designation of public and assisted housing has
occurred since 1992, with enactment of Title VI of the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1992.
Much of the loss in this housing has already occurred
particularly on the assisted housing side, since no HUD prior
approval was required for a private owner of assisted housing
to designate both zero efficiency apartments and one bedroom
units of elderly only.
According to recent figures that we found from the Office
of Policy Development and Research at HUD, a percentage of
nonelderly disabled persons in federally-supportive assisted
housing has dropped from 13 to 11 percent between 1994 and
1997. During the same period the percentage of elderly people
in assisted housing has grown from 42 to 47 percent.
Now we just found these figures in a much larger
comprehensive report that was issued by the Office of Policy
Development and Research. In this same report made no notice of
this decline on the nonelderly disabled side and decline on the
elderly side.
So we're concerned that once again HUD has failed to really
recognize this as a national problem that deserves a policy
response at the Federal level.
Fortunately, we've had the leadership of this subcommittee
to try and turn this trend around, and to try and get
alternative resources for those nonelderly disabled who have
lost access to assisted housing, and public housing as well.
On the public housing side I'll just note that in 1997 HUD
approved 43 plans, designated 9,300 units as elderly owned. CCD
believes that this process would not have gone as smoothly as
it did were it not for the section 8 Tenant-Based Rental
Assistance that this subcommittee made available to HUD to cope
with this problem. And CCD appreciates the leadership on a
bipartisan basis, in its helping the subcommittee to deal with
this issue.
We'd like to respond just briefly and make a few notes on
1999 HUD budget proposal. CCD is deeply disappointed that, once
again, HUD has failed to come forward with a policy response
and adequate resources to deal with it. In fact, they've gone
somewhat in the opposite direction, especially on the 811
program, proposing a $20 million cut and proposing to
consolidate 811 and 202 into the HOME Program.
Again, to reiterate what the prior witness told the
Subcommittee, we believe this is a step in the wrong direction
and a proposal that this subcommittee should reject.
I want to briefly just touch on a few recommendationsthat
CCD has for the 1999 budget. In the area of section 8, Tenant-Based
Rental Assistance, we would urge the Subcommittee to continue the
efforts it's made over the past years, and allocating resources,
section 8 tenant-based resources to deal with the loss of both public
and assisted housing to elderly-owned designations.
On section 811 urge you to reject the Administration's
budget and to propose an increase for section 811. As you know,
when Secretary Cuomo spoke to the Subcommittee a few weeks ago
he noted upwards of $690 million that was somehow founded in
the HUD budget to make up for the proposed cut that they put
forward in their budget.
We would urge that these resources be directed to make up
for the cut they propose in both 202 and 811, to ensure that
this important program is not cut in fiscal year 1999.
With respect to the Office of Policy Development and
Research, I noted earlier, we would urge the Subcommittee to
provide some direction to PD&R, to study and undertake a more
comprehensive study of the impact of designated housing, and
follow up on the GAO study that the subcommittee requested last
year.
And finally, CCD would especially like to take note of
Congressman Frelinghuysen from New Jersey, who, you know, Mr.
Chairman, has been the leader on this issue in bringing
direction to HUD to pay more attention to housing for people
with disabilities. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lewis. We very much appreciate your testimony, and the
remedy of your testimony as well. It's very helpful.
I must say, between you and Ms. Sheehan the point has been
well made, and this is not a problem that's going to disappear.
Section 8 funding on the one hand, we've got a very big
challenge ahead of us. But many of these issues are driven also
by authorization or lack of authorization.
So I hope that all those that are interested in both
section 8 and section 11 will help us with that process.
Mrs. Meek.
Mrs. Meek. Thank you very much.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. You have heard the chairman's point of
absolutely good. You've got to go after the authorizing
committee as well as work with us. Thank you very much.
Mr. Sperling. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1116 - 1122--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
ANDREA STAMPS, DETROIT RESCUE MISSION MINISTRIES
Mr. Lewis. Andrea Stamps, Detroit Rescue Mission
Ministries. We've been telling everyone that your entire
statement will be in the record, and you can summarize if you'd
like.
Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if I might
introduce her just briefly to you.
Mr. Lewis. Sure.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
opportunity, and the members of the Subcommittee to allow us to
come before you, and certainly for considering this request
what we is one of the most important that we do in our part of
the world.
As you know, Detroit Rescue Mission is a social agency that
has saved millions of lives, and families, and children;
ability to continue in the world. They are connected with over
600 churches in our area, and they really offer a service.
It's my pleasure to present to you one of our finest, and
she'll turn her own story, and how the mission has helped her,
and how we move forward. I can submit a copy of my introduction
for the record. And let me present to you Ms. Andrea Stamps.
Ms. Stamps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Welcome to the Committee, and I want you to know
that beyond your statement, which will be included in the
record, your presence here is very much appreciated.
Ms. Stamps. I would like to thank the members of the VA HUD
Subcommittee for providing us an opportunity to appear before
you.
My name is Andrea Stamps and I am 40 years of age, and for
25 years I have used all types of drugs.
For the past 21 months I have been substance-free. I am
currently employed with the Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries
as the administrative assistant to the executive vice
president.
I am proud to appear before this Subcommittee, and announce
to you that my life has been transformed through the Detroit
Rescue Mission Ministries.
Before going to the Mission I lived on the streets of
Detroit; I was addicted to drugs and alcohol. My drug of choice
was crack cocaine and my closest friends were drug dealers and
drug addicts. I used my welfare check and my food stamps to buy
my drugs.
I was emotionally and physically abused by my boyfriend and
I was suicidal. I have had my stomach pumped because of cocaine
poisoning. I'm a single mother of three boys, born out of
wedlock by two men. These men did nothing to help raise my
children.
I was first exposed to drugs by my mother, who was a drug
user, and on Martin Luther King's birthday in 1990, the police
raided our house, and they pointed guns at my children and
myself. It was a nightmare. They found drugs and my mother did
serve time in prison.
I began living in homeless shelters throughout the city of
Detroit in an attempt to stop using drugs. Unfortunately, I was
not successful at all. Every job I held, I held to support my
drug habit. I would leave work on a Friday with a full
paycheck, and I would disappear into the drug houses of Detroit
for days at a time. I didn't care about anybody or anyone, not
even my children, and their disrespect for me grew.
Before my hope ran out completely I found the Detroit
Rescue Mission Ministries. They took me in, they fed me, they
clothed me, and they loved me. Ultimately, they helped me to
heal my life.
The Mission has transformed my life physically,
emotionally, and spiritually. Today I am involved in my church,
the Old World African Methodist Church. In fact, one of my
fellow parishioners is Congresswoman Kilpatrick.
I now have my own home, and with the help of the ministry I
was able to furnish it. I plan to return to school to receive
my bachelor's degree in business administration.
Mr. Chairman, I appear before you, not as a lobbyist, not
as a lawyer, and certainly not as any kind of legislative
expert. I appear before you today as a woman and a mother of
three, a citizen concerned about the homelessness and drug
addicted-people of Detroit and throughout our Nation.
The Detroit Rescue Ministries offers hope for the hopeless,
care and love to the forgotten, and healing for the mind, body,
and soul. We serve the last, the least, and the lost. I know
because I was one of them. My life was transformed by the
Mission.
The Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries has been working
since 1909 to help the poor, the addicted, and the homeless
become self-sufficient. We continue to operate 80 percent of
our budget through private donations, but even as we are
rebuilding our lives, our physical infrastructure is crumbling.
We lack the necessary funds to repair the leaking roofs,
the crumbling walls, and the broken boilers. We need to build a
wheelchair access ramp and install fire detection devices.
Mr. Chairman, our total budget for restoring our seven
facilities is $12.5 million. We are seeking a $1.5 million
Federal investment towards our budget. These funds would help
make the necessary infrastructure and improvement so that the
Mission can offer a safe environment while transforming the
lives of more people like my former self.
We would really appreciate your support. Thank you and God
bless you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much for being here.
Congresswoman Kilpatrick, this kind of testimony is very,
very helpful to me.
Let me mention to Ms. Stamps. Earlier we had a brief
discussion of early childhood education, and some history of
that legislation. I'll never forget that a professor at USC in
Southern California talking about children's patterns in
school, very poignantly documented the fact that a child's
success in school is directly related to that child's mother's
attitude towards education. And that it's very, very apparent
that you have a great contribution to make ahead of you, and I
appreciate very much your coming to us today.
Mrs. Meek.
Mrs. Meek. I'm happy that you came and your testimony was
very, very descriptive. And I do hope the $1 million is a small
amount to reinforce the investment that this mission has made
in your life.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Knollenberg.
Mr. Knollenberg. I too want to praise you for your
testimony, along with my colleague Carolyn Kilpatrick. We
think, I believe, along the same line. I certainly believe that
what you're doing is very worthwhile. You've been to my office.
We've had that discussion, and we know something about the work
that you do.
So I commend you, what you're doing.
Ms. Stamps. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Knollenberg. And we'll look earnestly, as the Chairman
I'm sure has pointed out, anything that we can possibly help
support you.
Mr. Lewis. I thank you for your courage, and God bless you.
Ms. Stamps. Thank you.
Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
Committee's time.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1126 - 1135--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
SUNIA ZATERMAN, PRESIDENT, COUNCIL OF LARGE PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITIES
Mr. Lewis. Our next witness is Sunia Zaterman, the Council
of Large Public Housing Authorities.
Ms. Zaterman. Good morning. Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee, on behalf of the Council of Large Public Housing
Authorities, I want to thank you for inviting us to testify
today.
As you know, CLPHA's membership is comprised of the largest
housing authorities in the country. They collectively own and
operate about 40 percent of the public housing in the country
and a significant share of the section 8 program.
Mr. Lewis we appreciated your stirring remarks at the CLPHA
meeting in February, particularly your call in 1998 The Year of
Public Housing. We're making a banner of that now and putting
it in our office. It's a means for inspiration. But as you
might imagine, recent events have caused considerable alarm and
concern that 1998 may not be the year we expected.
First the House action to rescind $2.2 billion of section 8
reserves, as you might imagine, caused great consternation. Not
only because we're concerned about the stability of the section
8 program and the 1.4 million household that is served, but
also the precedent it sets in robbing the already much pillaged
housing funds for other domestic and military uses.
And just as an aside on the section 8 program, we hope that
you will discontinue the 3-month delay in the issuance of
certificates. There's a high administrative cost. People are
going without housing assistance and the savings supposedly
required are no longer needed.
Second, as you well know, we're without an authorizing
bill, despite the broad consensus on the provisions of the
bill.
Mr. Lewis. Beg your pardon?
Ms. Zaterman. We're without an authorizing bill, despite
broad consensus on a number of the provisions of the
authorizing bill.
Mr. Lewis. Beg your pardon? [Laughter.]
Ms. Zaterman. I am willing to admit your acceptance to
that.
But certainly we're grateful to you and the help of Senator
Bond in continuing to extend those provisions in the
appropriations bill. But just as you've stated yourself, we all
know that it's not a substitute for permanent authorization,
and housing authorities are reluctant to move forward on a one-
year lease for sweeping policy and operation changes.
Third, the HUD budget request does not meet our needs and
does not address modernization operating subsidy needs. The
operating subsidy request according to our estimate is
somewhere around $300 million short of what's needed. And even
OMB acknowledges that $2.1 billion is needed just to address
the normal wear and tear issues associated with the public
housing stock, so we're not even close to addressing the
capital backlog needs in public housing.
We would urge you to consider reallocation of reserves that
are no longer required under other programs to supplement the
HUD budget request on modernization.
And another point I think is worth emphasizing in this
area, is that modernization effectively and efficiently
addresses the secretary's aim to enhance employment in the
inner cities. The multiplier effect in the marketplace is that
$1 billion in construction creates at least 18,000 jobs in
construction and the production of supplies and materials. So
this is a job development and economic development program as
well.
There is a positive side, and we see HOPE VI as a harbinger
for the bold changes that can be realized in public housing to
meaningful direct capital grants.
Your support of the program has been very critical. In
cities across the country, in Newark, in Milwaukee, in
Louisville, Atlanta, Detroit, Cleveland, Washington, D.C., as
you know well in your field trips with the receiver, we have
seen some very dramatic transformations taking place.
We're renewing neighborhoods while we're improving the
quality of the lives of residents and the communities that are
surrounding public housing. However, HUD's emerging total
development cost policy that regulates how the HOPE VI funds
would be spent is a great concern to us, and we're concerned
that it will set back our aim to make dramatic transformation
in neighborhoods.
We've discussed our concerns and recommendations with your
very able staff, and we would be available to talk about that
further.
Other areas, such as the Drug Elimination Program and the
Supportive Service programs, has demonstrated tangible results
in public housing, and we look forward to continued support for
those programs.
In terms of our hopes for reasonable funding levels, we
would ask for $3.156 billion for operating subsidy, $3.7
billion for modernization and capital funding, $550 million for
HOPE VI, $350 million for Drug Elimination, and $75 million for
Supportive Services.
Thank you very much for your continued support of the
public housing program.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Ms. Zaterman. We must say
for the record we have ahead of us the supplemental conference.
What that will do relative to outset requirements and so on,
we're all looking forward to it with a good deal of interest.
But having said that, as trying to respond partially to
your concerns about section 8, which the Committee shares with
you, we have received assurances at every level, conceivable
level that counts around here, that they are too sensitive
about this problem, and in one way or another in the budget
process the challenge will be met.
So from there let us hope that we have a Year of Public
Housing in the Congress as well.
Ms. Zaterman. The year's not over yet.
Mr. Lewis. Mrs. Meek.
Mrs. Meek. Thank you for appearing today.
Mr. Lewis. Gentlemen.
Thank you very much. Appreciate your being here.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1137 - 1145--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
LAVERNE R. JOSEPH, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF HOMES AND SERVICES FOR THE
AGING
Mr. Lewis. Isn't it quite amazing that we're almost on
schedule.
For the morning, our last witness is Laverne Joseph, who's
with the American Association of Homes and Services for the
Aging.
Ms. Joseph, nice to see you one more time this morning.
Ms. Joseph.Well, good morning, Mr. Chairman, again, and
members of the committee; Mrs. Meek, Mr. Frelinghuysen. And of
course Valerie Baldwin, staff member here.
It's good to be back here again. I'm pleased to be
representing the American Association of Homes and Services for
the Aging, which is the largest nonprofit association that
represents members who provide housing and services for
seniors. The members currently manage and largely own about
300,000 units of market rate and largely section 202 housing.
Again, congratulations on receiving the
DistinguishedService Award. It was a real privilege for me to present
that to you in your home district. It was a wonderful day. And I also
want to thank you and Congresswoman Meek for your wonderful statements,
inspiring statement this morning out of Housing Coalition press
conference, as well as for what you did in amending the budget last
year from $300 million to $645 million for 1998.
And because I know you know the issues so well, I'm like
the preacher who found only three or four people in the
congregation, and therefore felt he didn't have to deliver the
whole load, because you know the issues. And you're happy to
see me, because I'm the last speaker before lunch, and so I'll
keep it short.
You were not there--you had to leave for other
appointments--when the opinion poll was discussed. Does the
American public favor senior housing? The survey included over
1,000 persons and found that 90 percent of them favor the
maintenance or the expansion of affordable senior housing
through nonprofit providers.
To be specific, 59 percent favor expansion and 31 percent
favor at least maintaining the status quo. And then the other
main point out of this survey is the need and the response. And
as I said in my remarks this morning, we have the demographics
going one way and the production going the other way, and you
know that.
So the quick points that I want to make, the 202 program
works, it is working, it will continue to work, and we know
that you're going to help us to keep it working.
Just as kind of a point of humor, one of my friends gave
this to me and found it in the Dulles Airport, and said it
pretty much reflects what seems to happen year after year, but
hopefully this is the time that we're not going to have to keep
going back to this every year. ``If it ain't broke, fix it
until it is''. It's a bumper sticker. And that's what was tried
this year with the 202 program. Again, but thanks to your
effort it's not going to be broken.
We're asking that the funding be restored to the 1996
level, which is $850 million. Much of that funding can be
readily identified by Secretary Cuomo when he appeared before
the Committee.
The HOME Program, we didn't want 202 fold in the HOME. HUD
has now taken that off the table, and it doesn't appear that
that's going to be given any serious discussion, at least this
year.
Vouchers don't work. We've talked about the reason why they
don't work for seniors. They're a good program, but service
enriched housing for seniors is a quality of life and a very
effective efficient way to deliver these services for a frail
person.
And then funding of social service coordinators. Funding of
social service coordinators needs to be set at $25 million.
It's very valuable. And you're aware of Mr. Lazio's bill, H.R.
3635, which is going to address the debt restructuring, and I
hope that all members of the Committee will sign on in a total
sponsorship position. And then providing funding for
modernization and retrofit. You're aware of that too.
That's the abbreviated load. I know the Committee's going
to do the right thing, not only because of what you said this
morning, but because you have a history of doing the right
thing, and we're going to work and support you.
Mr. Lewis. Ms. Joseph, we very much appreciate your
abbreviated testimony. You've got Mrs. Meek so excited that she
decided to have lunch early. [Laughter.]
But I did want to mention that we happen to have a
Committee right now who will succumb----
Mrs. Meek. Just like men normally do their duty----
Mr. Lewis. I have been very much looking forward to this,
and you've been very helpful to us.
So we appreciate your being with us and look forward to
working with you.
Ms. Joseph. My pleasure.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Joseph. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1148 - 1153--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Lewis. The meeting will be in recess until we come back
at 1:00. In the meantime, we will continue our public witness
testimony in this room at 1:00 p.m. Thank you very much.
[Recess.]
----------
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
MARY PAVEL, GREAT LAKES INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION
Mr. Lewis. Mary Pavel, welcome to the Committee. We'll be
glad to receive your testimony.
Ms. Pavel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sending regards of
Mr. James Schlender, the Executive Administrator of the Great
Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission. He's, unfortunately,
unable to be here with us today.
My name is, for the record, Mary Pavel, and on behalf of
the 11 member tribal governments of the Great Lakes Indian Fish
and Wildlife Commission, I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to submit testimony regarding the Administration's
fiscal year 1999 EPA budget.
The Commission's fiscal year 1999 request centers on two
major objectives: support for the EPA's Coastal Environmental
Management Program and its continued funding of tribal
participation in intergovernmental partnerships to develop,
coordinate, and implement tribal strategies to protect the
Lakes' ecosystem in conjunction with the Binational Program the
Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan, the International Joint
Commission meetings, and the State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference at a cost of $70,000. The second objective is the
need to expand cooperative contaminant studies for fish,
animals, plants, used by tribal members under rights reserved
in the 1837 and 1840 treaties with the United States at a cost
of $104,476.
The Commission is comprised of 11 tribal governments
located throughout Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. The
Commission's purpose is to protect and enhance treaty
guaranteed rights to hunt, fish, and gather on inland
territories ceded under the Chippewa Treaty; to protect and
enhance treaty guaranteed fishing on the Great Lakes, and to
provide cooperative management protection of these resources.
The tribal members rely on fish, wildlife, and plants for
religious, ceremonial, and medicinal subsistant economic and
cultural purposes. The importance of Lake Superior and its
environment is documented in the history and culture of the
Anishinabe people.
Because Lake Superior is so important to the tribes, the
tribes are vitally concerned about its welfare. For tribes
participate in protection initiatives to restore and protect
this resource they need to work with other jurisdictions on a
government to government basis and strong governmental
institutions to enable effective participation. These needs are
consistent with the goals of the EPA' Indian policy which are
to promote self-government and work with tribes on a government
to government basis.
To further EPA's policy and address needs, adequate long-
term funding will be necessary to enable sustained
participation and initiatives to protect the Great Lakes
ecosystem. The Commission is requesting that Congress earmark
$70,000 from the Great Lakes National Program Office or the
Coastal Environmental Management Program to provide a grant to
enable the Commission to continue its participation in
environmental policy making and, two, to provide funds for
technical projects so that the Commission is able to contribute
to the technical working groups and adequately review technical
documents.
EPA funding will be used by GLIFWC--GLIFWC is a short name
for the Commission--to research environmental issues,
facilitate discussions, and build consensus between the tribal
leaders and develop formal positions to be forwarded to the
appropriate agencies. These efforts would compliment the
ongoing efforts by the Commission member tribes to develop and
advance their governmental positions.
Funding for the EPA is also needed to facilitate the
Commission's long-term participation in the Binational Program
and to restore and protect Lake Superior. The Commission
proposes to participate in both the Binational Program's task
force of senior governmental natural resource managers and work
groups composed of technical and scientific professionals.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to close. If you have any
questions----
Mr. Lewis. I certainly don't have any questions, but we do
appreciate your providing testimony, and it will be included in
its entirety in the record.
Ms. Pavel. Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. No questions, thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you for being here.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1156 - 1161--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
LARRY SCHWARTZKOPF, NATIONAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGER, FOND DU LAC
NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM
Mr. Lewis. Larry Schwartzkopf, representing the Fond du Lac
Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, welcome.
Mr. Schwartzkopf. Thank you. I wish to thank the Chairman
and the Committee for this opportunity to present the
appropriation request and the testimony for the Fond du Lac
Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. My name is Larry Schwartzkopf,
and I am the Fond du Lac Natural Resources Program Manager.
Chairman Peacock sends his regrets that he could not be present
today. Along with my testimony, I'd like to provide some
additional background materials of mercury contamination and a
letter from Representative Willard Munger from the State
legislature in Minnesota, and also some popular research papers
of the neurological effect of methylmercury on children.
Mr. Lewis. We'll include it in our file.
Mr. Schwartzkopf. Thank you, sir.
The Fond du Lac Band is an old band. The Fond du Lac Band
of Lake Superior Chippewa, and the reservation is located about
20 miles west of Duluth, Minnesota. In my testimony today, I'd
like to stress the importance of the continued funding of the
Indian Housing Program. This program continues to provide
affordable housing to families on the Fond du Lac Reservation
that could not afford to obtain adequate housing in another
locality. This program has been run efficient and run
effectively over the years by the organization.
We also would like to express the importance of continued
funding of the Indian Environmental General Assistance Program.
This is very important to the Reservation and many of other
Reservations across the country now. Fond du Lac and some of
the other bands in Minnesota were some of the first
Reservations that have organized and operate these programs on
Reservations, and we recommend that the President's budget of
$42.6 million be included in the EPA's budget for this program.
Our most urgent appropriation request is to obtain $275,000
for continued funding of a cooperative research project
entitled, the Sediment Contaminant Mitigation and Prevention
for Mercury. This research project between the Fond du Lac
Reservation and the University of Minnesota Duluth and the
University of Wisconsin-Superior in developing an effective and
efficient mitigation technology to sequester and also
potentially other heavy metals in PCB in highly contaminated
sediments and also on lakes and streams that have more benign
but actually significant levels of mercury from aerial
deposition to prevent the bionic uptake of mercury into the
aquatic food chain. This will result in lower levels of mercury
in game fish in our region and other areas, and help to improve
and protect the health of generations to come.
We need the continued funding to continue this research. A
few years ago, we were given $100,000 from Congress and another
$100,000 from the Great Lakes National Program Office of the
EPA, and this fund was not enough to establish the
effectiveness of this technology. We need the funds to complete
our research and to fully test and develop this technology in
the field. What we are using is a benign form of a highly--of
iron which has a small particle size and is very effective at
binding mercury in some cases, also, in other heavy metals and
even PCB.
Mercury causes neurological disorders especially in fetuses
and young children. Studies have shown and been shown that they
have this effect in the current research and all of our
research may result in even tightening of fish consumption
advisories in the future. Many Native American communities
continue to rely on fish as a large part of their diet. Many
other citizens in other regions in other parts of the country
consume fish which is contaminated with mercury and other heavy
metals, and we are seeking support not only from the Minnesota
delegation but also hopefully from Wisconsin, Michigan,
Northeastern States in this request. Mercury entering our
Nation's waters from precipitation continues to increase and
although some improvements have been seen from acid rain
regulations, the increased area of deposition of mercury and
projected increases in the use of coal and electrical power
generation into the next century will result in increased
levels of mercury that will contaminate the fish and result,
thereby, in fisheries basically, being unsafe for consumption
on many water bodies.
I guess I would like to stress that this technology is
transferrable. It is not only effective for our region but for
western States possibly from minor run-off; northeastern States
that have the problem, and certainly the Great Lake States.
Thank you very much, sir, for your time.
Mr. Lewis. First, I appreciate very much you being here as
well. I appreciate you bringing your son with you. Any other
comments that you have along with these materials will be
included in the record in our file and thank you. Any questions
from the members? No, thank you very much.
Mr. Schwartzkopf. Thank you, sir.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1164 - 1179--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, AND
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
WITNESS
GLENN A. GRANT, ESQ., BUSINESS ADMINISTRATOR, CITY OF NEWARK, NEW
JERSEY
STANLEY BERGEN, JR., MD, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE AND
DENTISTRY OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Lewis. We're going to just slightly readjust our order
here. One of our colleagues is present to introduce a couple of
guests, so they'll pick up the next two segments.
Representative Donald Payne, Don, please come up.
I believe first is Glenn Grant, is that----
Mr. Payne. I'll just introduce them both.
Mr. Lewis. All right, that's fine.
Mr. Payne. Can you please all come up to the table. I
certainly enjoyed your presentation yesterday of a new member--
--
Mr. Lewis. Thank you.
Mr. Payne [continuing]. From the great State of California,
and it is good to see Mr. Walsh and, of course, my colleague,
Congressman Frelinghuysen. He and I served in county government
before wondering whether we would ever get here. [Laughter.]
Mr. Frelinghuysen. You did.
Mr. Payne. So, really, let me just thank you, and I would
like to take this opportunity to briefly make a few comments
about two New Jersey witnesses with whom I have worked with for
many, many years, and I let me just say I appreciate the
responsiveness of the Subcommittee over the years. You have
been very generous with our city, our region. We have many
needs, and I do appreciate what has happened in the past.
I have with us a gentleman from the city of Newark and also
from the University of Medicine and Dentistry which just
happens to be the largest public health science university in
the United States of America. Testifying on behalf of my home
city of Newark is our business administrator, Mr. Glenn Grant.
Mayor Sharpe James was unable to be here, but he has truly made
Newark a renaissance city. It is just so--the that work that
he's done with the help of this committee, we have an economic
renaissance and he really restored a tremendous sense of pride
in our city. As you know, in 1967, we had civil disorder, but
the city has come back tremendously. Glen Grant is the chief
operating officer of Newark's largest city, Newark; over 4,000
employees with a budget of $900 million, and during his tenure
as business administrator, he has had a very strong fiscal
operation this year. We'll see a reduction in the tax rate.
We'll see a reduction in water utilities, all of which has
happened under the leadership of Mayor James, but the
administration of Glen Grant. He will testify today about the
economic revitalization initiatives to our city, specifically,
a project called Waverly Yards, the establishment of an
international trade center and the development of brownfield
sites to convert on that productive use.
The other person we'll hear from is testifying on behalf of
the University of Medicine and Dentistry will be Dr. Stanley
Bergen who actually is retiring from the institution. Dr.
Bergen has been the president of the institution since its
inception in 1971--seems like it was 1901, but it was 1971.
[Laughter.]
But Dr. this is--I feel privileged that this is his last
public appearance that I actually will have the opportunity to
introduce him because he's done a fantastic job for the city of
Newark and for the State of New Jersey and for health care in
general. Under his leadership, stewardship, the university has
emerged as the largest public university of health services in
the country serving as the national resource for health
professional education, research, and patient care.
Prior to assuming the presidency of UMDNJ, Dr. Bergen was
the Senior Vice President for Medical and Professional Affairs
of New York City's Health and Hospice Corporation. Dr. Bergen
has been recognized with many impressive awards and honors over
the course of his distinguished career. Again, I appreciate the
Subcommittee's interest in issues related to public health.
I thank you for having Dr. Bergen; the international set-up
for public health at University Heights Science Park; the Dean
and Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer Institute named after a
colleague who served on the Appropriations Committee, Dean
Gallo, who was also entirely official with us, a tremendous
person; it was borne out of the determination to help patients
afflicted with prostrate cancer, and finally, the Child Health
Institute of New Jersey, a project intended to address the
prevention and cure of illnesses affecting children.
Thank you very much. I will now turn the remaining time
over to my colleagues.
Mr. Lewis. Congressman Payne, we thank you very much for
being with us. I know the difficulty of conflicting schedules
and the like. First, let me call upon Mr. Grant, the
administrator from New Jersey; from Newark.
Mr. Grant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Walsh.
Mr. Lewis. Your entire statement will be in the record, Mr.
Grant.
Mr. Grant. Thank you. I briefly would like to talk to you
about, number one, the importance of your cooperation and help.
This subcommittee has really, truly been a partner in the city
of most revitalization. Congressman Payne referred to former
Congressman Gallo. He was instrumental in securing a $44
million EPA grant that's helping to improve the sewer systems
of the city of Newark. This committee has helped through the
renaissance that Congressman Payne is talking about.
So, I'm here today to talk to you while we've created, as
Congressman has said, a renaissance that's generating a new
baseball stadium, a new performing arts center, we're working
on the riverfront; we're trying to bring more jobs back to our
community, but there's much work still to be done. We have a
significant older population. We're the third oldest large city
in the country founded in 1666. We have significant
unemployment in our community. Fifteen percent of our
population is unemployed, and we have a mean population of--37
percent of our children are below the poverty line. We have
lost many of our jobs to the loss of manufacturing in our
community, and what we're attempting to do with these projects
is to bring economic development to our inner city where the
people can match up the job skills with the job opportunities
that are taking place in our community.
Newark International Airport is the ninth largest airport
in the country. It is also one of the fastest, largest, fastest
growing airports in the country as well. Over 30 million people
will go to that airport this year alone. The airport, which is
our tenant, is now working on bringing the monorail which ties
in our three terminals to a location called Waverly Yards. That
is 100-acre tract of land that is vacant, abandoned; it is an
old industrial yard. When they bring the monorail to that site,
they are also going to tie it to the Northeast corridor. The
same trains that Congressman Payne and Congressman
Frelinghuysen take to come to Washington, it will tie into that
particular location. Webelieve that that location can serve as
another economic engine for the continued revitalization of the city of
Newark.
Right now, there's no water; there's no communication
lines; there's no sewer lines; it is not served by any kind of
infrastructure. We're asking this committee for an
appropriation of $6 million to help us revitalize that area. We
believe that 3 million people at the airport together with
70,000 people that come in every day to our Penn Station, you
have unparalleled transportation location. We have talked with
developers about potentially bringing two office centers, two
hotels, and an international trade center for that location, so
we think it is one of the best transportation hubs in our
community.
The second project that I'd like to talk to you about
involves Frelinghuysen Avenue. As you should be aware----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Grant. As you should be aware are Kennedy's. They
really have had a long and outstanding history of support for
public service, and Congressman Frelinghuysen has continued
that with his support of new projects. Adjacent to our airport,
adjacent to this Waverly Yards is Frelinghuysen Avenue. It is a
land area with many vacant and abandoned industrial properties.
Many of the properties have environmental contamination. Many
of them need to be reclaimed. We are now partnering with EPA;
partnering with our State government to do studies on those
sites. We believe that if we can take $3 million from this
committee, we will be able to reclaim some of those city-old,
vacant, and abandoned sites to, again, take advantage of our
transportation hub; to take advantage of what our community
has: transportation, transportation.
The last project that I would like to talk to you about--
and Dr. Bergen is also here to talk about it--is a tremendously
exciting project, and it has the opportunity of bringing
thousands of jobs to Newark. It is called Science Park. It is a
joint public-private partnership involving the State, Federal
Government, the county, and the city. It is to take advantage
of the tremendous asset known as the University of Medicine and
Dentistry. That asset, as Congressman Payne has said, is one of
the best medical institutions in the country, if not the world,
but what we're trying to do is to take advantage of the
biomedical locations here, the infrastructure that is in that
institution as well as NJIT to bring public health research; to
bring industry and businesses of that light to that location.
We believe that an appropriation of $9 million can leverage
another $130 million of public-private investment into that
institution.
I want to close by telling you gentlemen that in coming
over and talking to Ms. Thompson who is our lobbyist, we are
reminded of your tremendous support in developing our
community. When you look at the last 20 years of investment in
our city, there's been no other subcommittee that has done as
much for the city of Newark as you gentleman who are sitting
here today. So, I want to thank you for your cooperation and
ask for your support for this initiative.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr.
Grant. As I indicated, it will be included in its entirety in
the record.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1183 - 1189--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Lewis. Before I allow Mr. Frelinghuysen to take over
this meeting, I'd like to call upon Dr. Bergen to see if he'd
like to summarize his statement as well.
Dr. Bergen. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much
for the opportunity to be here this afternoon. Congressman
Frelinghuysen, Congressman Payne from New Jersey, and
Congressman Walsh, thank you very much for this opportunity.
I can only echo what you have already heard about this
subcommittee and how important it has been to us, and I think
the most important thing is that we have been able to join
together with the subcommittee in working together to provide
our fellow citizens with the opportunities to fulfill their
dreams but also to answer to their needs as citizens of the
State and of the United States.
The first project I'd like to mention is one that Mr. Grant
already alluded to, the International Center for Public Health.
This is an attempt to create a major infectious disease center
in New Jersey. This is rapidly becoming a major problem not
only to the United States but to the world with the emergence
of resistant organisms that antibodies cannot touch; cannot
control, and the entire operation of this institute is going to
be directed towards that. We're bringing the Public Health
Research Institute from Manhattan over to New Jersey. They are
doing research in this area right now and working, of course,
with the pharmaceutical industry in New Jersey, it will be a
very important team.
In addition, we are working together with the Veterans'
Administration in East Orange and nationally to approach the
issue of resistant tuberculosis. This is becoming a more and
more prevalent disease in the VA system and nationally and also
in prisons. More and more TB is emerging in prisons, and these
people are released then into the communities; they carry this
resistant TB along with them, and it is just an unending battle
and an unending fight. We've got to attack this; we've got to
find some solutions to this major problem.
It is also, of course, related to a major HUD project to
expand the economic and community development needs of our
area. We've already heard Mr. Grant say this is a really joint
public-private effort. We have a potential insurance company,
First Union Bank, public service, gas and electric, all joining
with us for this effort. We are respectfully asking of the
Subcommittee an allocation of $5 million to the International
Center for Public Health.
The second project is the Dean and Betty Gallo Prostrate
Cancer Institute. New Jersey ranks 10th in the Nation in
mortality rates for prostatic cancer; it is 8th in mortality in
Afro-Americans, and, currently, there is no cure for this
disease. Once it spreads external to the prostate, it is a
major disease and one that needs attack by both researchefforts
and clinical studies. To accomplish this, our Cancer Institute in New
Jersey, the only NCI designated cancer center in our State has decided
to develop this focused attempt on finding the cure of prostatic
cancer. This institute allows us to link over 100 institutions that are
affiliated with us statewide, 3 medical schools, a dental school, a
tremendous series of educational programs in order to bring to bear the
research efforts of all those institutions on this disease. It, of
course, is a prime disease in the VA system where many of the
recipients of care to VA hospitals are now at the age group where they
are contracting prostatic cancer. It is also, of course, a very
important issue for our fight in the impact of urbanization and the
possible toxic effects in that urbanization and, of course, with New
Jersey being the most urbanized State in the Union, we have a major
problem. We respectfully, again, ask the Subcommittee to consider an
allocation of $5 million to the Betty and Dean Gallow Prostatic Cancer
Institute.
And the third and last project that I'd like to bring to
your attention is the Child Health Institute of New Jersey.
This is another public-private effort, and I am proud to say we
have already received a gift from the Johnson and Johnson
Corporation, one of the largest health care product
corporations in the world and from the Johnson Foundation to
get this project started, $850,000. We hope to study the
diseases and the affect of these diseases on child development
and child maturation. We have a children's hospital, and
medical school, the private institutions that are all joining
together to develop the Child Health Institute, and, again, we
would like to respectfully ask your allocation of $5 million to
this project in New Jersey for your university.
I thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Lewis. Dr. Bergen and Mr. Grant, we appreciate very
much your testimony. Congressman Payne, we appreciate your
assistance as well. I guess you are leaving Mr. Walsh. I think
I probably ought to call upon Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Mr. Walsh. Without objection.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. In the interest of brevity and knowing
that the Chairman has a lot of other witnesses, I'm certainly
here to endorse and work with my colleague, Don Payne. The
Chairman has been, indeed, very sympathetic over a number of
years to both Members of both parties on this Committee not
only to the City's objectives as well as the University of
Medicine and Dentistry and we will be hearing from Betty Gallo
in a few minutes, and she will be articulating the need for a
prostrate cancer center, but I am so pleased to welcome all of
you here and to be working with you and this committee to help
you achieve all of these objectives, and good luck to you in
your retirement, Dr. Bergen.
Dr. Bergen. Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. Meek. I just wanted to say you must be all right,
because you are with Congressman Payne----
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Meek [continuing]. Trying to increase the half-year
and you are doing redevelopment work and that is always
excellent.
Dr. Bergen. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Walsh.
Mr. Walsh. I would just like to suggest that this chairman
has done a marvelous job. He has lots of difficult decisions,
but one thing he has not been afraid to do is to reinvest in
our cities. We absolutely have to do that. I have always said
that our cities are babies. They are 100 to 200 years old; the
rest of the world has cities that are 800, 1000, 1,500 years
old, and they are still going, and we need to do the same and
reinvest in ours, and it is easy to see why Newark is coming
back with managers like yourself. Thank you.
Dr. Bergen. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. It is kind of appropriate, it seems to me--
Congressman Payne, if you will be patient with me--is as we
receive this testimony, you have laid the foundation for us
kind of to go back in our schedule and call upon Betty Gallo
who's husband as you know was our colleague on the
Appropriations Committee who played no small role in the
success that Newark and New Jersey, generally, have had, and
you are working together. Most of these issues have nothing to
do with partisan politics, and that is reflected in the best
way by this series of testimony. Thank you for being with us.
Mr. Grant. Thank you.
Dr. Bergen. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1193 - 1199--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITNESS
BETTY GALLO, CANCER INSTITUTE OF NEW JERSEY, DEAN AND BETTY GALLO
PROSTATE CANCER INSTITUTE
Mr. Lewis. I am sure that Betty Gallo kind of wondered
about bypassing her. It was with some forethought, so, Ms.
Gallo, would you come up? How's my friend?
Ms. Gallo. Good.
Mr. Lewis. Good. Normally what we do is suggest that your
entire testimony will be included in the record, and you can
summarize it as you like. New Jersey is having its day today. I
see that our former colleague, Bob Rose, is with us in the
audience, and he will come shortly after. I am sure he will
pick up everything beyond what we have talked about. Please,
Betty.
Ms. Gallo. I just want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
allowing me to testify and Congressman Frelinghuysen who has
been very helpful in this project as we are going to endeavor
upon and the Committee for allowing me to testify today
especially since my husband did serve on this committee when he
was in Congress.
I don't know if anyone is aware but Dean was diagnosed with
prostate cancer back in 1992. In February, he was diagnosed
with a PSA which is a Prostrate Specific Antigen blood test of
883. He was diagnosed in the advanced stages which had already
metastasized to his bone. His prognosis was three to six months
at that time. When he went to a urologist in New Jersey who
said the best he could do was remove his testicles. I said,
before you do that, I think we will try another approach. Thank
God for the National Institutes of Health, because down there
they are NCL designated. We were able to get him in there and
do a protocol of Suramin and combined hormonal therapy, and
because of this we were able to allow him to spend good quality
of life for two and a half years.
Dean and I had a very strong faith; very strong love for
each other. It was the best two and half years of our
relationship of eight years, and I cannot say that I am sorry
he got prostate cancer, I am just sorry that he died from it.
Mr. Lewis. But the PSA was designated at 883 at the time of
first exam, is that right?
Ms. Gallo. Correct, and when he had his normal physical the
year prior to having had the PSA, which was not at that time
used as a diagnostic poll, they would have picked up on the
prostrate cancer. So, that is why he was in the advanced
stages, and the only way he found he was in the advanced stages
was he had a backache which persisted, and he finally had it
checked, and when they did a bone scan on him, he lit up like a
christmas tree; it was all over his back. Fortunately, because
of the Suramin and the National Institutes of Health through
Dr. Charles Myers, he was able to actually have a very good
quality of life where his PSA actually dropped a year later to
3.5, and he was able to continue in Congress, serve his
constituents and his colleagues who he had the utmost respect
for all of you. I know he had very good close friends with some
of the people, his colleagues.
In the meantime, after he died from prostate cancer in
1994, he and I had spoken about getting involved and doing
advocacy work for prostate cancer. He was talking about getting
pharmaceuticals companies involved, so I tried to get involved
in prostate cancer advocacy which I have been doing ever since,
and as of October, 1997 I joined the Cancer Institute of New
Jersey as a fundraising associate advocate, and one of my
projects there is the Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer
Institute in memory of Dean.
This will actually be a program added at the institute. It
won't be for bricks and mortar; it will be for actual programs,
education, and awareness for prostate cancer. We will doing
some studies with the environment as far as why prostate cancer
so prevalent in New Jersey. As Dr. Bergen had mentioned, we are
number 10 this year of 6,900 men who will be diagnosed with
prostate cancer of which 1,400 men will die from prostate
cancer this year.
As I said, the Cancer Institute of New Jersey is the only
NCL designated institute in our State, and Dean was helpful in
getting funding for that back in 1994, and it is because of
this that I feel that having this kind of an institute in New
Jersey is beneficial for all the residents of New Jersey. It
allows them not to have to go out of the State and that you
stay in the State and be able to get treated for any kind of
cancers that we have, and with the Prostate Cancer Institute,
because it is the second rated cancer in New Jersey for men--I
think lung is the first in New Jersey--you really have to do
something. We are number eight for the African-Americans, so
that is another area that we need to really address for
educational awareness programs. So, this is part of what the
Gallo Institute will be doing. It will be doing programs; we
already have researchers in our cancer institute that are doing
prostate cancer research, but we need to bring more researchers
in; good quality researchers to be able to do more research to
find this cure for prostate cancer so that we are able to save
people from dying from it or having to be diagnosed in the
advanced stages of prostate cancer such as Dean was.
We are asking, actually, for $9.4 million; $5 million
actually from the Committee, and the other money would be
raised dollar for dollar by foundations through public funding
and State funding--this is a little difficult for me because--
Mr. Lewis. You are doing great.
Ms. Gallo. It is just that it means a lot to me. Sometimes
I really do still miss him.
Mrs. Meek. It is women like you that make us strong.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Chairman, Betty Gallo, while she
lets her emotions out, let me say she is absolutely remarkable.
Since Dean's passing, she has been an incredible advocate
throughout the Northeast not only in New Jersey and the New
York metropolitan area, she has demystified myths and
stereotypes of prostate cancer in a way that only Betty could
do it. She has some unique qualities and perspectives, and she
talks to large groups of men; she is a strong advocate; she has
been working with women's groups around the State, and there
are many barriers for people to come forward for testing, and
Betty Gallo has been one of those who has been absolutely
fantastic. I am here to support her and know that all the good
things she is doing is to make sure that other people never
experience the tragedy that is associated with prostate and
other types of cancer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Frelinghuysen, I think you may or may not
remember that the first occasion I had to meet you personally
involved an occasion that was not the happiest occasion where I
was with Betty and with Dean the last time, but we are proud to
have you here and to say the least it is a very important
project.
Ms. Gallo. Well, I appreciate it, and I thank you,
Congressman Frelinghuysen, for your kind words andCongressman
Lewis. It is just been something that I have been doing for over three
years. To have this project in New Jersey would help me save somebody
else from having to suffer emotionally and the family to suffer like we
did and the loss of Dean and just to have to lost somebody else to this
dreaded disease. I would just appreciate whatever the committee can do.
Mr. Lewis. Mrs. Gallo, one of the more delightful things
that has occurred to our committee in recent years is that
advent of our having the voice of Mrs. Carrie Meek in our
committee. To say the least, she makes a special contribution,
and I would love to call upon her.
Mrs. Meek. First of all, you have encouraged me as a member
of this committee. Your courage and your ability to go forward
despite the odds which you have faced, and I feel very strongly
that you will not leave here empty-handed, not if I sit on this
committee.
Ms. Gallo. Thank you. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. We will allow you to revise and extend your
remarks, but in the meantime, thank you very much for being
with us.
Ms. Gallo. I thank the Committee for allowing me to come.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you for being here.
Mrs. Meek. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Isn't she great?
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1203 - 1208--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESSES
ROBERT DAVENPORT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PASSAIC VALLEY SEWERAGE
COMMISSIONERS
SHELDON LIPKE
ROBERT ROE, FORMER CONGRESSMAN
Mr. Lewis. We are going to exercise the Chair's discretion
one more time and recognize that we have got a former colleague
in the audience who is going to participate in this meeting. My
friend, Bob Roe, will be introducing and participating with two
other people from the New Jersey region, I suppose--you'll
clarify that won't you? Please come up and bring your friends.
Mr. Roe. Well, Mr. Chairman, we thank you for not only
inviting us to testify but allowing us to testify on this
matter that is extremely important for the State of New Jersey
and really has to do with the major environmental effort that
the State is putting forth as far as water quality is
concerned. I have with me today, Bob Davenport, who is the
Executive Director of the Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners, and Sheldon Lipke on my left there who is the
Chief Engineer. So, I thought what we might do if it is
satisfactory to you is to have our director make a short
presentation, and then we can chat a bit about it.
Mr. Lewis. That is fine. Gentlemen, your statement will be
included in its entirety in the record, and if you will
summarize that for us then we will pose questions. So, I would
like to call on you, Mr. Davenport.
Mr. Davenport. All right, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
members thanks for having us here today; we appreciate it very
much. This is a shortened version; I'll just try to capsulize
it.
Mr. Lewis. Good.
Mr. Davenport. Again, we want to thank you for the
opportunity to testify today concerning the need for assistance
in implementing the Passaic River/Newark Bay Restoration
Program. Now, New Jersey is distinguished as being the
birthplace of industry in the United States. The industrial
centers of Newark, Jersey City and Paterson developed and
thrived in the early 19th to the mid-20th century generating
the goods and capital that contributed to the building of our
State and the Nation. We are now faced with the task of undoing
the destruction to the local environment caused by these early
endeavors.
The Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners serve 47
municipalities in northern New Jersey. The Commission operates
the 6th largest wastewater treatment plant in the United States
which treats wastewater generated by 1.3 million people. The
Passaic River/Newark Bay Restoration Program includes assisting
volunteer groups with shoreline clean-ups; trackdown and clean-
up of toxics reaching into the sewer system, and efforts to
reduce pollution from combined sewer overflows which is one of
the most important areas.
The sewer systems in seven member municipalities are
combined with domestic and industrial wastewater using the same
pipes as stormwater runoff. During times of rain, thesesewers
cannot handle the huge volume of combined sewage which then overflows
in an untreated state to the Passaic River and North Bay. The overflows
contain floating materials, toxic organic compounds, heavy metals, and
disease-causing microorganisms.
The EPA requires CSO owners to either reduce the quantity
of overflows or provide treatment to meet water quality goals.
These requirements are typically met through the total
elimination of CSOs by constructing new wastewater sewers or by
a system to capture and store the CSO overflow for later
treatment. These alternatives would take at least 15 years to
implement and have the construction cost of $1 billion to $2.4
billion. The cities of Newark, Paterson, and Jersey City are
among the poorest in the Nation with a 1989 median income
household income averaging less than $26,000. The ocean dumping
of sewage sludge was halted in 1991 by constructing a massive
sludge processing facility which were paid for entirely out of
local funds. Debt service now consumes one of every five
dollars in PVSC's budget.
A search was initiated to find a plan which could still
meet the goals of EPA's long-term control strategy but at a
cost which the cities could afford. A review of the treatment
plant's capacity was undertaken utilizing the latest state-of-
the-art computer modeling techniques. The study recommended a
series of in-plant improvements which would double the plant's
ability successfully treat wet weather flows which will result
in PVSC exceeding the EPA's long-term requirements for
pollution reductions from CSOs. The improvements involve
modifications to existing treatment units and can be in line in
only 3 years after the project funds become available as
opposed to the 15 for the other project. The cost for the stage
of the improvements will cost $18.5 million of which we are
requesting a Federal special needs grant of $14.8 million. The
20 percent match would be paid for with State and local funds.
We believe that this innovative program meets the needs of
the environmental protection by utilizing state-of-the-art
techniques to maximize the effectiveness of existing
infrastructure. In a era of scarce public resources, this
program will serve as a national demonstration project for
other communities facing vast infrastructure needs with only
limited financial resources. So, basically, that kind of
summarizes what we have been working on, and we also appreciate
your tour of our plant.
Mr. Lewis. If my colleagues will bear with me, I would
yield to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Very briefly, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is my pleasure to since I have been working former
congressman, Bob Roe, and Mr. Davenport and other
commissioners. I have toured the site. I know it is vitally
important, and I know that as overall review of our Nation's
needs that you have been just great since this is somewhat of a
New Jersey day to give us as much attention as you can and to
consider all the weight of experience on the other side of the
table, on both sides of the table here today, I know, Mr.
Chairman, we will do our level best to be of help wherever we
can. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. You managed to find a way, there is no doubt
about it. [Laughter.]
Mr. Roe.
Mr. Roe. I think what is really critical about this, Mr.
Chairman, is that if we follow the route that has been laid out
by EPA at this point, it is going to take us about 15 or 20
years and cost us $3 billion to do what they have suggested
needs to be done, eliminating the combined sewer sludge because
of the resources available. When we had to get out of the ocean
in the State of New Jersey, that cost us hundreds of millions
of dollars--not blaming anybody, I fall for that myself--and
then, of course, what we had to do is go through enormous
expenses as far as getting rid of our sludge was concerned and
so forth and so on.
Now, the EPA has a program going where we have to do
certain water quality clean-ups over a period of time which you
are intimately aware of, vis-a-vis, the San Diego Project.
Where we are coming from, if we can make this investment which
totals over a three-year period of time somewhere in the order
of about $60 million or $70 million, of which we will pay our
share both the Commission and the State of New Jersey, what we
would run into at that point, we could complete this job, and
we would be able to double the treatment of combined sewer
overflows into the North Bay. It would save us billions of
dollars and would save us about 15 years.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Congressman Roe, I
appreciate that.
Mr. Stokes. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. I am certainly going to turn next to my
colleague who I know is going to want to say hello to this guy.
Mr. Stokes.
Mr. Stokes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I could not pass up
the opportunity to express very warm greetings to Former
Congressman, Bob Roe. I served here with Bob and admired many
days when I watched him bring his bills to the floor. He is one
of the most distinguished chairman in this body; one of the
most knowledgeable Members I have ever served with, and it is
just a pleasure to have you back, Bob. Good to see you.
Mr. Roe. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Stokes. Mrs. Meek.
Mrs. Meek. I have no questions, but welcome and thank you
for coming.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Walsh.
Mr. Walsh. No questions.
Mr. Lewis. No questions further. Oh, the Governor.
Ms. DeLeon. Mr. Chairman, yes----
Mr. Lewis. Just identify yourself, if you would, for the
record.
Ms. DeLeon. My name is Donna DeLeon.
Mr. Lewis. DeLeon?
Ms. DeLeon. Yes, DeLeon, like Ponce. [Laughter.]
We just wanted to bring to your attention--I am here on
behalf of Governor Whittman, she has written a letter in
support of this outstanding project in the State. I hope you
and the other committee members have seen it. It is an
environmental priority for our State, and we do hope with all
due respect you will give it your full attention as well as
another project about which she has written to you. Those
letters letters are with the Committee.
Mr. Lewis. We have received the letters and please
communicate our best wishes to the Governor, and we appreciate
your providing this testimony. You can revise and extend your
remarks, if you wish. This is relatively a brief circumstance
and that, of course, is very helpful to theprocess we are going
through here.
I want to thank you for being with us and indeed we'll have
you in mind throughout the year as I thought about you as ISTEA
as on the floor last year. [Laughter.]
Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1213 - 1215--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
THOMAS H. LEWIS, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY
SERVICES, CITY OF TALLAHASSEE
Mr. Lewis. We were kind of backtracking in our schedule
just a bit. Is Mr. Thomas Lewis here? Mr. Lewis. We appreciate
your being patient with our patience. [Laughter.]
Mr. Thomas Lewis. I enjoyed hearing that information.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lewis is representing Florida State
University. We would suggest for the record, no matter what
they think, we may or may not be related, right? [Laughter.]
Mr. Thomas Lewis. Absolutely. May or may not. And just
quick there for a moment. I am representing the City of
Tallahassee in our joint relationship on this project for
Florida State University.
Mr. Lewis. Alright, that's fine.
Mr. Thomas Lewis. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you
and members of the Subcommittee for this opportunity to present
testimony and speak to the commitment that the City of
Tallahassee has made to the comprehensive revitalization of its
Frenchtown Community. The City's approach to this
revitalization is designed to capture the time, the spirit, and
the essence of this community when it was Tallahassee's center
for the cultural, social, entertainment and economic fabric of
the black family life in Tallahassee.
Frenchtown was one of the first neighborhoods established
in Tallahassee. Settled by the French farmers in 1841, they
created a small business enclave of homes and businesses. After
suffering many hardships, the French gave up on the area, which
after the Civil War was claimed by freed slaves. Frenchtown
grew as a neighborhood and soon became the economic and
cultural center of Tallahassee's black community. It remained
so for over 100 years. Then with the onset of integration, the
closing of the historically black high school, and the urban
flight that occurred in the 1960's and 1970's, the community
began its gradual decline.
The deterioration of the Frenchtown as a community can be
traced to a breakdown in the basic process of community
regeneration. People who raised their families in Frenchtown
have aged and remain, their increase, their offspring face with
the increase of urban decay, coupled with the phenomena of
expanded choices brought on by integration, escalated the trend
of decline in the community's social, cultural, economic, and
home ownership base.
But even in the midst----
Mr. Lewis. Now, Mr. Lewis, one of the things I'm going to
have to do, Louis Stokes would really be unhappy with me if I
didn't do this. He would say that we will take your entire
testimony for the record but if you'd summarize it within the 5
minute time period----
Mr. Thomas Lewis. Okay.
Mr. Lewis [continuing]. That we normally use, it would be
appreciated. I know that's difficult but, you know.
Mr. Thomas Lewis. I understand, and this is a 5-minute
summary. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. Then proceed, don't let me interrupt.
Mr. Thomas Lewis. Okay. The neighborhoods came together and
formed the Frenchtown neighborhood association, the city has
made substantial infrastructure improvements, housing
development, and economic restructuring of the district.
The Frenchtown community is located directly across the
street from Florida State University. Florida State University
is a key partner and a major facet of the revitalization of
this community. The University and City proposed to join their
redevelopment efforts, and jointly seek funding for an Economic
Development Initiative Grant, titled The Frenchtown Arts and
Cultural Entertainment District. The project will link the
development of the new performing arts center that's being
developed on FSU campus with the Entertainment Arts and
Cultural Center located rightacross the street in Frenchtown.
The proposed Urban Entertainment and Cultural Center will
encompass a hotel, retail development, is a $60 million
development. We are requesting $3.5 million in Economic
Development Initiative funding, and this grant will pay for the
storm water, the infrastructure, property acquisition, and site
improvement costs for the development of the comprehensive
cultural center. This cultural center will also contain a
museum of African American history, science and technology
which will support the site as a community tourist place, but,
more specifically, this project is key to providing the link to
the past, the present, and the future of the Frenchtown
community.
We are excited about the opportunity to ask for assistance
and then be able to maximize, to leverage it for 20 to 1
grants, so this will be a $60 million opportunity. Granting
this request will enable us to return the Frenchtown community
to that time when it was a center for minority business, home
ownership, entertainment, and a thriving cultural life.
Again, I thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Chairman and
request your support to help us rebuild this neighborhood.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lewis, thank you very much for that summary
and it is very much appreciated, any additional remarks you
might have for the record will be included in the record. And
we look forward to working with you.
Members of the Committee, Mr. Stokes, you haven't been
around lately, so I just was.
Mr. Stokes. I just want the record to reflect that Mr.
Lewis finished his testimony within 5 minutes. [Laughter.]
Mrs. Meek. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lewis represents my hometown
of Tallahassee, even though I represent here in the Congress,
Miami. I was born and reared very near the area that he's
talking about.
Mr. Lewis. Really? I think that's the first time I heard
that.
Mrs. Meek. That's true.
Mr. Stokes. It's an interesting bit of history you gave us
about the Frenchtown. It's the first I heard of that, and I
found it fascinating.
Mr. Thomas Lewis. And we hope to be able to catch that
history in the cultural aspects of this entertainment complex.
We want your assistance and help.
Mr. Stokes. Thank you.
Mrs. Meek. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Walsh.
Mr. Walsh. No questions, thank you.
Mr. Lewis. No questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Lewis.
Appreciate your patience.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1219 - 1230--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
NASA, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITNESSES
AUDREY MANLEY, PRESIDENT, SPELMAN COLLEGE
PAMELA GUNTHER-SMITH, CHAIR, DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY, SPELMAN COLLEGE
Mr. Lewis. And let's see here, Dr. Audrey Manley, President
of Spelman College, representing Spelman College.
Dr. Manley. Thank you very much. Thank you very much,
Congressman Lewis. Mr. Chairman, and to the other members of
the Committee, I am Dr. Manley, the President of Spelman
College. And I have with me today, also an alumna of Spelman
College, Dr. Pamela Gunther-Smith, who is our Professor of
Physiology and Chair of our Department of Biology.
Before I proceed with my formal comments, I would like to
recognize and acknowledge Congressman Stokes. We are old
friends and we go back many years during my career as an
officer in the Public Health Service for 21 years, during which
I served, not only as the Acting Director of the Office of
Minority Health, but as Deputy Surgeon General, and most
recently, Acting Surgeon General. I also want to acknowledge
Mrs. Meek who is the mother of a Spelman alumna.
Mrs. Meek. Absolutely.
Mr. Lewis. We're getting a lot of information on our
committee today.
Dr. Manley. Yes. I have witnessed, of course, firsthand
much of the work that the Congress is providing leadership and
assuring that all Americans have access to housing, and health
care, education, employment, and other opportunities.
I want to specifically recognize Congressman Stokes for his
contributions on this committee. His service to the Nation has
been unparalleled, and we all know that he will be sorely
missed. And I do want to personally wish you and your family
all the best.
Mr. Stokes. Thank you.
Dr. Manley. Congressman, we hope to have you down to
Atlanta as you prepare to leave Congress this Fall.
Now recommendations Spelman College would like you to
consider during your deliberations, in 5 minutes. [Laughter.]
Our recommendations affect three agencies under your
subcommittee's jurisdiction. These agencies include the NASA,
the NSF, and HUD. For reasons that will be discussed only
briefly today, but the details are in our written testimony
which has been submitted for the record, is to continue the
funding for the educational programs sponsored by these
agencies which are of critical importance to us.
Some of you may already be aware of the Spelman College
story. It is one of achievement and success. On average, 34
percent of our 1,900 women enrolled at Spelman consistently
elect mathematics, science, physics, chemistry, and a
dualdegree program in engineering as their majors, unparalleled in the
country. Moreover, 30 percent of our Spelman students annually graduate
with degrees in these areas.
Mr. Lewis. And biology as well.
Dr. Manley. Absolutely. [Laughter.]
AAMC, for example, has listed Spelman among the top 10
schools producing the most African American applicants who have
successfully gained admission to medical schools. The NSF has
ranked Spelman among the top 26 producers of African Americans
to obtain doctorates and second among Historically Black
Colleges and Universities. NSF, along with NASA, has designed
Spelman College a Model Institution of Excellence in their MIE
program in undergraduate science and mathematics education.
There are only six institutions in the country so identified.
But despite Spelman's success, much work remains to be done
if the college is to continue to produce dynamic women in
science who can assist in leading the country in the research
and development arena. The College's science facility, which
was built in 1927, is cramped and obviously out of date. Many
of Spelman's students, while academically astute, come from
economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Thus, programs
sponsored by HUD, NSF, and NASA are needed now, as much as
ever, if we are to continue to successfully move students
through the pipeline into science, biomedical, health careers
and professions.
Specifically, we ask you to address three things in your
deliberations in the fiscal year 1999 budget. That $7.8 million
be provided under HUD's Economic Development Initiative
account, the Community Development Block Grant, to assist the
college in renovating and equipping its science facility. This
is truly a public private effort. Funds have already been
raised in the amount of $22.5 million to establish a 88,000-
square-foot state-of-the-art science complex. In addition to
benefiting Spelman's faculty and students, the center will
allow the college to reach out more fully to the residents in
the surrounding urban and assisted housing communities,
particularly women moving from welfare to work, and to assist
their children. Spelman College today finds itself in the
middle of an empowerment zone, and it is a major institution to
provide leadership in this community.
Turning to NASA, the President requests $13.5 billion to be
provided in fiscal year 1999. Of particular interest, is the
$20 million reduction that has been proposed for academic
programs. The reduction proposed for academic programs would
threaten programs that benefit our college. Spelman has
participated in NASA's Women in Science and Engineering
Program, the WISE program, for the last 11 years. Therefore, in
fiscal year 1999, we ask that these programs be funded at a
level that keeps pace with inflation.
And finally, NSF requests $3.8 billion in fiscal year 1999.
It is a 10 percent increase over fiscal year 1998's budget. In
the amount requested, it is $683 million, representing an 8
percent increase to be provided for education and human
resources. We wish to support the administration's request for
these funds.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my oral testimony, written
testimony is provided, and I will be happy to answer any
questions that any of you might have. And I think we have some
brochures for the Chair and for the Committee.
Mr. Lewis. Could you give me your name one more time?
Dr. Gunther-Smith. Pamela Gunther-Smith.
Mr. Lewis. Gunther-Smith?
Dr. Gunther-Smith. It's hyphenated.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Dr. Gunther-Smith. Let me
see, first, I would like to say to you, Dr. Manley, that during
the time I've been on this committee, Louis Stokes and I have
formed somewhat of a partnership----
Dr. Manley. Good, I'm glad to hear that. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis [continuing]. That would specifically recognize,
at least from our perspective, that affirmative action is not
exactly dead. It has not accomplished yet all that we would
hope that it might accomplish, but in terms of Mr. Stokes'
leadership in that whole subject area, you are a demonstration
project. So I'm pleased to make your acquaintance. Mr. Stokes.
Mr. Stokes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'd just
like to take a moment to personally welcome before this
committee one of the most distinguished women in America. Dr.
Audrey Manley has had a very distinguished career in the Public
Health Service, as she noted, spending so many years in the
Public Health Service Corps, she was our Acting Surgeon General
of the United States prior to becoming president of one of the
premier colleges in this country. We were all very proud that
she was selected to be President of Spelman College. This
college has produced so many distinguished African American
women, so we're very proud to have you here. As you said, you
and I have had a very close working relationship over many,
many years, and I remain quite in admiration of your
accomplishments.
Dr. Manley. Thank you very much. You are very kind and very
generous.
Mr. Stokes. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Walsh.
Mr. Walsh. No questions, thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Mrs. Meek.
Mrs. Meek. I'm just pleased to have Dr. Manley here, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you for bringing the needs of Spelman College
before this committee, and I must say you clearly delineated
them. Thank you.
Dr. Manley. Thank you very much for hearing us.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Stokes' personal endorsement is good
enough for me. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. Before you both leave let me mention something
else. Among other things this subcommittee is focused upon,
what has happened over the years with colleges like Spelman and
the fantastic contribution that they have made to a field that
in some circles is not as popular today as it used to be,
namely affirmative action, and attempting to make sure that
there are opportunities for minority, particularly minority
women, but a cross section of other, others of our citizenry.
Among those groups that we've begun to pay attention to here of
late involves a program known, given the title of HSI, Hispanic
Support Institutions, and there's been almost no attention paid
to that need in the country over the years. I must say that in
this subcommittee, while we have difficulty getting our
authorizers to do all we would likethem to do, nonetheless
within this subcommittee this voice is going to continue to be heard,
and I expect to hear from you what in the future I'm sure we're going
to.
Dr. Manley. Thank you. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much for being with us.
Dr. Manley. Thank you, and again, just a comment on that.
Congressman Stokes certainly has been a leading advocate for
minority groups of all categories----
Mr. Lewis. Sure has.
Dr. Manley [continuing]. Giving attention to other groups,
other than African Americans.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you.
Dr. Manley. So I'm glad to see your commitment to continue
doing it.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1235 - 1244--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
GEORGE McDONALD, PRESIDENT, THE DOE FUND, INC.
Mr. Lewis. Now let's see, George MacDonald of the Doe
Foundation. Mr. MacDonald. You've been here long enough that
you know the admonitions and all that.
Mr. MacDonald. I do.
Mr. Lewis. So please just proceed.
Mr. MacDonald. But I have no paper in front of me.
Mr. Lewis. I noticed, I noticed.
Mr. MacDonald. I'll summarize the past 14 years in about 2
minutes.
Mr. Lewis. Okay.
Mr. MacDonald. I started out as a volunteer in Grand
Central Terminal handing out food to homeless people at 10
o'clock in the evening in 1984. And about 400 people would line
up on 43rd and Vanderbilt and we would give out the sandwiches
and they would thank us for that. But I would hear over and
over that what they really wanted was a room and a job to pay
for it. So we set out to put something like that together. It
took us until 1990. We started the Ready, Willing and Able
program in New York City. We have graduated over 600 men and
women to private sector jobs, unsubsidized apartments. Three
years ago we brought the program here to the District and we
graduated over 75 folks here into private sector jobs,
unsubsidized apartments. We had our last graduation at the
Georgetown University. I told the folks that they could say
that they graduated at Georgetown. [Laughter.]
I must tell you as an aside, I went to the airport the next
morning, got out of the cab and there was a gentleman working
for American Airlines who had graduated from our program
opening the door.
It's a program that works but it stresses personal
responsibility. We pay $5.50 an hour to begin with and the
folks go out and work. They sweep the streets, Georgetown, K
Street, and so on. They pay us $50 and we can arrange $15 for
food and save $30 per week. At the end of nine months, that $30
is $1,000, we match that with $1,000 so there's an incentive
built into the program.
Our folks have long histories of substance abuse,
incarceration, and homelessness, but yet these turnouts would
be not barriers to getting private sector employment if the
goal of the program from the beginning is that they get private
sector employment. Gwen and Cliff are examples of the folks who
were formerly homeless here in the Capital. We're asking for $1
million to continue to expand our program. Reverend McPherson
runs our program here.
And that's about it, except on a personal note, if you
don't mind my saying, I used to drive Congressman
Frelinghuysen's father when he was a Congressman. And I grew up
in Morris County, New Jersey.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. He didn't get paid either did he?
[Laughter.]
Mr. MacDonald. No, no. [Laughter.]
I got paid, I got paid, Congressman.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I wanted to make sure the record showed
that.
Mr. MacDonald. I got paid in ways that are very important
in America. I got values from your father that brought me here
to be able to do this work. So it's a pleasure to see you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity and Mr. Stokes, I
wish you weren't retiring.
Mr. Stokes. Thank you so much.
Mr. Lewis. Well, we very much appreciate that testimony, it
is truly a testimony. And gentleman, if you know what our
schedule overall is like but, any remarks you might like to
make you are certainly welcome to address the Committee.
Mr. Clifton Robinson. Mr. Chairman, myself, I would hope--
--
Mr. Lewis. Would you identify yourself?
Mr. Clifton Robinson. I'm sorry, Clifton Robinson. I am a
trainee and resident of the Ready, Willing, and Able program
here. I would hope that the people in this room could
understand how vitally important a program like this is for a
person in my situation. Now, that would be a person whose
homeless, who has a chemical dependency problem, and aperson
who is under-skilled. Being a resident of this program I am able to
address all three of those aspects in my life and it is making me a
much better individual. And I just hope people here can understand how
vitally important it is for people.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you for that.
Mr. Winfred Robinson. And also, my name is Winfred
Robinson, and I am also a trainee of Ready, Willing and Able.
And, Mr. Chairman, I also want to emphasize the vital
importance of this program that took a person like me off the
streets of Washington, D.C. and instilled within me some self-
discipline, some self-worth, to increase my self-esteem, to
give me the ability and the tools to go on with my life and the
potential of this program can do the same for many other
homeless people on the streets. We just need more support and
more help in doing so. This is a very successful, and may I
mention, one of the most effective programs in this region. And
I am proud to be a part of it, and proud to be here and honored
to testify with this program.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much.
Mr. McPherson. Yes sir, Mr. Chairman, those that are
present, as a native of this city, I worked in the homeless
arena for many years. I have seen the ebb and flow of the city
in terms of the homeless population, working in the shelter
system we house them at 7:00 p.m. and we put them out at 7:00
a.m. in the morning. There was no care at all. They defecated
on themselves. There were no programs. When I was hired by the
MacDonald's to run the program in the District, I initially
felt that the program would not work. However, I am a believer.
I am a believer in that we teach men how to be responsible. We
teach them first to provide for themselves. We teach them how
to take care of their families. We teach them how to understand
the system. The system is yourself, the family, the community,
the city, and then the Nation. We provide them with the
positive things that they need, self-esteem, self-building, and
it is done over an 18 month period of time. Most programs that
I have directed are 30 days, 60 days, 90 day programs. We have
a year and a half to work with these individuals and the
program is the best program in the Nation based on what we do.
Mr. Lewis. Reverend, would you give us your name for the
record?
Mr. McPherson. I am sorry.
Mr. Lewis. That is alright.
Mr. McPherson. Reverend Samuel Lewis McPherson, Sr.
Mr. Lewis. Okay, we got it. We got it. Let's see, Mr.
Stokes?
Mr. Stokes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to
express my appreciation to each of these gentlemen. This has
been some very powerful testimony and very effective, I think,
on the members of this subcommittee. And Mr. MacDonald I would
like to share with you, your mentioning Mr. Frelinghuysen's
father, I had the honor some 26 years ago when I first came on
this subcommittee of serving with his father on the same
subcommittee. [Laughter.]
So I do not know what that says about my age but----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Stokes [continuing]. I concur with you that they have a
very fine gentleman, and in his case, the apple does not fall
very far from the tree. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Walsh.
Mr. Walsh. Here, here. I would agree with that. Just
briefly, I think what you are doing is marvelous, it is
important, it is making a difference. And the testimony that
these two gentlemen have given is as powerful as any we have
heard today. You are all to be congratulated.
Mr. MacDonald. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Mrs. Meek.
Mrs. Meek. I just want to say I'd rather see a sermon than
to hear one anyway. [Laughter.]
Seeing these men really convinced me that this program is
worthwhile.
Mr. MacDonald. We would like to come help those people
under that bridge you spoke of.
Mrs. Meek. Yes, you gave validity to the distance of this
program.
Mr. MacDonald. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you all very much for being with us. I
think we ought to adjourn for the day, do you think?
[Laughter.]
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1248 - 1253--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
BARBARA THOMPSON, DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, NATIONAL
COUNCIL OF STATE HOUSING AGENCIES
Mr. Lewis. Our next witness is Barbara Thompson, the
Director of Policy and Government Affairs, speaking for the
National Council of State Housing Agencies. Thank you for being
with us.
Ms. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having me. Good
afternoon to you and Mr. Stokes and other members of the
subcommittee. I am Barbara Thompson. I am Director of Policy
and Government Affairs for the National Council of State
Housing Agencies. If it means anything, Mr. Frelinghuysen, I
once worked for Governor Tom Cain here in Washington--
[laughter]--Governor Bradenburn, and prior to that, and this
takes us back many years, I am almost reluctant to admit it, I
also worked for Andrew McGuire from New Jersey, from Bergen
County at that time. So still have the New Jersey connections.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Frelinghuysen is taking over the meeting.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Thompson. I am here, as I said, mentioning--
representing the National Council of State Housing Agencies.
NCSHA represents the Nation's housing finance agencies,
including your own, Mr. Chairman, the California Housing
Finance Agency.
The State HFAs have evolved considerably in their expertise
and capacity in delivering affordable housing, particularly as
you, this subcommittee, and the authorizingcommittees have
continued devolve responsibility, we think very wisely, to State and
local governments over the years.
The agencies are now involved in every form of housing from
homelessness, to ownership housing, to section 8 restructuring,
to preservation, just every area of housing you can imagine.
And I focus on many of those areas in my longer statement and
will focus just on three areas, if I may today: the HOME
program, section 8 contract renewals, project contract renewal
and the very successful FHA HFA risk-sharing program.
I also want to take a moment, before I conclude my remarks,
to mention a couple of other programs and to ask your help in
restoring their purchasing power. And those programs are the
Low Income Housing Tax Credit and the Housing Bond program,
particularly the Mortgage Revenue Bond program, which the
States and several local governments also administer. Although
those programs are not under your jurisdiction, they are vital
to housing. They are the greatest producers today of ownership
housing, as well as rental housing for low-income people, and
they leverage considerably the increasing limited resources
that HUD has at its disposal.
Let me begin, very briefly, with the HOME program. I don't
have to tell you all what an outstanding success that program
has been. Please refer to the testimony. I have given you some
recent examples of activities of the HOME program in your
districts that we think are pretty outstanding and innovative.
What makes the housing program, the HOME program, and what
is the HOME program's genius, in our view, is the fact that it
relies on States and local government and not Washington to
decide how to respond best to pressing housing needs. You
clearly recognized that when you found a way, quite
extraordinarily we thought, last year to actually increase the
HOME program when the administration wanted to cut it. We
commend you for that. We are very grateful for that increase to
$1.5 billion. We hope you can find a way to exercise your magic
again this year and at least be able to meet the
Administration's request of $50 million increase, and we know
that will not be easy but we urge you to do the very best you
can for the HOME program as you have in the past.
Section 8 is the next area of focus, contract renewals
particularly on the project-based side. I sat before this
subcommittee, Chairman Lewis, just a year ago, and frankly, we
were a little discouraged. I think we both were about the
demonstration that you had enacted the prior year, as well as
the chances for a permanent program to be authorized by the
Congress last year. The demonstration at that time was getting
off to an awfully slow start at HUD, despite the fact that 30
States had stepped up to the plate to be part of it, they were
not hearing much from HUD, the regulations were being written
very slowly.
Since then, I am very pleased to say that of those 30
States, 24 States have approved plans, many have signed
contracts. Every State represented at this table is involved in
the program. Just today we learned that California has
submitted their plan to HUD.
Now we are just beginning to bring down properties and
actually do the restructuring. Ohio will be the test case
because Ohio has more properties than any other States. But we
are encouraged at the progress.
We also want to commend you for the permanent program.
Ultimately you had to do it. I know you hoped not to have to do
it, but we commend you for working with the authorizing
committee and for modeling that program on the demo, which we
think has great promise, and particularly for giving States the
priority role as restructuring agents. HUD has been great about
involving us in writing the regulations for that program and we
even, at our suggestion, were able to get HUD to accept a very
expert HFA person, an expert in multi-family finance who has
been hired temporarily by HUD to go inside the Department and
work on writing those regulations. So we are delighted with
that and we hope to be able to continue to report on our
progress under that program.
Thirdly, and lastly, in terms of this committee's programs,
the FHA HFA risk-sharing program. And here I must make a plea
to the subcommittee that I have made in the past. We now have a
program that is several years old, authorized in 1992. It is a
program that works. It allows the States to ensure FHA multi-
family properties and share in the risk and in return, cut
through the HUD bureaucracy and be able to use their own
flexible underwriting standards. Your State, Mr. Lewis, has
done more under this program than any other. Florida is
another, and there are many more, 28 in total. An amazing
amount of activity in Florida.
The problem is, and it made sense at the when it was
authorized, you allocated a number of units each year. We have
now 50,000 units authorized. All those units have been used.
Last year you tried to give us another 15,000, you moved it to
the extended bill which, of course, never passed. We are asking
you to get out of the business of piecemealing this program. No
other insurance program works that way. This program is a
success. It costs no Federal credit subsidies, no cost to this
subcommittee. And you are going to see a GAO report, I am proud
to say on Friday this week, I will get it right in the
Subcommittee's hands and all the hands of the Subcommittee
members which basically says this program works, continue it
and here are various reasons why it should be made permanent.
We hope you will take the GAO's advice on that.
Lastly, I just want to touch on in 30 seconds the Housing
Credit program and Housing Bond program. Both of those programs
are suffering from the same thing. The housing credits were
authorized in 1986. A certain amount was authorized for each
State, a $1.25 per resident. The same thing with housing bonds,
which fall under private activity bonds, $50 per capita for
each State. That has not been adjusted for 10, actually 12
years now. Inflation alone has eroded those programs by 50
percent. Most tax programs are indexed for inflation. These are
not. Bills are pending to do just that, to make up for the
difference, not to increase them but to simply restore their
purchasing power and on top of that index them so we do not
find ourselves in this position again. I urge you to get on
those, many of you have.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you, in particularly, for
signing on several other Subcommittee members, 228 House
members are on the Bond bill, 186 are on the Housing Credit
bill, but in order to compete for very scarce revenue within
the tax committees this year, we must show that we have
overwhelming support. So I urge you, not only in your own
capacity, but in your capacity as recognized housing leaders
within the Congress to speak out, talk to Chairman Archer,
particularly. To talk with other members of the Ways andMeans
Committee and make sure that if there is a tax bill this year, which I
know we have no great certainty that the tax bill will carry these
very, very important increases.
I thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Ms. Thompson. I appreciate
your testimony.
Ms. Thompson. You bet.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Stokes.
Mr. Stokes. No comment, thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Mrs. Meek.
Mrs. Meek. No questions, thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. No questions, thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you for being with us.
Ms. Thompson. If I could just leave with the Subcommittee,
books for you that talk about the real life stories of people
who have been helped by the programs I mentioned.
Mr. Lewis. We will be glad to include in the file.
Ms. Thompson. And I would like to just conclude by saying
that Valerie is super and you are awfully lucky to have her.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Meek. We know that.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you for that.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1257 - 1264--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
BERNARD KAHN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HEBREW ACADEMY FOR SPECIAL CHILDREN
Mr. Lewis. Next on our list of witnesses, Bernard Kahn,
representing the Hebrew Academy for Special Children. Mr. Kahn?
Mr. Kahn. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon.
Mr. Lewis. Good afternoon.
Mr. Kahn. Good afternoon ranking member Stokes, and other
members of the Committee and Subcommittee. I appreciate the
opportunity to sit before you to testify on behalf of the
Hebrew Academy for Special Children, otherwise usually known as
HASC. I am the Executive Director. My name is Bernie Kahn. I
will take just a moment to describe the background of HASC and
the help that we are looking for.
The Hebrew Academy for Special Children was founded in 1963
for profoundly handicapped children from the local school
districts in order to provide any special education
programming. Today 34 years later, we are servicing over 1,100
special children, physically and mentally handicapped children
and adults on a daily basis. Children from 14 States around the
Union, including New York, California, Connecticut, Rhode
Island, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin,
Minnesota, Tennessee, Colorado, Georgia, and so on.
These children have all come to HASC not because we
advertised for them. They came on their own basis. Their
parents heard about the facility on their own, they came to
knock on the doors. We currently have over 100 children on the
waiting list trying to get in.
The facilities consist of pre-school programming, from the
time of birth there is early intervention, pre-school
programming from 3 to 5, school age special ed programming, as
well as sheltered workshops for adults. They have programming,
day-hab programming, res-hab programming, supportive work
programming, Medicaid waiver programming, as well as group
homes, residential group homes and summer programming, day and
residential as well.
The goal of the Hebrew Academy for Special Children is to
maximize the potential of each of these special children to try
to mainstream them into the community, and to provide them with
the opportunity to become taxpayers, instead of tax recipients.
In fact, two of your colleagues, Congressman Rangel and
Congressman Gilman, have visited firsthand our facilities and
seen what it is all about. They both came away very moved by
their visit.
For the past three decades HASC acquired the knowledge and
expertise to assist other schools and agencies interested in
developing educational facilities for special children and
adults, however, were greatly inhibited by the lack of physical
space and the lack of program dollars. And in response to the
needs of America's handicapped children, HASC is seeking to
establish a partnership with the Federal government to support
the purchase and renovation of the facility so that HASC can
expand its mission by reaching more developmentally disabled
children and adults.
Specifically, HASC will expand one of its nine sites, and
since its opening in 1992 in Rockland County, the great demand
for services has surpassed its physical capacity and there are
still more than 100 still waiting.
Therefore, to relieve the budget strain imposed upon the
programs, to enable expansion, to ensure that proper management
of the state-of-the-art programs described in my testimony, and
to enable our professionals to help other organizations to
develop similar programs, HASC is seeking assistance in
acquiring and renovating a facility which has been identified.
HASC's early intervention programs save local, State, and
Federal government in special education costs every year. And
with greater physical capacity to help mainstream even more
children, more adults to become productive, self-sufficient
taxpayers.
Mr. Chairman, HASC is a sound investment for the Federal
Government. The total funding needed to expand HASC's
facilities and programs is slightly more than $5 million. Mr.
Chairman, the total Federal request is $2.5 million. In your
fiscal year 1998 bill, HASC received $100,000 from the Economic
Development Initiative program and we are extremelygrateful for
this initial funding. And our hope is that your subcommittee will
provide additional $2.4 million in the fiscal year 1999 bill so that we
can complete the project.
HASC will meet all additional budget needs by actively
raising significant private dollars from State and government
sources as well.
Chairman Lewis, thank you Mr. Stokes and other members of
the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide you
with the testimony.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Kahn. We do appreciate
your being with us. Your entire testimony will be included in
the record. I appreciate your summarizing for us. Mr. Stokes.
Mr. Stokes. Thank you very much, Mr. Kann.
Mr. Kahn. You are very welcome.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Walsh.
Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a project we
discussed at last year's budget process. It is a very
meritorious project and it is making a positive difference in
the lives of those children. And we will have thorough
discussions regarding the project. We will do the best we can
to help.
Mr. Kahn. Thank you, Mr. Walsh.
Mr. Lewis. Congressman Walsh has only discussed this with
me two dozen times. [Laughter.]
Mrs. Meek.
Mrs. Meek. Thank you, Mr. Kahn.
Mr. Kahn. Thank you, Mrs. Meek.
Mr. Lewis. Appreciate your being with us.
Mr. Kahn. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1267 - 1273--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
HON. SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
TEXAS
DON OUCHLEY, BROWNSVILLE PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD
Mr. Lewis. I'd ask our colleague to come forward with his
guests. Congressman Ortiz.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. We will let you do the honors.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the
Subcommittee, I am pleased to have this opportunity to
introduce to you a good friend, a gentleman, from Brownsville,
Texas, as he comes to us today to testify on behalf of
Brownsville Weir and Reservoir project. Mr. Ouchley has an
outstanding 30 years record in the public utility field. Before
being appointed General Manager of the Brownsville Public
Utility Board, he was the Director of the public utilities of
Lafayette, Louisiana. And before that, he was with the public
utility district in Everett, Washington. I appreciate his
presence today as he explains the importance of the Brownsville
Weir and Reservoir project as the future development of the
Brownsville area the Rio Grande Valley.
My district is a border district. We have high unemployment
because of El Nino after several years. It is either a flood or
a drought. In this case, these last few years, we have had less
problems, aside from the northern most point in my district,
Corpus Christi, where we had to build a pipeline. We had to
suspend the monies that they we were paying monthly or yearly
for the construction of a dam that was built years back, so
that we could pipe water from Lake Pizelma into the Corpus
Christi area because we wouldn't have any water supply. In our
district, if you do not have water, you do not have dogs. And
this is very, very important.
But I bring with me today a gentleman--he is very well
qualified--and he can give you information as to what we are
working on. I support it. It is needed and I hope that the
committee can look at this issue that we are faced with and
help us with this problem.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Ouchley, we are pleased to receive your
testimony and it will all be included in the record. If you
would summarize it as you will see fit.
Mr. Ouchley. I will summarize and I have been listening and
it will be less than four minutes. [Laughter.]
I will be very brief.
My name is Don Ouchley. I am the General Manager of the
Public Utilities Board in Brownsville, Texas. We are a city of
130,000 people; the largest city in the south Texas area border
between Mexico and the United States.
I would like to thank you for this opportunity this
afternoon for listening. My testimony concerns a priority
environmental problem faced by Brownsville, Texas area. And
that is, the lack of a long term water supply. The reason that
we are here today to ask that you designate $3 million from the
Border Environmental Interest Structure Fund, the BEIF, for the
use of the Brownsville Weir and Reservoir project. We need this
money to initiate the implementation of this project.
The Brownsville Weir and Reservoir project is the most
important component of an integrated water resource plan for
the Lower Rio Grande Valley. It provides a unique opportunity
to capture water that has passed all other uses--water that
cannot be captured any other way because we are the last point
on the river. And without this project, this water flows to the
Gulf of Mexico unused, even in times of severe drought. It is,
in short, a major conservation project.
The structure creating the impoundment would release
adequate water for downstream users and also for environmental
purposes. It does not hinder environmental needs for water nor
downstream users. The project uses the existing river channel
for storage and will be accessible to many users both in the
United States and Mexico, rather than constructing an off-
channel reservoir which is remote to existing water supply
facilities. And also, it would only be accessible to a limited
number of users and it would provide no benefit to Mexico and
it would not meet the in-stream needs of the river. So storing
the water within the existing river channel is the most
effective way to impound the water.
This project encourages water conservation because under
current water management conditions, a significant portion of
that saved by water conservation practices is not conserved in
storage. But instead, the water flows to the Gulf of Mexico.
Absent the project, the IBWC would have to continue to
release water from Falcon Reservoir seven days in advance of
the anticipated diversion. If this released water is not
diverted due to reduced demand, or we get unanticipated in-
flows, all of this water flows to the Gulf of Mexico unused.
This project is the ultimate conservation project for our
region and can conserve much more water than any other
alternative that we have been able to come up with. The project
conserves water for all users of the river. Every time we save
an acre foot of water in Brownsville it puts an acre foot of
water behind Falcon Dam Reservoir for anyone to use. It
benefits all users, municipal, industrial, and agriculture.
The project has the strong support of the State of Texas.
The Texas Water Development Board has endorsed the project. It
is one of their top priorities. There is also written support
from Mexico, the State of Tamaulipas is supportive of the
project, and we have the support of local government, citizens,
and even local environmental organizations.
We need your assistance because existing EPA and Border
Environmental Coordinating Committee rules restrict the use of
these funds to wastewater and drinking water facilities, and
they do not cover water supply projects. The need to obtain a
stable long term water supply for the entire Brownsville area
is overwhelmingly the top border environmental priority for our
area, as I have mentioned before. If the BEIF is to help
improve the quality of our public health and environment, some
funding needs to be spent on this Weir project.
Our difficulty occurs because the BECC funding emphasizes
funding for wastewater and water treatment plants for smaller
communities. Yet Brownsville has spent over $40 million in the
last 5 years to upgrade these facilities to meet State and
Federal standards. And we have done this without any help from
outside. The result of that has been that we have had to
increase our rates very significantly and we have very high
water and wastewater rates as a result of that. We, and our
Congressional delegation, especially Congressman Ortiz, have
assumed that our support of NAFTA that the Border Environmental
funding would be able to reduce this financial impact on lower
income communities, such as we are. In meeting environmental
and public health needs, the city has paid, as I said, more
than $40 million for major wastewater and drinking water
improvements. And to put it in a nutshell, we have no more
funds available for our water supply project needs. We strongly
believe that we should be able to obtain the $3 million we need
to continue this project out of the over $400 million of the
BECC border funds that have already been appropriated for
border environmental projects. And all of this for our top
priority in the Valley. And we would appreciate your
consideration.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much for your testimony. We are
very appreciative of it. Congressman Ortiz is a very articulate
representative who, among other things, has agreat influence
with Mr. Stokes of our committee. [Laughter.]
Mr. Stokes, I want you to know that they have been lining
up today. You have to count these shekels with great care.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Stokes. As you say, Mr. Ortiz is a very ardent advocate
and as you say, I have all this influence. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. Seriously, we very much appreciate your coming
today and your entire testimony will be in the record. In the
meantime, we appreciate your coming in and we appreciate your
being with us.
Mr. Ouchley. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Are there questions of the members?
Mr. Stokes. No, thank you.
Ms. Meek. No, thank you.
Mr. Ouchley. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1277 - 1281--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
PHILIP FURMANSKI, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
Mr. Lewis. Let us see. Our next witness is Dr. Philip
Furmanski, New York University. Mr. Furmanski. Nice to see you.
Mr. Furmanski. Nice to see you.
Mr. Lewis. You have been observing with great patience.
Mr. Furmanski. I have indeed.
Mr. Lewis. You understand the process?
Mr. Furmanski. I do, and I will not take too much of your
time.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you.
Mr. Furmanski. My name is Philip Furmanski and I am
speaking on behalf of New York University. I am the Dean of the
Faculty of Arts and Science and Chairman of the Biology
Department. I do appreciate this opportunity to discuss a
project which addresses the interests of several agencies,
including the Environmental Protection Agency.
In it's 1997 report on building a foundation for sound
environmental decisions, the NRC advised the EPA to undertake a
comprehensive approach to research and development activities
that includes close cooperation with universities and research.
Our project addresses that goal by enlisting fundamental
university based research to advance biomedical and behavioral
knowledge about the brain and to translate research advances
into practical applications and new technologies.
We aim to do this by establishing a center on our campus, a
center for cognition, learning, motion, and memory. This
center's research will push the frontiers of what we know about
how the brain develops, how it functions, malfunctions,
matures, and ages. As important, the center will also help
train the next generation of interdisciplinary brain scientists
who will carry on this research.
NYU is seeking support to expand research programs, attract
investigators, and provide the technical resources necessary to
create a premier scientific enterprise. As you know,
traditional funding sources cannot underwrite the establishment
of a cross disciplinary area of scientific study, particularly
one that includes both research and teaching and reaches across
the fields, such as computer science, cognitive science,
biomedicine, psychology, and education.
Our project will substantially expand what we know about
the development of the brain and the nervous system, including
the role of environmental and biological growth factors that
control development. Our research will, by it's nature,
elucidate the fundamental rule structures that mediate the
affects of human exposure to environmental risks and undermine
neural health and development. These findings are especially
important for brain development in infants and children, which
is a priority area of concern for EPA.
Research conducted at the center will explore short and
long term memory and the loss of memory through aging, disease,
and exposure to environmental agents. Using different
perspectives, researchers will investigate brain functions
ranging from elementary processes to higher order processes,
perception, cognition, language, and thinking. Pioneering
studies in neurobiology of fear are already generating
important information about brain systems that malfunction,
anxiety, phobias, panic attacks, and post traumatic stress
disorders. Much of this is going on at NYU.
Our research will explore the neuropathways of emotion and
generate clues for treatment of emotional disorders, including
the possibility of altering or inhibiting unconscious neural
circuitry. These and other research studies will have a wide
range of applications for physicians, for teachers, and
policymakers, and important spinoffs for different sectors of
society. For example, our research will investigate how
children learn and how educators can accommodate different
cognitive styles and harness technology to stimulate interest
and to increase retention.
Similarly, research on cognition and learning will have
important implications for job training for adults and will
help address the challenge of training workers in
newtechnologies, including veterans who are moving into a civilian
workforce.
Finally, research on the way that the brain sees and
processes information can have a direct application to it's
machine analog in terms of computer vision and computer
applications and data processing.
New York University is well positioned to create and
operate this major, national, cross disciplinary research and
training center. The largest private university in the United
States, with well over 50,000 students who represent every
State in the union and many foreign countries, NYU has
outstanding researchers and well established strengths in
neurobiology, cognitive science, neuromagnitism, behavioral
neuroscience, educational psychology, mathematical modeling,
and computer simulation. Our faculty are already widely
recognized for their research on learning and memory, are
international leaders in studies on fusion, which is one of the
key elements and inputs to learning, and are pioneers in
biological studies of emotion. With these strengths, NYU will
create a distinctive center that will produce a new
understanding of the brain and new ways of using that knowledge
to meet national goals.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I thank you for
this opportunity. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Dr. Furmanski. I am not
sure what you are----
Mr. Furmanski. We are working on it.
Mr. Lewis. I beg your pardon? [Laughter.]
Mr. Furmanski. We are working on it. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Stokes.
Mr. Stokes. No questions. Thank you very much for your
testimony.
Mr. Furmanski. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Ms. Meek.
Ms. Meek. No questions.
Mr. Lewis. The gentleman from New York.
Mr. Walsh. Shorter memory is critically important.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Furmanski. We are working on that as well.
Mr. Lewis. We really appreciate your being here.
Mr. Furmanski. Thank you very much for your attention.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1285 - 1293--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
WITNESS
JOSEPH BUTTIGLEG, CATHOLIC CHARITIES USA
Mr. Lewis. We are going to move to item 41 and I will call
upon Mr. Joseph--I hope I can pronounce this correctly--
Buttigleg? Is that correct? With Catholic Charities. I am not
sure that I pronounced that correctly, so help me.
Mr. Buttigleg. It is Smith--it is Buttigleg. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. Buttigleg.
Mr. Buttigleg. Buttigleg.
Mr. Lewis. All right. Joe, welcome.
Mr. Buttigleg. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Members. I
am the Associate Executive Director of Catholic Charities for
the Diocese of Albany for Parish Social Ministry. I am also
representing Catholic Charities USA. Of the 4.8 million people
who came to Catholic Charities' agencies in 1996, 8 million of
them came to us for emergency food, emergency shelter, and
other crisis services.
I have served a member of the New York State Emergency Food
and Shelter State Set-Aside Board since 1990. The task of the
State Set-Aside Board is to put a portion of the supplement to
counties that may have not received a national appropriation,
who are in an area where there is a high need.
Attached to our testimony, we have submitted some of the
letters that we have received from the county's State Set-Aside
or county's emergency feeding programs boards, detailing the
needs in their communities and you can read those. And, in
fact, we have more than we have in terms of the submitted
testimony.
The dollars that FEMA provides for emergency food and
shelter programs are really the life blood of those programs.
It supplements local efforts to do fund raising, to provide
emergency food, emergency shelter, to families that have no
place else to turn.
The experience of sitting on a State set-aside board is
really like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The amount
of money that is available in no way matches the needs that are
presented by the local communities. Over the last eight years
the State set-aside committee has noticed a fundamental
restructuring of the people who need and come to us for
services and the way that our programs are able to respond and
provide the assistance that is needed.
At one time the majority of the people who came to us were
very obviously poor. In most instances they were on public
assistance and they could not get their grant to stretch to the
end of the month in exchange for emergency food and shelter.
Today, we have a new class of people coming to us. They are the
invisible poor and what we call the poorer poor. The invisible
poor are those persons who had a good job with benefits with
pay and they have lost them. And they now have had to settle
for a lower paying jobwith few benefits. They find it very
difficult to make ends meet to feed their kids, to clothe their kids,
to house their kids.
At a recent meeting that we had in Albany where we had
1,000 Catholics coming to us at a meeting, we asked them, how
many people knew someone who in the last year lost a job and
had to settle for one with a lower wage and lower benefits.
Sixty percent of the people who were in that room raised their
hands.
The poorer poor are the individuals who have gone through
welfare reform. Recent studies in New York State have shown
that of the people who have left the rolls, only between 25 and
35 percent of those people wind up in the next quarter in a
payroll report. The question is, what happened to the other 65
or 75 percent of those people? From our experience with
investment with the food pantries and emergency shelters that
we have throughout New York State, the answer seems to be they
are on their doorsteps.
We have reports from Catholic Charities from around the
country that for the first time in the history of Catholic
Charities, food pantries are bare. Catholic Charities is
hearing reports that former welfare recipients are worse off
now that they are working than they were when they were
receiving assistance and are coming to our emergency feeding
sites and shelters.
How are emergency food programs able to meet the needs of
more people? By giving far less to more people than ever
before. I can do that in the Albany Diocese we have some of the
most generous people in the country. Every year they out give
the national average in special drives that we have for the
poor and the needy. And even their increased generosity is not
able to keep up with the need that is being presented. One of
our agencies in Schenectady County--we cover 14 counties in the
Albany Diocese--reported that the request for food and
assistance and emergency aid went up 400 percent in the last
year.
I guess the question is, is there an increased need?
Absolutely. Have private charities tried to meet those needs?
Definitely. Is there a need for an increased appropriation?
Absolutely.
Thank you for your time and attention. This story sounds
dramatic, but the situation right now is dramatic.
Mr. Lewis. I must say that your mentioning of everything in
your testimony, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and
the way you gave it, causes me to want to mention to those who
are present, remind members, that there was a time when this
member was about ready to promote legislation that would close
down FEMA, for it was so non-responsive and this is some years
ago. But nonetheless if all of our responsibilities were as
responsive as that agency is now, a lot of our work would be
much easier. I appreciate your recognition of it. Mr. Stokes.
Mr. Stokes. No questions. Thank you very much for your
testimony.
Mr. Lewis. Ms. Meek.
Ms. Meek. No questions.
Mr. Lewis. Gentleman from New York.
Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
reiterate some of the things Mr. Buttigleg said. You know, way
back early on in my career, as a case worker, when people used
to come for follow up assistance to the county--it would take
awhile to process their paperwork. And so we would refer them
to Catholic Charities or other charitable organizations within
the community. And I thought the money came from that. Well, it
did not. It came from, in many cases, the organization that got
people through that crisis until they could sign up for public
assistance.
Today it would get them through until they could sign up
for, in my county, the work plus program, which you sign up for
public assistance and get a job at the same time. So it, as Mr.
Jamie Lee Witt said, this is one of the most effective programs
that we have for emergency situations. Because the money is
there, the food is there, the system is in place to take care
of these folks in the short term until either they get a job or
they are on public assistance or things get turned around in
their lives.
And this program just 5 years ago was funded at about $135
million a year; it is down to about $100 million and the cost
of inflation is eating up that amount also. So this challenge
for the people in Catholic Charities and other charitable
organizations' challenge is to make sure that people who really
need it are helped. Our challenge is to make sure that, to the
best of our ability, they have the resources to do that.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Buttigleg, your entire testimony will be put
in the record. We very much appreciate your being here.
Mr. Buttigleg. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1297 - 1303--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
SHERWOOD DUBOSE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, METRO MIAMI ACTION PLAN
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Stokes.
Mr. Stokes. Yes sir.
Mr. Lewis. We have Members and we have very aggressive
Members, so I need you to sign off on this matter. The gentle
lady from Florida is asking for a very special request and I
want to have your approval.
Mr. Stokes. Another one? [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. She would ask that we have Mr. Sherwood Dubose
come up. He is the President and CEO of the Metro Miami Action
Plan and I suppose we are FE.
Mr. Stokes. I think that for the benefit of all us we can
concede to that request. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Dubose, come right in.
Ms. Meek. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. You can just proceed with your testimony and we
will include whatever you like in the record and from there go
forward.
Mr. Dubose. Okay, thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman
and Ranking Member. It is a pleasure for me to be here today
and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the group
regarding Metro Miami Action Plan project in Overtown, Miami.
Let me begin by thanking you for the support last yearfor
the project in Overtown, Miami. The Metro Miami Action Plan believes
that the initial funding is an excellent regaining to demonstrate the
type of fellow support that is needed to begin to revitalize a long
neglected and overdue community that has suffered for years from urban
blight, urban renewal.
Overtown is one of the oldest neighborhoods in Miami,
dating back to 1890 when it was designated as a segregated
living area within the City of Miami limits for blacks working
on Henry Flager's railroad.
The residential population of Overtown peaked in the early
1960's to approximately 30,000 people. The construction of I-
95, State Road 836/I-395 bisected the area, and as a result,
population declined and spurred fallen property values, caused
and stimulated loss of jobs, incomes, businesses were
destroyed, homes were destroyed.
Today major problems exist in the community--a high crime
rate, low income residences exist there. There is an extensive
structural environmental blight, social services are inadequate
in the area, and there are critical needs to create jobs and to
rebound lives in this community, both economically and
socially.
Clearly the Overtown community has enjoyed some benefits of
African American culture at earlier stages. But it has fallen
on hard times. With the event of I-95, again State Road 396, we
left the entire community that we are having to deal with in
Dade County. On one hand, to fit in, the county recognized some
needs to begin to develop our infrastructure needs, to begin to
replace water and sewage. However, we have left off the missing
element. That is, resources that will generate and serve as
economic generators for rebounding the established community.
In 1997, a national survey indicated that per capita, the
City of Miami is one of the poorest cities in America. That has
a negative impact on the entire community that creates some of
the problems that you have had to date. It eroded the tax base,
its railway business, that have now left the community.
Today we need your support. We need you to continue to
support our efforts in Overtown by the value of $2 million.
That $2 million is not just $2 million. That is multiplied by a
multiplier of 7, where we bring in the local community, our
businesses, banking institutions, local government, that we
form joint ventures, partnerships that will enable us to
multiply that money, leverage that money, so that we can begin
to draw businesses, begin to redevelop that area, and hopefully
within the next 10 years, have the community that is once again
vibrant. A vibrant community again that is really stable. We
will have low crime, high employment as opposed to high
unemployment. These are the kind of things that we are looking
for in the future.
Overtown is poised to be a model for this country. It could
be a model in the things we are on the cutting edge, and what
we are doing there that could be replicated in other areas
around the country, if we only had that continued support. The
money that we have already received we have begun to acquire
land, assemble sites, we have already begun to identify doable
projects that are tangible that we could look to now and say
that this is what we will have at the end of the day that would
be there as a benchmark to demonstrate that there is continued
need for revitalization.
I have included quite a bit in my testimony, but I have to
summarize by saying that there have been over nine studies done
in the area of Overtown. Nine studies, so we do not need
another study. What we need now is the commitment to follow
through to make a reality. And I thank you on behalf of the 2.1
million of Dade citizens of Dade County for your consideration
and I would like to have some questions, if there are any.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Dubose, for your
testimony. Let me call on the gentle lady from Miami and see if
she has any questions.
Ms. Meek. I would just like to say that I want to thank
you, Mr. Dubose, for coming up. He represents an initiative in
Miami that is working. That is, they can show the model they
are using is creating jobs and providing the economic
turnaround. And if it were not for the start that this
subcommittee gave them, they would not have been able to get
ahold of this problem. Everyone has talked about Overtown.
Every politician has been there and said something would be
done about the town. But if it were not for this subcommittee,
they would have never received any funds on the national level
to help them in turnaround. For that, I want to thank the
Chairman and Mr. Stokes and the rest of the members of the
committee who have seeded to help the Metro Miami Action Plan
do this. The county established that for the mere purpose of
doing economic development. We want to thank the committee.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Ms. Meek. Mr.
Frelinghuysen.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Stokes, you have the last word.
Mr. Stokes. I would just like to say to Mr. Dubose that
last year when this project was initiated through this
subcommittee that Ms. Meek was very diligent with me on your
behalf. She was a very strong advocate. Mr. Lewis nor I will
ever forget that. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. Like I said, he had the last word. [Laughter.]
Thank you, Mr. Dubose. We appreciate very much your being
with us.
Mr. Dubose. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1307 - 1314--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
WITNESS
MARK PINSKY, CHAIRMAN, THE COALITION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Lewis. Our next witness is Christine Gaffney, the
Director, Coalition for Community Development Financial
Institutions.
Ms. Gaffney. Mr. Chairman, our testimony will be given by
Mark Pinsky; he is Chairman of the CDFI Coalition.
Mr. Lewis. I appreciate your patience. I know you have been
here for awhile and you have observed this process of moving
back and forth. But, in the mean time, I am glad to have you.
Would you identify yourself for the record.
Mr. Pinsky. My name is Mark Pinsky. I am Chairman of the
Coalition of Community Development Financial Institutions.
Mr. Lewis. Alright.
Mr. Pinsky. I appreciate very much the opportunity to speak
with you today. We have had a good chance to sit and listen and
hear about a lot of good things happening and we appreciate it.
If I may, the CDFI Coalition represents the CDFI industries
in this country with more than 350 CDFI's managing
approximately $2 billion in assets.
I also want to identify that in my day job I am the
Executive Director of a group called the National Community
Capital Organization, which was a founding member of the
coalition and I am going to make some reference to some of our
work in a minute.
I want to tell you today that the CDFI Fund, although it is
just a few years old, is actually having an enormous positive
impact on the CDFI industry, including the CDFI industry on
small businesses, in housing development, in many of the
Nation's poorest communities. The President has requested $125
million for the upcoming fiscal year and the Coalition and the
industry urges Congress to appropriate the full amount. We know
that this subcommittee and the Committee has been very
supportive of the CDFI Fund in the past and we appreciate it.
What I would like to do is tell you very briefly, if I may,
a few key points that I think have concerned the Subcommittee
in the past and what I think are critical to the future of the
CDFI industry.
CDFI is a private sector financial institution that is, as
you will see, in the leveraging business. The CDFI Fund was
created to strengthen and expand that network of CDFI's. From
our view, a sort of customer view of the CDFI Fund, we think
the CDFI Fund goes well and respond to it's market. It has in
the past offered and is developing products that are customer
responsive and it is increasingly smart about how it delivers
it's products to it's consumers.
There really are four points that I wanted to make about
this. The first is leverage. CDFI's are in the business of
leverage. That's what we do. We do it to our partnerships with
private, for profit, financial institutions, banks, insurance
companies, and others. And we do it to our relationships in the
communities where we work. It is a conservative statement to
say that a dollar of equity from the CDFI Fund invested in the
CDFI will yield $100 or more in investment--in private sector
investment, in small businesses, in housing development in many
of the Nation's poorest communities. It is an enormous leverage
factor and I would be glad to come back and walk through that,
if that is of interest.
The second thing is an issue that the CDFI industry is very
concerned about, which is demonstrating that it is having an
impact. We have many anecdotal stories. I did not bring them
with me today. I know you have heard some of them, you have
probably seen some of them, but I think it is very important
that we be able to understand what this money is actually doing
from a business perspective.
And what I would like to do is wear my National Community
Capital hat, if I will, for a second. We as an association have
tracked the performance and the impact of what our member
CDFI's have been doing longer than just about anyone else and I
think that the CDFI Fund has a chance to really build on the
knowledge base that we have and demonstrate more. But, if I
may, the CDFI default to National Community Capital had loaned
to ER in 1996 about--loaned and invested a little over $.5
billion, about $514 million, with a default rate again working
in many of the Nation's poorest communities of about 1 percent,
historically. They have leveraged every dollar they have put in
has leveraged about $7 in primarily private sector investment
into those communities for about $3.5 billion. That financing
has created more than 23,000 jobs and more than 64,000 housing
units again across the country.
The third point I wanted to make is demand. As you know,
the CDFI program and the CDFI Fund has had requested in its
first 2 rounds of almost about $486 million, despite the fact
they had just about $75 million available. They had 427
applicants in those first 2 rounds and so far have been able to
fund only 74 of them. And so, I think the demand is clearly the
industry sees the value of what the CDFI funds doing in seeking
to pay that fund. I would note that it is a very competitive
process and it focuses very much on the performance of these
private sector institutions, as it should.
The last main point I wanted to make is that the CDFI Fund
in its short history has been very responsive where it has
identified, if you will, gaps in its products and services. It
recently announced a technical assistance round to help those
small emerging institutions that are not yet ready to be
competitive in getting funding from the main program, to get
some technical assistance in the training they need to build
their capacity. It created an intermediary component to work
with organizations like mine to provide financing to a wide
range of CDFI's that again, may not be able to gain access
directly through the CDFI funds.
They are looking at creating a training--a large scale
training program--one of the major needs in the CDFI industry
is human capital. There is a labor crisis in our field. There
are not enough skilled talented people. We are looking to the
banking industry and recruiting people from the banking
industry these days to come in and fill some of those
positions. And this training program would be helpful. In
addition, we have proposed and I think the Fund is looking very
seriously at what we call an easy access window that would fill
a gap in their programs that would make it easy for small
emerging institutions to get reasonable amounts of capital
through the fund, even though they may not be able to be
competitive with some of the larger institutions in the main
program of the fund.
In conclusion, I just want to say that the CDFI industry
believes strongly that as long as the CDFI Fund remains focused
on CDFI performance and applies rigorous business practice
standards to its own work as we think it is doing now, it will
be a catalyst for innovation and private sector investment in
low income communities across that Nation. Again, we hope you
will recommend full funding for the upcoming fiscal year.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Pinsky. Mr. Stokes.
Mr. Stokes. No questions. Thank you very much for your
testimony.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Frelinghuysen, no questions? Both Mr. Pinsky
and Ms. Gaffney, we appreciate your being here and your entire
testimony will be included in the record and any additional
material will be put in our file. Thank you.
Mr. Pinsky. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1317 - 1323--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
VIRGO LEE, NEW YORK DOWNTOWN HOSPITAL
Mr. Lewis. Is Virgo Lee here? Here he comes. New York
Downtown Hospital, Mr. Lee.
Mr. Lee. Yes. Mr. Lewis and the rest of the Subcommittee, I
am also joined by Lynn Aubrey, who is the CEO of New York
Downtown Hospital.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Aubrey, good afternoon.
Mr. Lee. Good afternoon. My name is Virgo Lee. I am a
partner in M.R. Partners, an investment banking firm based in
New York. Formerly, I was also the Director of the Mayor's
Office for Asian Affairs in New York from 1990 to 1994 and
presently a Trustee of the hospital since 1994.
I have always made it a lifelong commitment to serving the
community, dating back to the days when I was in college. I
would like to digress just for a moment to give a little family
background. I am second generation Chinese American. My father
immigrated to the United States in 1940, joined the U.S. Army,
fought Word War II, and then brought my mother over in 1947. I
have two brothers and a sister. We were the beneficiaries of
good public school education and later on we all went to
college. And while in college, I decided that one of the
purposes in life should be to give something back to the
community, the society, and the country in which provided such
an opportunity.
So with this background, I am here to ask the
Subcommittee's support on a matter of vital importance to
thehealth and safety of the lower Manhattan's 350,000 residents and the
375,000 member work force. That project is to rebuild NYU Downtown
Hospital's aging emergency room facilities. This project is of equal
importance to the Chinese community in New York as well as to the Wall
Street business community.
The situation can only be termed unique. It is a hospital
which serves not only the areas most vulnerable and frail, but
also the cities most powerful. NYU is the only acute care
health facility and the only emergency center in lower
Manhattan and the area of lower Manhattan is equal to the tenth
largest city in the United States.
The emergency facilities when it was first built in 1972
was considered state-of-the-art. But it is presently over
burdened by the influx of new residents, many of whom are
Chinese immigrants with special needs, and is horribly
inefficient by today's standards. Due to our forerunner's
started financial situation, the hospital has suffered from
almost three decades of neglect to it's fiscal plant. Now, with
a revitalized new board that represents a diverse and indeed
all of lower Manhattan, the hospital is now responding to the
community's needs and building a bright future.
A key element to that future is the complete renovation of
the hospital's emergency room facilities. This project is not
only imperative, but it is also urgent. Nothing could better
illustrate this pressing need than the bombing of the World
Trade Center which occurred in 1994. During that crisis, the
hospital treated 200 victims of that bombing and was the
primary emergency care provider for the victims of that
disaster.
The leaders of the financial community in conjunction with
the leading members of the New York Chinese community both are
in full support of this effort.
NYU Downtown Hospital is designated as a financially
distressed hospital by the New York State Department of Health
and it is the single largest provider of emergency and acute
care health services to the under served Chinese population.
Annually, we receive 30,000 emergency room visits and more
than 10,500 inpatient admissions, all of which 58 percent of
the hospital's inpatients are Chinese. The hospital
uncompensated care for 1997 was $9 million, or 10.7 percent of
the total hospital budget. Another 40 percent of the patients
are covered by Medicaid. Recent Chinese immigrants to the U.S.
are often impoverished with little formal education, no English
language skills, and virtually no experience with Western
medical practices, and face daunting obstacles in accessing
health care. Such barriers to medical services represent a
public health time bomb with implications for the general
population. In recent years, through the hospital's innovative
efforts, it has become recognized nationally for its special
services to the Chinese community and for its efforts to
improve access to health care.
Fiscal barriers posed by the aging facilities inhibit
access to equal care for not only the Chinese community, but
also the local residents. The hospital's emergency facilities
must be totally renovated to provide improved access and a
comfortably sensitive environment. The emergency room project
is a critical component of the hospital's overall capital
campaign, the remainder of which will be raised through private
sources.
Planned renovation of the facilities include a designated
area for prompt care, that is a service designed to treat and
release patients with routine problems within 20 minutes, as
opposed to the hours that one normally has to wait in an
emergency room. Two, construction of a treatment room for women
to provide greater privacy and to accommodate specialized
medical equipment. Three, a reconstruction of all patient rooms
for easy access and greater visibility to staff. Four, upgrade
of an existing pediatric emergency room to provide appropriate
amenities for children and their parents. And lastly,
relocation of supply facilities and redesign of traffic
patterns to enhance efficiencies in patient care. Bilingual
signage and translation technology will also be utilized to
improve communication between patient and doctor.
As I said earlier, complete renovation of the emergency
facilities is not only imperative, it is urgent. As your
subcommittee works to establish funding priorities for fiscal
year 1999, I respectfully request that $10 million be allocated
from the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Economic
Development Initiative Account for renovation of the hospital's
emergency room.
This concludes my testimony. I would like to again thank
Chairman Lewis and the members of the Subcommittee for taking
the time to listen to our request.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Lee. Any questions of
the members?
Mr. Stokes. No questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Lee.
Mr. Lewis. Alright. Your entire testimony will be included
in the record. We appreciate your being with us, sir.
Mr. Lee. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1327 - 1332--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION
WITNESS
BRAD IAROSSI, ASSOCIATION OF STATE DAM SAFETY OFFICIALS, INC.
Mr. Lewis. Just for the members' edification, we are
running about half an hour, maybe as much as 40 minutes, behind
our original schedule. I will try to expedite the process as we
go forward. But, if all of our remaining witnesses will
recognize that as we get closer to five, we run closer and
closer to running out of money. [Laughter.]
State Dam Safety, Mr. Iarossi. How are you?
Mr. Iarossi. Fine, sir.
Mr. Lewis. With that precautionary note, just please
proceed.
Mr. Iarossi. As quickly as I can. Mr. Chairman and members
of the subcommittee, my name is Brad Iarossi. I am the
President-elect of the Association of State Dam Safety
Officials. I am Chief of the Dam Safety Program for the State
of Maryland and I was born and raised in New Jersey.
I want to speak to you today about the safety of dams in
this country, the National Dam Safety Program administered by
FEMA and request your support to fully fund the National Dam
Safety Program in fiscal year 1999.
Let me begin, Mr. Chairman, by thanking you and the members
of the Subcommittee for your support last year and providing
full funding of $2.9 million in fiscal year 1998.
There are over 93,000 dams in the United States and 95
percent of those are regulated by the State, not by theFederal
government. States have an overwhelming task in trying to assure the
safety of these dams. Congress clearly recognized the problem and the
necessity of a Federal rule to provide leadership and assistance.
States have identified over 1,800 unsafe dams and by the year 2020, 85
percent of the dams in this country will have reached or exceeded their
50-year design life. States truly need this Federal support.
We are greatly disappointed that the Administration has
only recommended $1.5 million in fiscal year 1999 for the
National Dam Safety Program, which falls far short of $3.9
million authorized by the Act. Therefore, we respectfully
request the Subcommittee's support for increase of $2.4 million
to fully fund the National Dam Safety Program, at $3.9 million
authorized level.
We also request that the $400,000 authorized in the Act for
additional staff to administer the program, be specifically
earmarked for that purpose including four work years. The
program, if fully funded, will provide $2 million for incentive
grants to States for them to improve their programs. $500,000
for training for State engineers; $1 million for research to
improve techniques and equipment for effective dam inspection
and to support the National Performance of Damage Program at
Stanford University. This modest, yet vital funding, will help
reduce the risk to life and property due to dam failures by
providing States with the resources they need to improve their
programs.
It is an investment in public safety that will reduce loss
of life, property damage and much larger Federal expenditures
for the National Flood Insurance Program and the President's
Disaster Relief Fund. We have included in our written testimony
a chart of State dam inventory data which shows that every
member of the Subcommittee has at least one high hazard dam in
their State. Many of these are unsafe. In Ohio, there are 450
unsafe dams; 189 in Colorado; and in New Jersey, there are 32
unsafe dams.
Mr. Chairman, I listened to Director Witt's testimony
before this subcommittee where he preached of the benefits of
prevention in a mitigation strategy. We support FEMA's
mitigation strategy because it seeks to prevent disasters. When
dams fail, people's property gets destroyed; often
infrastructure is destroyed and people die. If this program
only prevents one dam failure, then it will easily pay for
itself and reduce recovery costs in lives saved. Doesn't it
make more sense to put money into prevention rather than into
recovery?
In closing, we strongly urge the Subcommittee to recognize
the benefits of this program. We request your support for an
additional $2.4 million in order for FEMA to continue
implementing this National Dam Safety Program. Thank you for
this opportunity, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to respond to
any questions.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Iarossi, for very cogent and
brief statements. Mr. Stokes.
Mr.Stokes. No questions. Thank you for your testimony, Mr.
Iarossi.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. No questions. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1335 - 1342--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
WITNESS
STAN McKINNEY, NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Stan McKinney, National Emergency Management
Association.
Mr. McKinney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am State Director
of Emergency Management of South Carolina and I appreciate your
opportunity and the members of the subcommittee allowing me to
speak to you today. I am the President of my peers organization
that represents the State Emergency Managers undertaking State
emergency management programs for each of our State's
governors. I will be very brief. I respect your 5 o'clock
deadline and your money. [Laughter.]
I would like to refer you to our written testimony to be
presented and explain to you a bit of a problem that we have. I
would first like to say that we, as well as you, in alluding
this earlier, are very supportive of Director Witt and what he
has done at FEMA to provide vision and leadership for an aging
agency that you alluded to earlier; and provide us an
opportunity to be full partners in delivering enhanced
emergency management not only in California and South Carolina,
but across the country. At the same time, we support his
revitalization--reinvigoration of FEMA--we have a problem with
this year's budget request.
The State emergency management programs have been full
partners with Director Witt. We understand the need to control
disaster costs and are fully supportive of themitigation issues
that are proposed. But we are not supportive of those initiatives at
the expense of State and local preparedness in response and recovery
initiatives.
As you know, the State and local assistance program within
NEMA's budget has experienced or is recommended to receive a
$11.4 million cut. That would be a devastating cut to State and
local emergency preparedness programs. That could mean as many
as 200 State and local emergency management jobs--representing
about a 17 percent reduction in staff. It is understood that
the Congress has a problem with continuing 100 percent Federal
funding for these programs that is only a part of the State and
local assistance programs. But we also realize that States need
ample time to adjust their State budgets to accept any
reduction in the State and local assistance programs or any
change in the cost share.
I would like to just remind you that the Stafford Act
provides for opportunities to partner at 50-50 cost share in
State and local emergency management assistance programs. We
have done a recent survey at NEMA that has indicated that the
States are contributing between 65 and 90 percent of the cost
of preparedness for the emergency management programs in the
country.
I would like to reiterate the importance of not diluting
the response in recovery programs, if indeed the 100 percent
programs were available to national security issues. We
understand that the cost share may ultimately need to be
different. NEMA has received limited, if any, funding for the
preparation for the threat of domestic terrorism. We, at the
State and local level, charged by our governors are responsible
for embracing that hazard also. Just because the hazard has
changed does not mean that we should reduce funding to support
critical and low number staffs at the State and local levels.
The States are committed to work with this Committee and
appreciates the commitment you have made in enhancing emergency
management across the country. We are excited about the private
impact initiative and want to be a meaningful partner in that
initiative. We encourage you to restore the $11.4 million cut
that is recommended in the State and local assistance programs,
and look favorably upon our partnership in building meaningful,
sustainable mitigation programs in the country to reduce our
exposure and ultimately reduce disaster costs to the American
taxpayer.
I appreciate your taking the opportunity to hear from me
this afternoon and I would be glad to answer any questions that
you might have.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. McKinney. Mr. Stokes.
Mr. Stokes. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
McKinney.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I have no questions, thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, sir, for being here.
Mr. McKinney. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1345 - 1349--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS'
AFFAIRS
WITNESS
DR. MURRAY LOEW, JUVENILE DIABETES FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Lewis. Dr. Murray Loew, Juvenile Diabetics Foundation
International. Dr. Loew, nice to see you.
Dr. Loew. Thank you. It's good to be here. Mr. Chairman,
members of the subcommittee. I am Murray Loew and I am pleased
to testify on behalf of the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation
International, JDF, regarding fiscal year 1999 appropriations
for the Department of Veterans' Affairs Medical Research
account and the National Life Sciences position.
JDF is a voluntary health organization whose mission is to
find a cure for diabetes and its complications through the
support of research. I am a professor of engineering at George
Washington University, but I am here today as dad and long-term
volunteer for JDF. In 1980, my wife and I learned that our then
10-year old son, Brian, had Type 1, or juvenile diabetes. That
diagnosis has changed significantly Brian's life and the lives
of our entire family.
Diabetes is a leading chronic illness affecting adults, as
well as children, and it has severe complications. It affects
16 million Americans and will contribute to the death of
187,000 this year. It is also a leading cause of new adult
blindness, kidney failure, heart disease, amputation and
stroke. Although up to four injections per day enable a
diabetic to remain alive, insulin is not a cure. Beyond the raw
statistics are the day-to-day things that Brian must dojust to
stay alive. Besides injecting insulin, Brian tests his blood as many as
eight times a day to check his blood sugar level. As difficult as that
is, it is much harder to deal with the emotional impact that diabetes
has on an individual and the family. We know that by keeping blood
sugar levels as close as possible to normal, Brian reduces the chances
of developing the long-term complications of diabetes.
Along with the benefits of tight control, however, come
risks. My wife and I are aware daily of the threat that Brian's
blood sugar may drop too low, thereby causing him to pass out
or in the worst case, slip into a life-threatening coma.
Although a cure for diabetes has eluded us so far, JDF remains
hopeful and committed to reaching this goal. This year JDF will
fund $40 million in diabetes research. Nearly three times what
it sponsored in 1991. By 2003, it expects to fund about $80
million in research.
JDF has also joined forces with the VA, NASA and NIH to
refund research in areas of common interest. Many veterans have
diabetes. The VA devotes a large fraction of its resources to
provide treatment for them and for clinical research and
training. The JDF/VA partnership was established in 1996 to
improve the transfer of knowledge from the laboratory bench to
the patient's bedside. The partnership is already funding
clinically-oriented diabetes research centers in Iowa City,
Nashville and San Diego. JDF is dedicated to expanding the
number of centers so that diabetes research into new areas can
be conducted. JDF requests that the subcommittee provide the VA
Medical Research account with a $325 million appropriation--a
20 percent increase over fiscal year 1998.
This funding level will give VA the resources to continue
to be an active partner in this important effort. Although it
may not be immediately apparent, astronauts and diabetics have
similar needs. So JDF and NASA last May signed a Space Act
Agreement that enables them to begin fully sharing information
and ideas.
One example of those overlapping interests is in the area
of blood monitoring. When Brian tests blood sugar levels as
part of his regimen to keep them as normal as possible, he must
prick his finger and draw blood. Astronauts must do the same
thing in space to test for any of a number of important
materials. Clearly both groups would benefit from the creation
of a noninvasive needle that would painlessly and quickly
measure levels of blood glucose and other chemicals without the
need to draw blood.
Just two weeks ago, JDF and NASA sponsored a conference on
the issue of noninvasive blood glucose monitoring. Last
December, they sponsored a conference on eyelet cell
transplantation. A process, that if perfected, could replace
the pancreas' nonfunctioning cells with new insulin-producing
cells--thereby eliminating the need to inject insulin.
JDF supports the Federation of American Society for
experimental biologies in fiscal year 1999's professional
judgment budget for research and analysis in NASA's Life
Sciences Division of $100 million--an increase of $50 million
over fiscal year 1998. This will allow the agency to expand its
role in funding research in diabetes and other areas.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my son, Brian, who has lived
with diabetes for 18 years and of the 16 million other
Americans who face these rigors daily, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before you today. Your support for
veterans' programs and for space science--not only will help
directly in those important areas--but will assist us in this
national commitment to find a cure for diabetes and its
devastating complications. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Dr. Loew, thank you very much for your
testimony. I must say that it has been a long time since I have
thought about this, but I was--in the 1940's a neighbor of a
young boy who was a very, very good friend of mine and he was
suffering from diabetes. I remember knowing very little about
it but knew that his life was much different than mine. The
last time I saw him was after I came home back from college and
he was then walking into the Light House for the Blind. Much
has passed since that time, in terms of technology and
otherwise, but this ongoing partnership that should be ours for
most people like you is very important. I appreciate your
testimony and it will be worthwhile.
Dr. Loew. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Stokes.
Mr. Stokes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No questions.
Appreciate your testifying.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you for your personal testimony.
Mr. Nethercutt, who serves with all of us on a larger
committee, has been a true advocate and somebody who has helped
us all better understand what's going on.
Mr. Lewis. Thanks for being with us.
Dr. Loew. Thanks very much.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1353 - 1359--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS
WITNESS
DR. RICHARD McCARTY, PhD, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Mr. Lewis. Dr. Richard McCarty, American Psychological
Association. Speaking for one of my sons.
Dr. McCarty. I will do my best, Mr. Chairman. It is
actually my first time.
Mr. Lewis. I will take your recording with care.
[Laughter.]
Dr. McCarty. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee, my name is Richard McCarty. I am Executive
Director of Science at the American Psychological Association,
a scientific and professional organization with 155,000
members. I am also a faculty member at the University of
Virginia.
If I had more time, I would work in a Jefferson quote, but
I am staying at four minutes. [Laughter.] I am pleased to speak
to you briefly today about the fiscal year 1999 budget for the
National Science Foundation, for NASA, and for the Veteran's
Health Administration.
NSF has consistently performed its mission to support only
the best peer review research. APA is pleased to endorse with
enthusiasm the 10 percent increase in NSF funding requested by
both the administration and the Coalition for National Science
Funding. This increase would support research and education in
all of the scientific disciplines, including those in which the
psychological and behavioral sciences play crucial roles. APA
also supports the administration's request at a 15 percent
increase for the NSF directorate for social behavioral and
economic sciences. The Administration's request in this regard
highlights the increasingly important role played by SBE in
several creative interdisciplinary programs.
Now if we turn our attention to NASA and building on what
the previous speaker said, I wish to note that psychologists
are playing the vital role in two areas. First, space
exploration and secondly, aviation safety. As I testify before
you today, NASA's neurolab mission is in Day 6 orbiting the
earth above the space shuttle Columbia. Neurolab represents the
crown jewel in NASA's commitment to behavioral, psychological
and neuroscience research. APA supports the fiscal year 1999
Administration request of $242 million for the Office of Light
and Microgravity Sciences and Applications which is supporting
Neurolab.
Soon we will move beyond the shuttle era to a more
permanent presence in space. Human-factored psychology is vital
to that effort. Two recent examples from Mir serve to
illustrate this point. First, the catastrophic fire onboard Mir
was made worse, in part, because the fire extinguisher was
painted black and difficult for the crew to locate. A second
example occurred when sensory adaptation, fatigue and other
behavioral variables directly played a critical role in the
docking accident that caused serious almost catastrophic damage
to Mir. It is important for NASA to receive adequate funding to
evaluate the human factors that play such an essential role in
human adaptation to a long-term space flight. I have a minute
to share with each of you.
Many similar human factors contribute to the safety of
commercial aviation. One of the stated goals of NASA is now to
reduce dramatically the aircraft accident rate--and this has
received much publicity lately. Because a high percentage is
related to human error, a research emphasis on human factor
psychology may play a significant role in increasing our
national flight safety program. APA recommends at least level
funding for fiscal year 1999 for the research and technology
base. Within the Office of Aeronautics and Space,
transportation technology.
Finally, Mr. Chairman and members, I would like to turn
your attention to the medical care account of the Veterans'
Health Administration. This is used to fund the education and
training programs of health care professionals. Within this
program, and of our direct interest to our organization, are
internship opportunities for psychologists. Perhaps you have
heard from your son about this. In fiscal year 1996, 1,400
psychologists participated in this program. A recent survey
revealed that psychology interns are a genuine bargain for our
Nation's veterans. They have provided us almost 1.5 million
hours of clinical services at a comparatively low cost of $9.72
per hour.
On behalf of APA, I urge your committee to fully support
the VA education and training program and within that context
to consider strengthening this excellent psychology internship
program.
In conclusion, I would like to express my thanks to each of
you and also to give you a follow-up on an invitation to the
Coalition for National Science Funding. There is almost an
article taken from this month's Scientific American--Shedding
Lucent on a Bad Hair day--describes the tremendous
psychological challenges for long-term space flights. Thank
you.
Mr. Lewis. I would be very interested in it personally. I
will make it my business to read it.
Dr. McCarty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate it.
Mr. Lewis. Any questions, Mr. Stokes.
[No response.]
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1362 - 1391--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS
WITNESS
STEPHEN J. McGARRY, CERTIFIED REGISTERED NURSE ANESTHETIST
Mr. Lewis. Alright then. We'll go on to the next one.
Stephen McGarry of the American Association of Nurse
Anesthetists.
Mr. McGarry. Good day, sir. Nurse anesthetists.
Mr. Lewis. Anesthetists. Alright. Not an anesthesiologists.
Mr. McGarry. No.
Mr. Lewis. All right. Mr. McGarry.
Mr. McGarry. My name is Stephen McGarry. I am a certified
registered nurse anesthetist. Right now, I am looking for my
glasses. [Laughter.]
I am also a Vietnam era veteran. I worked for 20 years at
the West Roxbury VA Medical Center in Boston as a certified
registered nurse anesthetist. I appreciate the opportunity to
present my testimony to the Committee today on behalf of the
27,000 CRNAs, certified registered nurse anesthetists, and the
450 CRNAs of the Association of the VA Nurse Anesthetists. My
testimony today will offer our recommendations on how CRNAs can
save the VHA money without any sacrifice in 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 soloproviders or in a
teamcare setting. No studies have ever found any differences between
CRNAs and anesthesiologists in the quality of care provided.
While both types of health care professionals can provide
the same, but similar services, CRNAs cost the VHA much less to
retain. As you probably know, CRNA salaries in the VHA have
been determined under a system of locality pay since 1991. This
system allows local VHA medical directors to serve a hospital
salaries to CRNAs across an expanded area in order to determine
competitive salaries. These provisions have assisted in the
recruitment and retention of CRNAs by keeping VHA salaries
competitive with the private market. It is our believe that the
VHA would have even greater success in recruiting and repaying
CRNAs if medical directors were allowed to serve other
employers besides hospitals in order to get a true sense of the
private market.
We look forward to working with Congress next year when
this legislation comes up for reauthorization. When the
salaries of the two providers are compared, there is a
significant difference. The average salary of the 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 without physician anesthesiologist counterparts.
Many CRNAs work in a team care setting in conjunction with the
anesthesiologist to provide anesthesia services to our Nation's
veterans. However, according to the VHA Handbook 1123, there is
no requirement of the anesthesiologist supervision of CRNAs.
CRNAs are licensed and certified to provide all types of
anesthesia services. No State requires supervision by
anesthesiologists. Therefore, any attempt by either the
National Anesthesia Service or by local VHA medical directors
to mandate supervision by anesthesiologists--for all anesthesia
care with underlying cost effectiveness without any increase in
the quality of care provided to our Nation's veterans.
Above the concerns for cost effectiveness, however, quality
of care should be the primary concern for all VHA medical
centers. We allow veterans no less. That is why Congress should
direct the VHA to give all due consideration before approving
the introduction of anesthesiologist assistance, AAs, into the
VHA medical system. AANA strongly recommends that VHA follows
their established process and no other if the decision is made
to consider the introduction to AAs. I would like to thank the
Committee for this opportunity and I would be happy to answer
any questions.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. McGarry, thank you very much for your very
brief statement and it is appreciated.
Mr. McGarry. You are very welcome, sir.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1394 - 1398--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS
WITNESS
PATRICIA ISBELL ORDORICA, AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, sir. Dr. Ordorica, American
Psychiatric Association. Welcome. As you know we will take your
attached statement for the record and you will summarize it for
us?
Dr. Ordorica. Sure. Mr. Chairman, members of the
Subcommittee, I am Patricia Isbell Ordorica, M.D. I am a
psychiatrist serving our veterans as the Associate Chief of
Staff for Mental Health and Behavioral Sciences at the James A.
Haley Hospital in Tampa, Florida. In addition, I chair the
American Psychiatric Association and Minority Fellowship
Program and am the immediate past-chair of the APA Council on
Addiction Psychiatry.
I am here today on behalf of the American Psychiatric
Association to present you with APA's recommendations for the
fiscal year 1999 appropriations for the Department of Veterans
Affairs pertaining to medical care and medical and prosthetic
research. Let me begin by congratulating you and your
colleagues in Congress for ending discrimination in health
insurance for veterans as separate from mental illnesses. We
applaud you for taking this action and for monitoring that the
VA provides fair and equitable coverage for the treatment of
mental illness and substance abuse. We also commend the DVA
Under Secretary for Health, Dr. Kenneth Kizer, and the laudable
efforts of DVA in meeting the health care needs of our Nation's
veterans.
You have APA's written testimony before you and I would
like to present just some of the highlights. As a longstanding
member of the Friends of VA Medical Care and Health Research
Coalition, the APA supports their fiscal year1999 DVA budget
proposal of $18 billion for medical care and $325 million for health
research. My written statement describes in detail APA's great concerns
about how any expansion of prescribing privileges by non-physicians
undertaken by the VA would endanger the quality of care for veterans
and expose veterans to unnecessary risks. We will closely monitor
developments in this area and will follow-up with the committee as
needed.
I would like to emphasize to all of you that 25 percent of
all of VA patients are in psychiatric treatment. The VA must be
able to provide comprehensive psychiatric services to veterans
suffering from disabling illnesses--such as post-traumatic
stress disorder, alcohol and substance abuse disorders,
schizophrenia, depression, Alzheimer's disease and other
dementias. The APA believes that the following DVA programs and
initiatives should receive the highest priority: (1)
maintaining capacity for substance abuse treatment; (2)
addressing the needs of our homeless veterans; (3) improving
treatments for the seriously mentally ill veterans; and (4)
increasing research funding for psychiatric disorders. I would
like to elaborate on these areas for you.
In substance abuse, the current threats in many VA
facilities is to eliminate inpatient substance abuse treatment.
In some cases, this restructuring has been well thought out and
adequate alternative resources have been developed. However, in
other cases, this process has not occurred and a serious void
in treatment services has occurred. In fiscal year 1996, the VA
experienced for the first time a decrease in inpatient and
outpatient substance abuse workload and this was since
expanding the substance capabilities in 1990. These decreases
were not universal throughout the VA, however, several networks
did show evidence of having targeted substance abuse treatment
in their downsizing initiatives. In essence, the decrease was
not due to the lack of veterans seeking treatment but rather
was secondary to the decision to decrease access to treatment.
The APA believes maintenance of treatment services to this
population is critical. In regards to homeless veterans, given
the significant psychiatric and substance abuse disorders that
contribute to the causes of homelessness among veterans, APA
urges the VA to provide adequate services for homeless
veterans. Studies show that about one-third of adult homeless
individuals have served their country in the armed forces. This
means that on any given night 250,000 are sleeping on the
street or in shelters. We believe this is unconscionable.
Nearly 40 percent suffer from severe, persistent and disabling
mental illnesses with another 40 percent also having substance
abuse disorders. We must make treatment available for these
most vulnerable veterans.
The VA's Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program has
been extremely effective at addressing the needs of homeless
veterans. This program currently funded only $6 million allowed
the DVA to provide grants to State and local governments and
nonprofit organizations; to purchase, build, renovate
transitional residential care programs and service centers for
homeless veterans. This has allowed the VA to begin to
establish a network of safe, residential programs to serve as
alternatives to the street for hospitalization for homeless
veterans. The APA recommends that HUD programs for veterans
should be linked to VA medical care, particularly mental health
services. This would maximize public investment by coordination
of VA and HUD resources and provides greater access and improve
clinical outcome. The APA urges you to improve funding for
residential care and clinical care for our Nation's homeless
veterans.
Improving treatments for the seriously mentally ill
veterans are another part. The APA is impressed with the many
efforts of VA and Washington to improve treatment in this group
of patients. Yet we're concerned that on some local levels and
some networks there's been a reluctancy to make needed
improvements in the delivery of services. For examples, some
businesses continue to rely on older and less effective
psychiatric medications and have been reluctant to invest in
some of the more effective newer anti-psychotic medications.
Likewise some businesses have been slow to involve their mental
consumers, their families in regards to their treatment needs.
Lastly, research. Funding for psychiatric research in the
Department of Veterans Affairs has remained disproportionate to
the utilization of psychiatric services. Veterans with mental
illness account for 25 percent of all veterans receiving
treatment in VA medical centers. Despite this fact, DVA
resources devoted to research education and even patient care
for mental disorders have lagged far behind those allocated for
other disorders. Only 12 percent of research funds are directed
toward the study of alcoholism, drug addiction, PTSD and
chronic mental illness.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee,
on behalf of the American Psychiatric Association, I appreciate
this opportunity to express APA's views on the fiscal year 1999
DVA medical care and medical and prosthetic research budget. We
need your leadership to provide high quality health care to
those who suffer from mental illness and substance abuse
disorders. We stand ready to work with you to provide the best
health care available to our Nation's veterans. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Dr. Ordorica. I do not have any
questions. Your entire statement will be included in the
record.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I have no questions.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you for being with us.
Dr. Ordorica. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1402 - 1409--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS
WITNESS
CHARLES L. CALKINS, NATIONAL EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, FLEET RESERVE
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Lewis. Our next witness is Charles Calkins, Fleet
Reserve Association. Mr. Calkins.
Mr. Calkins. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Calkins. Good afternoon. I am Charles Calkins, the
national executive secretary with the Fleet Reserve
Association.
Mr. Lewis. Welcome back.
Mr. Calkins. Thank you very much. How we doing?
Mr. Lewis. Fine.
Mr. Calkins. I can tell. I represent nearly a 160,000
active duty retired reserve members of the sea services--Navy,
Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. I would like to voice their
collective opinions on our 1999 DVA appropriations.
Since 1989, the Federal budget has soared to over $1.7
trillion--an increase of over $600 billion. However, the DVA
budget has only increased to 2.1 percent while the Department
of Health and Human Services budget has increased 33.6 percent.
The Fleet Reserve Association believes that our Nation's
veterans who shared the sacrifices and hardships both during
the ``Hot'' and ``Cold'' war periods should receive a larger
portion of the peace dividend that their efforts provided. The
Administration is requesting $17.7 billion for veterans' health
care which includes a loss of 3,100 full-time employees--along
with an expected increase of 134,000 patients. Fleet Reserve
Association recommends that Congress deny the request for fewer
full-time employees which would only further stretch a heavily-
burdened DVA health care system.
FRA urges Congress to give military retirees a higher
priority in the DVA health care priority enrollment system.
Since many of them have been disenfranchised from military
health care. It should be authorizing committee required funds
to it--to inaugurate this policy--FRA urges this subcommittee's
favorable endorsement. The association also urges Congress to
remember that the Federal Government was an accessory in the
distribution of tobacco products to members of uniformed
services. Consideration of where funds should come from to pay
for tobacco-related health care claims should be first
addressed to the tobacco companies. Congress should recognize
its part in having tobacco manufacturers provide the U.S.
Treasury with sufficient funds to meet the demand to pay these
claims.
Enhancements to the Montgomery GI bill benefits are sorely
needed to help military personnel cover increasing education
costs and ease the retention prices. Legislation in 1996
allowed service members participating in the veterans'
educational assistance program to enroll in the more generous
Montgomery GI bill. Legal interpretation of the law
disenfranchised thousands of service members who have been
counseled to withdraw the funds from their accounts. FRA seeks
the Committee's support in authorizing the allocation of funds
to increase and expand the Montgomery GI bill benefits and
expand the number of members who may convert to that program
from the veterans' educational systems program.
Concurrent receipt of both retired pay and veterans'
compensation without reduction in either payment is an issue
being long-ignored by Congress. The association urges the
adoption and funding of H.R. 44 which addresses the need to
supplement the income of most disabled and military retirees.
It is the least expensive of several proposed solutions to this
problem.
Uniformed Services Former Spousal Protection Act is a
poorly written and hastily acted upon piece of legislation.
Public Law 10585 requires DoD to provide Congress with a review
of this act by September 30, 1999. Unfortunately this study
will not be available for review until the fiscal year 2001
Defense Authorization Act is considered. The Fleet Reserve
Association believes that this study will accomplish little and
further delay consideration of USSFSBA reform. The association
believes some type of action should be taken in 1999 to make
the law as far as possible. In the event, the authorization
process should require funding, we urge this distinguished
subcommittee to act favorably on the request.
Mr. Chairman, again, we appreciate this opportunity to
present the priority issues of our members and I am ready to
answer any questions that you may have.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Calkins, thank you very much for
representing the Fleet Reserve Association. I don't have any
questions. Have you any, Mr. Stokes?
Mr. Stokes. No. Mr. Calkins, thank you very much.
Mr. Calkins. Thank you very much.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1412 - 1418--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS
WITNESS
JOHN E. MUENCH, THE RETIRED ENLISTED ASSOCIATION
Mr. Lewis. John Muench, The Retired Enlisted Association--
for that, you will be four minutes.
Mr. Muench. Mr. Chairman, this is a first time for me,
sir--be gentle. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. Always gentle.
Mr. Muench. Chairman Lewis, ranking member Stokes,
distinguished members--on behalf of The Retired Enlisted
Association, TREA, TREA's national president, Technical
Sergeant David Paul, United States Air Force Retired; and
National Auxiliary President, Ethel Hale; and over 100,000
members--active members of our association and our auxiliary,
we appreciate the opportunity to this subcommittee.
I am John Muench, Command Sergeant Major United States Army
Retired. For the last three years, I have served as the
National Executive Director of the Retired Enlisted
Association. During this brief testimony, it is my objective to
enlighten the members of this committee as to the inequities of
being a veteran and being a retired veteran.
Military retirees are veterans, yet we continue to be
treated as separate and unequal. Retired veterans are the only
class of people who have received retired pay and have that
reduced as you heard earlier--dollar for dollar--to receive VA
disability compensation. No other Federal worker has their
Federal pay or retired pay reduced in order toreceive their VA
disability compensation. No other form of retiree has their hard-earned
benefits--those promises made when this country was in need of all
veterans to serve to balance the budget. This we believe we should not
pay rather on the backs of our veterans.
The very ones who served for a lifetime--the ones who
continually fought for a period of 20 years to win the Cold
War; the ones who spared the patriotism, nationalism stood by
until the job was completed. We are the ones who earned the
peace dividends that everyone so nicely talks about. Yet we
continue to be forced to now sacrifice even more with no access
to military health care. Military retirees are in fact punished
for committing their lives to this Nation. This is called
performance punishment. If you stay in the service and achieve
a high rank, you cannot get free VA care because you can't pass
the means test. Veterans who serve less than 20 years, did not
retire from the military, and are indigent--in fact, get free
access to VA health care.
TREA is opposed to continuing to battle DoD for benefits
which we earned and were promised. Where retirees compete
against the act of forces need for bullets and billets,
military hardware and readiness. The closure of military bases
continues to force retirees out of their earned and promised
health care benefits. The money for health care was already
appropriated and given back to Congress with these closures and
peace dividends. Now we must return and beg for what should
have been given to us to begin with. The Retired Enlisted
Association believes that only by amending Title 38, Annotated
10 of U.S. Code to direct that all appropriations concerning
military retirees, including budget, health care and benefits
come under VA--will our benefits be preserved.
We recommend a study to be conducted to determine the
feasibility to change this inequity. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking
Member, distinguished members of this subcommittee--when this
Nation called its young men and women to arms in defense of
this country, we did not falter. Now that we faithfully have
served a lifetime of commitment, please do not abandon us in
our time of need. Our hard-earned benefits and promises should
be safeguarded, not trifled with. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much for your testimony. I might
just mention, as an aside, that I think the Veterans'
Committee--the authorizing committee--would be very interested
in your testimony. I don't know if you planned to be there, but
I think it would be worthwhile to talk with Mr. Stokes' people
and see when you might be able to testify.
Mr. Muench. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Stokes.
Mr. Stokes. No questions. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. No questions. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lewis. We appreciate your being with us.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1421 - 1433--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS
WITNESS
COLONEL CHARLES C. PARTRIDGE, U.S. ARMY RETIRED, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES
Mr. Lewis. Colonel Charles Partridge, National Association
of Uniformed Services.
Colonel Partridge. Thank you, sir. That's Partridge--they
left one of the r's out.
Mr. Lewis. I asked that question myself, you know--
partridge tree?
Colonel Partridge. That's right. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Stokes,
distinguished members of panel--I would like to discuss briefly
our military health care proposal that the Congress is working
on now that involves the VA hospitals and the Medicare system.
Mr. Chairman, you mentioned that we were running out of time
and money here this afternoon--this actually, believe it or
not, would save money. It would save Medicare money and make
more efficient money of VA facilities and capabilities.
The current proposals that--the so-called VA Medicare
Project which would allow the Veterans' Administration
hospitals to be Medicare providers and allow Medicare-eligible
veterans who do not get care some other way--in other words, if
they are indigent or if they are disabled--it wouldn't apply to
them. It would allow other veterans to enroll in the Medicare
and the VA HMO and then Medicare could pay the VA for the care
with these veterans. So, of course, they would pay at a
discount rate and therefore that would save Medicare trust
funds money.
What we are suggesting is that--this would be a
demonstration project--and we think that project should be
expanded. We think in the expansion is where you save the most
money and that would be rather than limiting the demonstration
to the HMO model, include fee-for-service where a veteran could
take his Medicare card, present it to any VA hospital and if
there were space available there--recognizing that there would
have to be space available there. Management of VA resources is
not perfect so from time-to-time, there is excess capacity. If
it was there, then he could be treated and VA could bill
Medicare.
And then another proposal would be to allow the VA
hospitals to become preferred provider organizations to other
health plans, and you would have essentially the same thing. It
would be by prior agreement with the other health plans where
the veteran could get part of his care at the VA and, once
again, it would be at a discounted rate.
We believe this would be good for Medicare, it would be
good for the VA, and it would be good for the Nation. And we
believe veterans should be able to use their Medicare benefits
in VA hospitals, just as they do in the private sector.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Colonel Partridge, thank you very much. We
appreciate you being with us and appreciate your testimony. Any
questions?
Mr. Stokes. No questions. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Lewis. Okay, thank you, sir.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1436 - 1439--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
JULIE SANDORF, CORPORATION FOR SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
Mr. Lewis. Julie Sandorf, Corporation for Supportive
Housing.
Ms. Sandorf. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon,
members.
Before I begin my testimony, I first must tell you that
this is the first time I am testifying in front of this
Committee and I am completely in awe of both the Chairman and
the Members' attention span. My hat is off to you. This is
really quite an experience for me.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much. Mr. Stokes is responsible
for all that.
Ms. Sandorf. Lots of coffee, is that it?
As I mentioned, my name is Julie Sandorf and I am the
president of the Corporation for Supportive Housing. CSH is a
national, nonprofit organization that works around the country
dedicated to the expansion of supportive housing for folks who
are homeless and at risk of homelessness.
Just very briefly, supportive housing has been the most
effective and cost-efficient solution to ending, permanently
ending homelessness in America. As you know, since the early
1980's, homelessness has emerged as this country's most visible
and devastating symbol of desperate poverty and the breakdown
of society's contract in this, the world's wealthiest nation.
The good news is that over the past decade or so,
community-based, nonprofit organizations partnering with
private sector, philanthropy, churches and synagogues,
volunteers, and government at all levels have, with great
tenacity, passion, and real common sense, demonstrated that we
can end homelessness permanently in this country through the
provision of supportive housing.
What these folks have done in partnership is marrying a
place to call home with a whole range of support services,
including employment services, health care, and social services
in a comprehensive way that has yielded results beyond anyone's
wildest dreams. And it has permanently ended homelessness for
thousands of people who have been languishing in the country's
streets, cities, and institutions.
We have come upon a solution that not only works, but it
also saves money for the taxpayer. It is a win-win. We don't
often get to see that.
Just some statistics from studies that have been done by
both HHS and HUD. A study done by HHS on formerly homeless,
mentally ill individuals now living in supportive housing
showed that almost 84 percent remain in the housing. There is a
50 percent decrease in Medicaid funded in-patient
hospitalization, there is a 50 percent decrease in
incarcerations, and there is a 50 percent decrease in emergency
room visits--all very costly to both Federal, Stateand local
governments.
In 1995, a HUD study showed an increase in employment of
residents in supportive housing of over 55 percent. So not only
are we able to provide stability in housing, better health
outcomes, but people are going to work, which I think is a goal
we all share.
Supportive housing is a win-win for the taxpayer as well.
There is no free lunch here. There is no free costly
alternative here. If supportive housing is not provided, we
will see folks who--the majority of homeless people who suffer
from mental illness, other chronic health conditions, recycle
through costly jails, institutions, and shelter systems.
Supportive housing may cost on average $12,000 a year.
Jails cost about $69,000 a year. A hospital bed costs about
$1,000 a day, often paid for by Medicaid. And State psychiatric
institutions can cost up to $120,000 a year. This is a deal for
those of us in the Federal Government, State and local
government, and most importantly, the taxpayer.
We also know that supportive housing can definitively make
an impact in reducing the number of homeless people in this
country. In New York City, for example, a city that has by far
the largest number of homeless people in this country, is also
our greatest example of how supportive housing can succeed in
reducing homelessness.
In 1989, the city's single adult shelter system had reached
10,000 people per night. In 1990, the city joined with the
State and with support from the Federal Government to build
thousands of units of supportive housing for the most
vulnerable single adults in the city. Not surprisingly, by
1994, the single adult shelter census dropped from 10,000
people to 6,000 people. And considering that a shelter bed in
the city of New York costs over $22,000 a year, this is quite a
deal, versus $12,000 for supportive housing with comprehensive
health care and employment supports.
The critical linchpin in this incredible success story has
been the provision of multi-year operating subsidies through
the McKinney Shelter Plus Care and model SRO programs. They
have been the leverage to leverage mainstream housing funds at
both the Federal, State and local levels. It has been the only
way we've been able to leverage private sector financing in
supportive housing through syndication of low-income tax
credits, and we have also been able to leverage significant
service dollars at State and local levels when we marry rent
subsidies from the Federal Government in supportive housing
projects.
It has by far been the most effective means of sharing the
fiscal burden and caring for the most vulnerable in our
society. I strongly urge the chairman and the Committee to look
very carefully at the very important financing tools that have
been provided through the McKinney programs. They are making
not only a discernible impact on the need, but are using the
taxpayer resources wisely. I also urge you to appropriate the
full $1.1 billion requested for fiscal year 1999 for McKinney
programs.
I think we all have the moral obligation to teach our
children by example that we live in a just and a civil society.
We also are faced with a serious fiscal obligation to use
taxpayer resources wisely and with great and prudent
investment.
Supportive housing gives you a chance to do both, and I
truly believe and know that we have the knowledge, we have the
technology, we have the incredible compassion and persistence
of many, many people living in our communities to solve this
problem, and we would love to work with you to promote the
leadership means and will to solve this for good.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Julie Sandorf, we very much appreciate your
presence here today. Your testimony is welcome and indeed, your
expression of interest, as well as concern, is important to us.
Ms. Sandorf. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Stokes.
Mr. Stokes. I would just like to say to this young lady
since this is her first time here, she said. I want her to know
that the testimony you have here has been so poignant and so
ardent and when you talk about the McKinney bill, I served here
with Stu McKinney and he was one of the finest men I have ever
known. You are a real tribute to his memory and his legacy.
Mr. Lewis. That's right.
Ms. Sandorf. Thank you. Lucy McKinney has been a stalwart
supporter of CSH's activities, not only in Connecticut, but
around the country. She sits on our advisory board. So I will
let Lucy know your kind words.
Mr. Stokes. Please do.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you for saying that, Mr. Stokes. Thank you
very much for being with us.
Ms. Sandorf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1443 - 1451--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
CHESTER CARR, NATIONAL AMERICAN INDIAN HOUSING COUNCIL
Mr. Lewis. Chester Carr with the National American Indian
Housing Council. Welcome.
Mr. Carr. Good afternoon. Chairman Lewis and Congressman
Frelinghuysen and Minority Member Stokes, my name is Chester
Carr.
I will be very brief. I promise to be very brief, and I can
understand the amount of work that you have to do.
Mr. Lewis. We appreciate your being with us. Let us make
sure that we have your name for the record. Will you just
repeat it one more time.
Mr. Carr. I'm Chester Carr and I serve as the Chairman of
the National American Indian Housing Council, the organization
representing all the Indian tribes across the United States and
Alaska, and also have the good fortune to serve as the chairman
who negotiated rulemaking for the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996. And I want to,
first of all, thank for all of your support in that process. It
was a very, very, truly tremendous effort on the part of the
tribes and Housing and Urban Development to work together to
draft that regulation.
In my comments, I promised that I would be very brief. I
want to show you that the housing challenges facing
IndianCountry is greater than in any community in the United States.
The cost of housing is much higher because of distance,
where the delivery of houses has to be provided. The geographic
area of Indian Country provides tremendous challenges where the
cost of housing is just tremendous. The environmental review
that's required in NAHASDA is an unfunded mandate.
The President's proposed budget of $600 million for fiscal
year 1999 means that 107 tribes that are eligible for funding
would only receive a minimal funding of $25,000. In Indian
Country alone, just the cost of infrastructure and amendment to
developing a home, is $25,000. So you can see the tremendous
challenges that we have in Indian Country.
The large number of tribes that we speak about, the 107
tribes, the majority of them are Nevada and California tribes,
so it's those tribes that have requested that amendment of
funding of $150,000 which does not impact the current level
funding of $600 million just to be able to build one unit per
year for their tribal membership. So these are tremendous
challenges that we have.
As I stated, I would make my comments very brief. You have
our written testimony.
Mr. Lewis. We do.
Mr. Carr. And I would also like to thank Ms. Valerie
Baldwin and David Reich for coming out to Indian Country and
for being very good friends of Indian Country. They have been
able to provide a lot of support to our needs, and I want to
express my appreciation.
Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Carr. We look forward
to continuing to work with you. We appreciate your being with
us and also the brevity. Thank you.
Mr. Carr. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Stokes.
Mr. Stokes. No questions. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, sir.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1454 - 1460--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS
WITNESS
DR. STEPHEN YOUNG, FRIENDS OF VA MEDICAL CARE AND HEALTH RESEARCH
Mr. Lewis. Dr. Stephen Young, Friends of VA Medical Care
and Health Research. Welcome back.
Dr. Young. Good afternoon. Chairman Lewis, this is also my
initial testimony before a Congressional Committee. I very much
appreciate the opportunity to be here and to address you and
Mr. Stokes and the rest of the Committee.
I represent the Friends of VA Research. This is a coalition
of 60 organizations that are in support of VA research efforts.
We recommend this year that the Subcommittee propose a $325
million budget for VA research.
I am a Professor of Medicine at Duke University. I have
been employed by Duke and the Durham VA Medical Center for 20
years, where I serve as a pulmonary physician and intensive
care physician and an investigator. I also have a
responsibility to administer a research program at the Durham
VA, and I have had some chance to administer with the VA
program centrally.
The VA's research program has a long and distinguished
record. It has had halcyon years in the late 1980's, but since
then has been an underfunded program, resulting in a
significant reduction in its total number of funded programs.
Some programs are down more than 50 percent in terms of the
numbers of programs funded because of constant dollars that
have been eroded substantially by 10 years of unsupported
inflationary increases.
There are four programs within VA research. Medical
research is one of the larger programs and has had a
distinguished record. Some of the programs, however, have been
lost. We have been reduced from close to 1,600 to 1,800
programs at the maximum number in the late 1980's. We are down
now to about 1,000 in this particular program.
At our medical center, one of the successes that we have
had has been very important to me as a pulmonary physician
because of the key impact that cigarette use has had upon
veterans' health. In 1953, when our VA hospital opened, we made
the diagnosis of lung cancer 25 times. Last year and in recent
years, we have made the diagnosis of lung cancer nearly every
day, about 250 times per year. This kind of increase has been
seen across the country and we represent the norm.
Discontinuation of smoking is a major problem that we have
little success with. The inventor of the nicotine patch is a VA
investigator and we are pleased to have that nicotine research
laboratory at the Durham VA.
The VA's research program is distinguished from other
research programs in its clinical focus. Seventy percent of the
people who do research in the VA are clinician investigators
who take care of patients and also do research.
By contrast, NIH has about 75 percent of itsinvestigators
are basic scientists. And we have a somewhat different program in the
VA. It is, indeed, a much smaller program as well.
Another part of the VA research program that I think is
particularly attractive is the health services research
program. This is an outcomes based research program that uses
the VA as a unique laboratory, perhaps the largest HMO in the
world. At $15 to $16 billion of health care distributed over
172 facilities it is actually a relatively uniform population
of patients and ideal opportunity to focus the efficiencies of
our health care delivery upon what really works and what is
cost effective. The health services research in the VA is
focused upon access, minority access in particular, and has
been the program that has identified differences in access by
black veterans compared to caucasian veterans within the VA
itself.
The Cooperative Studies Program is another branch of the
VA's research program, and has had a tremendous success over
the last 40 years. It is responsible for much of the research
leading to the recognition that aspirin helps prevent heart
attacks. It is responsible for much of the research leading to
high blood pressure.
Cooperative Studies is a jewel in our crown, and we have
many opportunities to conduct these multi-centered trials. It
is an ideal environment in which to do it and many of these
trials are in queue waiting for additional funding.
Finally, the VA research program is mandated, and I think
has a distinguished career in rehabilitation and prosthetics
research. The Seattle foot and spinal cord injury treatments
are unique strengths of the VA program. We have six centers of
excellence that help to promote a technology transfer from
engineering and prosthetic advances within the VA to VA patient
populations, also benefitting the prosthetic community
throughout the Nation.
There are many opportunities for this program to enlarge
and to take advantage of the growing strength in health care
research. The VA is a unique laboratory in which to do it, and
I am pleased to represent the Friends of VA Research in
recommending the $325 million budget for next year.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Mr. Stokes [presiding]. Thank you very much, Dr. Young. I
appreciate your testimony. I don't have any questions, but I am
sure the Chairman would want me to say that he appreciates very
much your testimony on this subject.
Dr. Young. You have my written comments, and we very much
appreciate the opportunity to submit them.
Mr. Stokes. They will be made a part of the record.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1463 - 1470--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS
WITNESS
KENNETH STEADMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS
Mr. Stokes. Mr. Kenneth Steadman, representing AMVETS.
Mr. Steadman. Actually, Veterans of Foreign Wars.
Mr. Stokes. Oh, all right. The Chairman had to step out of
the room for a moment. But I am sure he would want me to have
you go ahead and proceed and I will certainly give you all the
attention we can.
Mr. Steadman. Thank you, Mr. Stokes. I am Ken Steadman, the
Executive Director of Veterans of Foreign Wars, and I am here
on behalf of the AMVETS, the Disabled American Veterans, the
Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the VFW, the co-authors of
the annual Independent Budget. I have copies here for you.
I'd like to take a moment, if I may, Mr. Stokes, to applaud
your long and distinguished career as a member of this
Congress. When you retire at the end of this Congress, veterans
will lose a powerful voice and an effective advocate and we
thank you for your service.
Mr. Stokes. Thank you.
Mr. Steadman. Mr. Stokes, again this year, veterans face
real and significant funding cuts while many other Federal
programs are increased. As health care costs continue to rise,
the VA is once again asked to provide more help with fewer
appropriated dollars. We ask that you look at the hospitals and
clinics in your districts and ask yourself, is cutting the
health care budget a way to ensure that veteran constituents
receive the highest quality health care, the quality health
care that you demand for yourselves and your families.
Again this year, the Administration wants to continue its
risky financing scheme of substituting appropriated dollars
with collections from insurance companies. Already collections
are below estimated amounts. We cannot treat the resources
essential for the lives and health of veterans as if we were
sitting at a roulette table. VA health care must have an
adequate core appropriation, and third-party collections must
be used to supplement, not substitute for, appropriated
dollars.
For fiscal year 1999, the Independent Budget recommends a
core appropriation of $18.2 billion and a total appropriation
with amounts equal to MCCF funding added back as appropriated
dollars of $18.8 billion.
The $18.2 billion core appropriation will enable the VA to
meet workload targets in an environment of radical change, an
environment of eligibility reform. We must ensure that as the
system is propelled into the 21st century, that veterans who
rely upon this system are not left behind in this century.
The Independent Budget salutes the Administration's
proposal to provide $300 million for medical and prosthetic
research. The administration has finally recognized whatthis
subcommittee has known all along, that research leads to better quality
health care, decreased health care costs and improves the lives of
veterans and all Americans.
For fiscal year 1999, we have recommended an appropriation
of $314 million, an amount that meets the core needs of the
program and provides funding for new initiatives and research
for specialized services and in tobacco cessation and
addiction.
In construction, we urge you to fund the remaining $20
million to complete the Replacement Spinal Cord Injury Center
in Tampa, Florida. It is not only in health care that the
Administration's budget recommendations fall short of the needs
of veterans. The Administration would reduce staffing at the
Veterans' Benefits Administration by 132 full-time employees.
This reduction can only mean lower quality and more delays. The
Independent Budget recommends maintaining current staffing
levels.
In the Compensation and Pension Service, the Administration
has recommended an increase of only seven full-time employees.
This service is undergoing its own revolution, a revolution
that will initially divert human resources away from direct
claims processing at a time when staffing levels have already
proven inadequate to stay abreast of current demands.
Without more substantial staffing increases, we fear that
the expected improvements will be ineffective, and we fear a
return to the days when quantity mattered instead of quality.
That is why the Independent Budget recommends an increase of
500 employees over the fiscal year 1998 level.
At a time when veterans' programs are under budgetary
siege, the Administration and some in Congress have proposed
denying compensation to sick and disabled veterans for tobacco-
related disabilities. The rationale behind this effort is
clearly to provide savings in order to increase spending above
caps set only last year in the Balanced Budget Act for roads
and for highways. We ask that you join together with us to stop
this midnight raid on veterans' programs.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, in the past
we have relied on you to protect veterans and to further their
interests. Although we realize you face tough decisions this
year, we also look to you to make informed decisions regarding
the true resource requirements of the VA. We look forward to
working with you to ensure that this Nation's promises are
kept.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Lewis [presiding]. Mr. Steadman, thank you very much
for your testimony. We appreciate you being with us and being
patient today.
Mr. Steadman. My pleasure.
Mr. Stokes. Thank you, Mr. Steadman.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1473 - 1478--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS
WITNESS
JEPTHA DALSTON, ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS IN HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Lewis. Our next witness is Jeptha Dalston. Dr. Dalston
from the Association of University Programs in Health
Administration.
Mr. Dalston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to
be here to discuss with the Subcommittee the very important
subject of quality and access to health care by the veterans of
America.
I represent the Association of University Programs in
Health Administration, which is a national not-for-profit
organization comprised of about 100 universities with graduate
and undergraduate programs in health services management. Our
members represent the depository of the very best minds in
America in health administration.
We are here for the third time to testify, and this is a
real pleasure for us. It has been productive in the past, and
hope it is for you today.
I have three points to make, each calling for action and
leadership. The first point has to do with the volatility, with
the great turbulence in the transformation of the larger health
care system in the United States. I know that you are familiar
with that. I simply emphasize it to make the point that its
wrenching effects are far-reaching, and many of us in the field
have had to learn new skills and new competencies.
The VHA has its own version of that, and it is
undergoingits own form of transition and volatility and the wrenching
effects of that are considerable. We have been working closely with Dr.
Kizer and his colleagues concerning the vision for change, the mission
for change, and the associated management agenda. Again, I know that
the members of the Subcommittee are familiar with all that.
Our point here is that we believe that there is much work
yet to be done. Much has been accomplished, but we emphasize
that there is much yet to be done in the way of looking at the
best practices and benchmarking in the private sector which we
can bring to the VHA.
Accountability is an important factor here. Those health
care executives in the private sector are much more accountable
than they were for mission performance. Likewise with VHA,
there is a need for greater accountability by executives, as
well as greater freedom of action.
First point: turbulence, volatility, and accomplishments so
far, but more to be done.
Second point: We are learning partners, the VHA and the
AUPHA and our university programs, many of which are in your
congressional districts. For four years, we have conducted
programs for education and training, national cohorts that are
your own programs, programs that are oriented to VISNs that are
shorter.
We have conducted a study in executive compensation and
accountability of performance. Many of our university programs
work locally with the medical centers. And finally, we are
currently engaged in a video conferencing satellite
transmitting program which is really an experiment. Our
audience are CEOs, CFOs, strategic planners, doctors, nurses,
and others, all being geared to the high performance
development model.
Our programs are especially tailored, and that's the
benefit of the VHA in the partnership. We benefit by having our
faculty be on the cutting edge in the firing line with the VHA
executives, and they benefit thereby.
The second point: The learning partnership has been
productive. We believe that it needs to be reinforced and
strengthened.
Mr. Lewis. This is your third point.
Mr. Dalston. No, sir. I am getting there.
Mr. Lewis. I heard one, two. Maybe it's the second time I
heard it.
Mr. Dalston. Yes, sir. The second time you heard the second
point to reinforce it. Strengthen the partnership, and we
pledge our part to do it.
The third point, Congressman Lewis, has to do with the
application of technology to this enormous problem in the VA to
deal with this large number of people scattered all over
creation. We believe that it is the computer that holds the
answer to this problem. Constraints in budgets, constraints in
time, we can't gather people together the way we have done in
the past. We have developed web-based courseware for
transmission on the Internet to individuals at their PC, at
their worksite, even at their home.
And we emphasize to you that we believe that is the future
for the VHA, as it is indeed in the private sector. Private
sector organizations are already into that and we think it
holds--in closing, the VHA is a wonderful organization. We are
impressed with its resources, that it represents the American
people.
As a veteran myself, I am especially mindful of the value
and optimistic of the quality and access to care that the
veterans have earned for the 21st century. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Dr. Dalston. We appreciate it.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1481 - 1500--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS, SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM
WITNESS
LARRY RHEA, NON COMMISSIONED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA
Mr. Lewis. The next witness is Larry Rhea, the Non
Commissioned Officers Association.
Mr. Rhea. Thank you. Good afternoon to you and good
afternoon, Mr. Stokes. I am Larry Rhea with the Non
Commissioned Officers Association, and we are indeed grateful
for this opportunity this afternoon to comment upon
appropriations for the Department of Veterans' Affairs. We also
appreciate and ask your careful consideration of our prepared
testimony and we are grateful for your including that in the
hearing record.
Mr. Lewis. We certainly will. Thank you.
Mr. Rhea. The Association supports and asks that this
Subcommittee support the cost of living adjustment for all VA
compensation recipients. The Association supports, and we ask
your support for the President's request to increase by 10
percent to $300 million the appropriations for VA research.
You have been very helpful on Medicare subvention.
Hopefully, we can launch that this year in some form or
fashion, and we would ask your support on that.
We also ask that you are mindful for the activation money
for the four national cemeteries included in the President's
budget and the $806 million requested for VA administration to
ensure timely delivery of benefits.
The NCOA asks that you support the recommendations of
theHouse Veterans' Affairs Committee relating to the veterans' benefits
administration, grants to the States for veterans' nursing homes, and
construction of VA facilities.
The House committee also recommended a $481 million
increase over the administration's request for veterans' health
care. NCOA believes the $18.1 billion should be the floor that
this subcommittee works from.
The House Veterans' Affairs Committee recommendation needs
improvement, in our view, because we continue to believe that
too much reliance is being placed on these third-party
recoveries from insurance.
The delivery of health care to the Nation's veterans should
not be put in further jeopardy, in our view, at a time when so
many promising initiatives are underway.
The administration also proposed a 20 percent increase in
the veteran education benefit, but disappointingly tied that
increase to taking away another benefit. Certainly a 20 percent
increase would be appreciated, but I think we need to recognize
that the actual requirement needs to be in the neighborhood of
40 to 50 percent. And we believe that this should be done and
done so without any strings, conditions, or other sorts of
gimmicks attached.
Our belief is simple, Mr. Chairman. That if we can find
$100 billion essentially as was done last year in the Balanced
Budget Agreement, and more money being proposed this year for
non-veteran education, then we think it's time and we have the
moral obligation to try to do something with that veteran
benefit.
We have also included, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Stokes, in our
prepared testimony, statements of support for the Selective
Service System. I would draw your attention to that.
In closing, let me just say this briefly, Mr. Chairman. I
would like to ask the Subcommittee to be mindful of the things
that veterans have tried to do for many, many years, to do
their fair share in the efforts to balance the Federal budget.
As you are quite aware, Pay-Go was rigidly applied to many
things that we did. We froze COLAs on many programs or enacted
those COLAs at half of the legislatively mandated rate in
certain cases. We added fees and we increased fees in other
programs.
Non Commissioned Officers are a simple crew, Mr. Chairman,
and our belief in this whole debate right now is also quite
simple. In the midst of a $1.7 trillion Federal budget, we
think there is ample room to adequately fund veterans' programs
and benefits and to do so unconditionally.
This association urges you to do so, and I thank you for
the opportunity.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Rhea. As you know, the
veterans' programs have had broadly based non-partisan support
over the years, and I expect to see that continue. We
appreciate your being here.
Mr. Rhea. Thank you. We are grateful for that.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Stokes.
Mr. Stokes. No questions. Thank you, Mr. Rhea.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, and good luck to you, sir.
Mr. Rhea. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1503 - 1509--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS
WITNESS
JOHN VITIKACS, THE AMERICAN LEGION
Mr. Lewis. Mr. John Vitikacs, is that right?
Mr. Vitikacs. Yes.
Mr. Lewis. The American Legion is our last for today.
Mr. Vitikacs. Last, but not least.
Mr. Lewis. Certainly one of the finest, without any
question.
Mr. Vitikacs. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lewis. If you would summarize your testimony and just
go right ahead, we will be glad to hear you.
Mr. Vitikacs. Chairman Lewis, Ranking Member Stokes,
committee members, The American Legion thanks you for your
continued strong support for VA medical care and benefit
programs. The fiscal year 1999 budget presents the Subcommittee
with several significant challenges.
The Administration proposes $17.7 billion for VA medical
care for fiscal year 1999. Of this amount, approximately $17
billion is requested in appropriations and an additional $700
million is projected through the Medical Care Cost Recovery
Fund.
Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the recently enacted Balanced
Budget Act which freezes direct VA medical care appropriations
at $17 billion over each of the next five years, The American
Legion recommends VA medical care funding of $18.2 billion for
fiscal year 1999.
The House Veterans' Affairs Committee agrees with
thisassessment. The committee recommends an increase in medical care
funding of $481 million over the administration's request to $18.1
billion.
The American Legion thinks that additional medical care
funding can be met through Medicare subvention and by offering
specific health care benefit packages to veterans on a premium
basis. These actions represent viable options to generate new
revenue streams.
The American Legion does not come before this subcommittee
and ask for additional appropriated dollars. What we are
seeking is to provide VA the latitude to become creative in
raising revenues through nonappropriated means. This is this
organizations's objective through a proposal that we have
called the GI Bill of Health.
Although the Veterans' Health Administration over the past
few years realigned its medical care programs and operations to
reduce redundancy and increase efficiency, the system is still
experiencing a significant shortfall.
With the funding limitations imposed by the Balanced Budget
Agreement, VA must improvise and be creative in meeting its
future budget requirements.
Mr. Chairman, the American Legion supports the House
Veterans' Affairs Committee VA Medical Construction
Authorization, H.R. 3603, for fiscal year 1999. We also
recommend minor construction in the amount of $200 million and
$80 million for the State Extended Care Grants Program. The
American Legion supports the Administration's proposal for
medical and prosthetic research programs at $300 million.
Mr. Chairman, additional fiscal year 1999 American Legion
budget recommendations include $867 million for the Veterans
Benefits Administration's general operating expenses, an
increase in the monthly education benefits under the Montgomery
GI bill, and support of the administration's budget request for
the National Cemetery System.
In closing, The American Legion understands the budget
pressures facing the Nation. To ensure adequate funding for VA
health care, we continue to recommend the enactment of the GI
Bill of Health, which we have had an opportunity to brief
members of Congress on; to provide new health care choices to
America's veterans; and to generate new nonappropriated
revenues for VA's Veterans' Health Administration.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Stokes, Members, thank you very much for
the opportunity to appear today.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Vitikacs. We appreciate
your being here, and your testimony will be in the record in
its entirety.
Mr. Vitikacs. It's been a long day, I am sure.
Mr. Lewis. It's been a long day. On the other hand, we
appreciate your patience and being with us.
Mr. Vitikacs. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1512 - 1519--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Lewis. The committee, Mr. Stokes, if you have no
objection, will be adjourned until 9 a.m. tomorrow morning. We
will begin with member's testimony.
Mr. Stokes. Okay, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. That, I believe, is the 23rd of April.
[Pages 1521 - 1762--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, April 23, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
HON. NANCY PELOSI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
Mr. Lewis [presiding]. All right, Ms. Pelosi.
Ms. Pelosi. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Your entire statement will be included in the
record, by the way, and we'll proceed from there.
Ms. Pelosi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we thank you and
Mr. Stokes and Members of the Committee not only for the
opportunity to testify here today, but for your past support of
the projects that I have requested of the Committee. I'm so
glad that Mr. Stokes has arrived because----
Mr. Stokes. Good morning.
Ms. Pelosi [continuing]. Knowing the legions of people who
have heaped praise on him--in our committee, Labor, Health and
Human Services, I hear it every single day, and it's still
inadequate for the contribution that he has made. Mr. Stokes,
thank you so much----
Mr. Stokes. Thank you very much.
Ms. Pelosi [continuing]. For your commitment to affordable
housing and the great array of agencies that are under the
jurisdiction of this committee, the Veterans', HUD, and all
that that implies, and the independent agencies. So, I know
that you will be sorely missed, but you have made such an
incredible contribution. And because I'm first, as much as I'd
like to take all day to talk about Mr. Stokes and leadership by
Mr. Lewis----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Stokes. Don't stop, don't stop. [Laughter.]
Ms. Pelosi. Let me quickly----
Mr. Lewis. Like I said, you can supplement for the record.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Pelosi. I support the budget of the Administration,
their fiscal year 1999 request for housing programs, and hope
the Subcommittee would provided the needed funding and I have
just a couple specifics.
The Committee has been generous to the HOPWA program, and,
once again, I want to stress my strong support for the program
which has provided an essential commodity--housing for people
with HIV/AIDS. I know the Committee is and should be proud of
the leaders that you have provided in this area because the
whole idea of people with AIDS and the stress that they're
under and the additional stress fear that homeless adds to
that--it can be deadly and I respectfully request that the
Committee provide $250 million for HOPWA, if at all possible,
but no less than the Administration's request for $225 million.
Mr. Lewis. You may know, Ms. Pelosi, but 18 years ago, I
was responsible for putting the first money in for AIDS
research in this committee, as a new member of the Committee,
when people didn't even know what it was.
Ms. Pelosi. I commend you for your leadership----
Mr. Lewis. Glad to be of help----
Ms. Pelosi [continuing]. And your foresight. Unfortunately,
it turned out----
Mr. Lewis. Yes.
Ms. Pelosi [continuing]. To be very, very necessary.
Hopefully, it will be a memory by the time we go into the next
century but, in the meantime, we have to meet the need and this
committee has done so and I thank you for that.
Mr. Lewis. We appreciate your interest.
Ms. Pelosi. Thank you.
Ms. Pelosi. I support the Administration's request for
$103,400 new Section 8 rental assistance vouchers. I also urge
the Committee to provide full funding for the renewal of all
expiring Section 8 contracts, including project-based Section
8's.
Now, just this past weekend when I was in San Francisco, I
went to an opening of a single-room occupancy facility that had
been a complete dump before. But, that transformation would not
have been possible without that Section 8 and the low income
housing tax credit, which is another committee.
The Section 8 Home Ownership Demonstration Program--last
year, HUD proposed a demonstration program to permit the use of
2,000 Section 8 vouchers by low income households to purchase a
home. While this program is not included in fiscal year 1998
appropriations bill, HUD once again is requesting funding for
it. I urge the Subcommittee to support the Administration's
request.
McKinney Homeless Assistance--I urge the Subcommittee to
support the fiscal year 1999 request for $958 million, an
increase from $823 million in fiscal year 1998, for homeless
assistance. I know you know--more is on the record.
Non-profit purchase of at-risk housing--you know of my past
support for low-income housing; preservation and residential
ownership, and while the program was not funded in fiscal year
1998, I continue to believe that HUD needs a policy to support
transfer of at-risk housing to ownership that will manage it
well and keep it permanently affordable. I hope the
Subcommittee will work this year to create an incentive for
owners of housing supported by project-based Section 8 to
transfer the developments to long-term non-profit and public
ownership.
Community Block Development Grant--I'm making a request for
a project in my district--$1.5 million in CDBG/EDI funds to
expand community revitalization efforts in the Visitacion
Valley in San Francisco. The funds would be used for tenant
improvements for four new child care centers and a senior
center, part of the new housing developments to be built to
replace housing lost when HUD closed the Geneva Towers project.
They're blowing up the Geneva Towers May 16 in San Francisco
and I have the honor of----
[Laughter.]
Ms. Pelosi. Really, it's very exciting. [Laughter.]
But, it has been an ongoing--for years, we've been working
on this project and now it's coming to fruition and we need the
child care part of it.
University of San Francisco Center for International
Business Education--this committee has been generous in the
past. I have a $2 million request for special purpose grant
funding.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I will not go over--further these
other requests but submit them for the record: the Chabot
Observatory and Science Center; National Biosolids Partnership;
Delta Science Center. These are Bay-area issues and I add my
support to them.
Thank you for the consideration of the requests and for
your time this morning and I stuck to the note so that I would
be shorter. Please forgive me for reading to you but----
Mr. Lewis. No, but it's a delight to wake up to such charm
and we appreciate your----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Stokes. Mr. Chairman, let me just----
Mr. Lewis. Sure, sure, Mr. Stokes.
Ms. Pelosi. I'll leave now before it gets boring.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Stokes. Well, I just want to concur with the Chair,
well----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Stokes [continuing]. Those very kind remarks about you
but, let me express my appreciation to you for your kind
remarks and say that what a privilege it's been to meet and
serve with you in this body and all of us are indebted to you
for the great work you've done in the area of AIDS which is at
a crisis in this country today and one of the most crucial
health problems confronting our Nation and, in that respect,
you have just been the leader for all of us. But you've done
such great work in all respects and I'm going to miss you.
Ms. Pelosi. Oh, well, you won't be a stranger. But, I
think, if I may, Mr. Chairman, just say that no one has done
more in terms of AIDS and minority issues than our Chairman and
our committee----
Mr. Stokes. Thank you. [Laughter.]
Ms. Pelosi [continuing]. And Mr. Stokes but it's quite a
remarkable thing that Mr. Stokes was raised in a housing
project. He and his brother----
Mr. Stokes. Right.
Ms. Pelosi [continuing]. One became a mayor and ambassador,
the other a leader in Congress and that he would be here
setting these priorities in this very committee that gave him
shelter and his family shelter. I always say to him, what a
remarkable mother he must have had. [Laughter.]
Mr. Stokes. Thank you. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much.
Ms. Pelosi. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1766 - 1775--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, April 23, 1998.
VETERANS' AFFAIRS
WITNESS
HON. BART GORDON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
TENNESSEE
Mr. Lewis. We are going to have to follow the agenda kind
of as an outline. Otherwise if I start calling on people as
they arrive, we'll never quite get there. So, if you'll please
bear with me.
Next on our list is Bart Gordon, and, Bart, if you'll come
up. Your entire statement will be included in the record. All
of you can make note of that and from there--brevity is very
important and related almost to dollars. [Laughter.]
Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, thanks for your, as always,
courtesy and hospitality here and I will try to reciprocate by
being very brief.
Let me first add my accolades to those folks. You've always
brought professionalism to this committee and you've been a
friend and really brought a decency to the Congress. We'll miss
seeing you here and hope that we'll have a chance to continue
to visit.
Mr. Stokes. Thank you, Bart. Thank you.
Mr. Gordon. After seeing Joe Moakley and Nancy Pelosi here,
I don't think there's much to be left in the cupboard so I'll
not ask much----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gordon. I'm here on a project concerning the Alvin C.
York VA Hospital in my hometown, Murfreesboro, Tennessee. My
father worked there for 27 years. He was a groundskeeper, so
I'm pretty familiar with that facility. I used to go out there
as a volunteer.
I've never been to this committee other than this
particular project to ask anything for this VA hospital. It's a
psychiatric hospital and so it covers a pretty broad area,
since there are not many psychiatric hospitals.
The project that we've been talking about the last couple
of years--there are three psychiatric wards that go back to the
original construction. They are the old mass wards, where you
don't have rooms--everybody is just in a big hall and you have
communal bathrooms, and it makes it very difficult to have
facilities for women, and now there is starting to be more
there that weren't there earlier.
We originally proposed tearing those down and building some
new ones back at a cost of $29 million. After reviewing that
and recognizing the constraint to the budget, they have decided
to change that scope and not do it with--just renovating what
they have, which would be a $9 million project.
The VA has been there doing their evaluations to determine
that it is needed. You were generous enough a couple of years
ago to provide $2.3 million for architectural planning. They
are moving forward with all of that and now they will be
prepared to go into this more scaled-down project this next
fiscal year and so we hope that you can help us with that.
Mr. Lewis. Okay, Mr. Gordon. I appreciate that update and
we certainly will work with you.
Mr. Gordon. Let me also quickly thank you. There was a
project close to my heart called Bradley Academy in my
hometown, Murfreesboro, which was the original school where
James K. Polk attended, gave his valedictorian speech and met
his wife there. Later, in the 1860's, it became really the sole
education facility for the African-American community for 100
years.
With your help, we are just in the process now of getting
it opened. It really is the repository of all African-American
sort of heritage in our whole county. People are going through
their attics and, you know, pulling things out and bring them
to this museum and it's just a great facility and I want to
bring the photographs for the opening so that you can see that
your role, you know, your good work really did make a
difference in this community and I thank you for that.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Stokes. I'm just glad you mentioned that particular
project because I know how near and dear it is and we've talked
about it. But, in any case, glad that our side of the Committee
was able to help you with it and the proposal.
Mr. Gordon. It'll be open before you leave and so I want
you to see the photographs and, as I say, I want you to share
the pride that I have in this project.
Mr. Stokes. I look forward to that. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thanks, Bart.
Mr. Gordon. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1778 - 1780--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, April 23, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
HON. JOHN MOAKLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Lewis. Joe Moakley, I'm not really sure why Joe is here
but the----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis [continuing]. Mr. Stokes gave him the idea.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Stokes. He'll tell you who gave him the idea.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Moakley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. We are very pleased to see you looking so well.
Mr. Moakley. I feel great.
Mr. Lewis. I hope you had a good trip.
Mr. Moakley. It's the power of prayer. Not my prayers,
everybody else's. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. We need all the help we can get.
Mr. Moakley. It works.
I didn't realize you were brought up in public housing. I
was brought up in public housing.
Mr. Stokes. Were you?
Mr. Moakley. And so, in fact, Bill Clinton lives in public
housing right now. [Laughter.]
Mr. Stokes. That's right. [Laughter.]
Mr. Moakley. I think his account was a little better than
ours. [Laughter.]
Actually, I thank you very much for allowing me to come
testify this morning.
On behalf of water and sewer ratepayers of Massachusetts,
we very much appreciate your ardent commitment over the years
to the support of the Boston Harbor cleanup project.
I know that you're all fully aware of the magnitude of the
problem and I am asking for your support once more again for
$100 million for the clean up. Over the last 10 years,
Massachusetts has had to fulfill the largest, unfunded Federal
mandate in the United States with the cleanup of Boston Harbor.
The Federal government mandated this little court procedure and
the Federal government, up to date, has paid 22 percent of this
$3.8 billion that has been paid, most of which has been borne
by the taxpayers in 61 cities. For example, even the whole
Commonwealth of Massachusetts has it better than these 61
cities and towns that are hooked into the Massachusetts River
Resource Authority.
Ten years ago, Mr. Chairman, the Harbor looked hopeless, it
smelled foul, there was no marine or aquatic life to speak of,
and the waterfront was strictly a disaster area. People were up
in arms. Many feared the environmental damage to the region
would be irreparable and there was no easy solution in sight.
So, after years of protesting the water and sewer rates, the
people of Massachusetts looked to Washington for some help in
fulfilling that mandate.
Not only was their harbor filthy, but also their water
bills were amongst the highest in this country and expected to
increase significantly. In 1987--one year--the water and sewer
rates increased 54 percent.
Today, the average family pays $671 a year for water and
sewerage, and, despite Federal assistance, the rates are still
amongst the highest in the Nation. My constituents are very
ordinary people; police officers, fire fighters, senior
citizens, teachers, nurses who find it very difficult to pay
for the annual increase. So, without this $100 million in
funding this year, the water and sewer rates could once again
rise dramatically.
In addition to the hardship of the families, many
businesses have had to close shop because they can't afford the
water rates. Local businesses and family-owned restaurants have
relocated to other areas just to avoid paying the high water
and sewer taxes in eastern Massachusetts. So, this funding
could make a great difference, and it has in the past.
In 1997, the rates increased by 4 percent, a far cry from
the 1987 rates increasing 54 percent. But, still, it's a
significant increase for someone on a fixed income. Although,
the Federal commitment is still needed. In fact, more, not
less, needs to be done to ensure that the rates do not increase
even more.
And, as you know, and I've indicated to you and to Lou that
we all appreciate that the project is winding down and,
although it's just a small dent in this enormous Federal
mandate, the Federal assistance has helped greatly. Today,
Massachusetts has made great strides in cleaning up the harbor;
fish, seals, porpoises have returned, the people of Boston have
returned to fish, swim and sail and the waterfront right now is
a very high commodity.
Last Sunday after Mass, I drove to Castle Island, which is
a beautiful harbor island about a mile from where I live,
surrounded by water on three sides because they have a causeway
going there. And, it's a really great place to walk, to run, to
bike, and, in my case, just sit and read the papers. It used to
smell so bad it used to bring tears to your eyes; the sulfur
smell. You could tell people where the Harbor was, just say,
it's over there behind the smell.
But, even though we are mercifully close to the end of this
enormous project, this money I'm asking for this year we need
more than ever. This money would be used to complete
construction of the secondary treatment facility and, once that
is complete, Boston will meet all the Federal requirements of
the Clean Water Act for the first time in 20 years.
Boston, with the help of this committee, has come a long
way since the days the Harbor was dirty and we urge and
appreciate your help over the years. Now, I know that Doug
MacDonald testified the other day and he gave you all the
specifics and showed you all the charts. We've done a great
job. Ten years ago people thought we were crazy when we said we
were going to clean up the Harbor. I mean, the phytoplankton
was gone; there was nothing. Lone Fish Lake was just a
cesspool.
But, as a result of the money that we and the Boston area
put in, supplemented by the Federal money, it's now about 85
percent clean.
Mr. Lewis. Now that we have the Boston Harbor completed,
there's the Salton Sea--it's the next----
Mr. Moakley. What's that?
Mr. Lewis. It's the Salton Sea out in the West of the
American----
Mr. Moakley. I think Mary Bono will be here shortly.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. Now, I think that's a great idea.
Mr. Moakley. I just missed her, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. No, no; Mary Bono's not here. [Laughter.]
Mr. Moakley. Well, I appreciate that.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you.
Mr. Stokes. We appreciate your appearance.
Mr. Moakley. Lou, it's been a great pleasure serving with
you. You and I have been together on many issues----
Mr. Stokes. A long time.
Mr. Moakley [continuing]. We've always tried to prove the
government is a true friend. And I wish you well----
Mr. Stokes. Well, thank you, I feel the same about you,
Joe. You're a great member and it's been great to be here with
you.
Mr. Moakley. Well, thank you. Thanks a lot, sir.
Mr. Lewis. My pleasure. Thank you very much, Joe.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1784 - 1785--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, April 23, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESSES
HON. CAROLYN McCARTHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
NEW YORK
JAMES GARNER, MAYOR, HEMPSTEAD, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK
Mr. Lewis. I think Carolyn McCarthy has a guest. Come up,
Carolyn, and bring the Mayor with you.
Mr. Garner, good morning, how are you?
Mayor Garner. Good morning, sir; how are you?
Mr. Lewis. Good to see you. Thanks for being here.
Mrs. McCarthy of New York. Mr. Stokes?
Mr. Stokes. Good morning. Good morning, sir.
Mayor Garner. Good morning, Mr. Stokes.
Mrs. McCarthy of New York. As a freshman, I have to say
it's been a pleasure. This is my first time in front of the
committee like this, so----
Mr. Lewis. You haven't been here before, right?
Mrs. McCarthy of New York. No.
Mr. Lewis. You're welcome to come up----
Mrs. McCarthy of New York. No, no. And I'm sorry that I
will not be spending more time with you. It's been a pleasure
watching, though, and being here with you this past year. I'm
going to be very brief so the mayor can have his opportunity.
I want you to know that Mayor Garner and I have been
working very closely in the town of Hempstead. It's a place
that I certainly grew up in when I was a child. The Mayor is a
Republican and has taken care of his people and very proud to
be here as a bipartisan----
Mr. Lewis. Oh, my God, are you----
[Laughter.]
Mrs. McCarthy of New York. That just shows that we work
together very well----
Mr. Lewis. We do in this committee, I can tell that right
now.
Mrs. McCarthy of New York. So, Mr. Chairman and members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to introduce
one of Long Island's most distinguished public servants, Mayor
James Garner of Hempstead Village.
Mayor Garner was first elected to the Village board of
trustees in 1984 and elected mayor in 1989, becoming Long
Island's first African-American mayor. As a successful
businessman and dedicated public servant, Mayor Garner has been
a champion for improving the quality of life in Hempstead. He
has fought against drugs by establishing a police active leave
and DARE program for Hempstead's youth. The Mayor has also
reinvested more than $50 million for improved housing,
education, transportation and job opportunities.
Unfortunately, the Village of Hempstead faces an emergency
water problem that threatens our constituents' drinking water
supply and jeopardizes the Village's ability to fight a major
fire.
In the interest of being brief, Mr. Mayor--Mr. Chairman and
members of the Subcommittee, allow me to say thank you once
again for inviting us here this morning and introduce an
outstanding advocate for the health and safety of Hempstead's
citizens.
Mayor Garner.
Mr. Lewis. Mayor Garner, you're welcome to speak. Anything
that you want to add to the record, we'll put it either in the
file or the record. You're welcome to expand it if you'd like.
Mayor Garner. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, members of the
Committee.
Again, my name is James Garner and I'm the Mayor of
Hempstead, Long Island, of which Congresswoman Carolyn
McCarthy's office is located in Hempstead and I just want to
make sure the drinking water is of good quality. I appreciate
your allowing me to keep the floor with you today. At the
request of Congresswoman McCarthy, I appreciate her interest in
the Village.
We are located in Nassau County, which is in the center of
Long Island, and 26 miles east of Manhattan. Hempstead is the
largest village in the State of New York and, in many ways, is
much more like a medium-sized city than a village.
The Village population according to the U.S. Census Bureau
is 50,500 but I can tell you, as a person who walks the streets
of the Village of Hempstead and sees the records for the amount
of residential water and sewer flows, that the population is
closer to 70,000.
Hempstead Village is the terminus for the central line of
Long Island Railroad and makes us the transportation center for
the County. Because the Village is the center for many of
Nassau County's social service agencies and public
transportation, the Village has become home for many new
immigrants who have come to the greater New York City area. Our
population is very diverse: 65 percent African-American, 10
percent Caucasian, and 25 percent Latino.
The growth of Long Island following the Civil War saw the
Village become the center of retail shopping for the County.
The construction of one of the largest shopping malls in the
County north of the Village during the 1960's resulted in the
loss of revenue and the tax base in the 1970's and the 1980's.
Overnight, the Village began to change. Major retail stores
relocated to shopping centers and families began to relocate in
other nearby towns. The traditional demands for social services
increased at the same time the tax revenue decreased.
During the past eight years, we have begun to turn the
tide. The Village has attracted new development and began to
rid itself of drugs and crime activity, which scared away
citizens. Unfortunately, while all of these other problems were
mounting, the Village infrastructure was also beginning to
decay. And, one of the problems, Mr. Chairman, is our water.
That's the essence of my coming here today.
We have a water plant that's really aged over the years. As
a matter of fact, the last well that was built, it was built in
1967. At that time, the population was approximately 26,000
people. And, as I've mentioned in my opening statement, we're
up to 70,000 because Hempstead is mecca for a lot of
immigrants, specifically coming out of the Central American
area.
Our century old water supply system suffers from age and
the threat of groundwater contamination. The risk of vandalism
also adds to our concerns about the system because of the
perverse nature of some individual behavior these days and the
proximity of open water treatment facilities to a major
thoroughfare running through the Village and other public areas
near the plant.
Nassau County Health Department data show that since 1994
Hempstead has the greatest concentration of residents in the
County affected by the pathogens, cryptosporidium and giardia
in the County. The Village drinking water wells are at risk
from industrial hazardous waste in a groundwater plume moving
toward the Village from Roosevelt Field. The sources of
pollution are suspected to be several industrial sites and
Mitchell Field, a former Federal airbase and Charles
Lindbergh's departure point on his transatlantic flight to
Paris. These sites are one mile from the Village limits.
Hempstead has already been impacted by groundwater
contamination and has been treating water from two of its wells
for 10 years. Last spring, three of Hempstead's nine wells were
impacted by the movement of the plume. At the time--at times,
last summer, the Village would not have been able to
effectively fight a large building fire because of the low
water supply. The lack of an adequate water supply also is
having a negative impact on the Village's economic development
program. Covering the basins will protect the drinking water
supply and new aeration nozzles will provide more efficient
removal of volatile organic compounds from the water and
oxidation of iron in the water supply.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I'd certainly like to thank you for
inviting us and what we are asking for--we are asking for $10
million to remedy this problem and certainly I want to thank
Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy for allowing me to come and
speak before this committee. Hempstead--we're going through a
revitalization. We've been doing that since 1989, trying to
create a better tax base. Our tax base has eroded over years.
Hempstead, again, is a large village on Long Island, every
major road leading through Long Island. We're the
transportation center on Long Island; the bus terminal isthere,
the train station ends and begins in the Village of Hempstead.
So, I would certainly appreciate anything that you can do
for the people of Hempstead.
Mr. Lewis. Your Honor, we appreciate you coming and it's a
pleasure to try to work with you on this matter. We have, to
say the least, not received our budget allocations yet but we
will be looking at items like this to see if we can be of
assistance.
Mr. Stokes.
Mr. Stokes. It's been a pleasure to meet Mayor Garner and
to have Mrs. McCarthy come to the hearing this morning and it
certainly is a terrible thing. We'll do whatever we can to
help.
Mrs. McCarthy of New York. I would just like to add that,
as a young child, I went to Hempstead. You know, that was the
shopping center of the world. It was a thriving area. What
Mayor Garner has done over the last several years, which has to
be done in our areas that have, unfortunately, had fallen on
hard times, he is changing the whole town around. He's giving
people a sense of pride of being there and I think that's
important.
The water problem is more difficult, even because we have
the highest rate of breast cancer. And, unfortunately, our
African-American women are really suffering with this. We
haven't found the proof, obviously, and we're doing a study. I
do believe it's coming hard on them and I just think it's so
important to try and help the Mayor, to bring this town back--
to give the people their pride back, but I'm also looking at it
for the children. I think that's important. I thank you for
your time.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, again, for being with us.
Mayor Garner. Thank you, we appreciate it.
Mr. Stokes. Right.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1790 - 1794--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, April 23, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
VETERANS' AFFAIRS
WITNESS
HON. DOUG BEREUTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
NEBRASKA
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Bereuter, you're the next in line, although
there are two other people who are supposed to be here. You're
welcome.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Lewis. Your entire statement will be included in the
record, Mr. Bereuter, and we're happy to have you here.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Chairman Lewis, Mr. Stokes. I want
to briefly talk to you about four subjects.
The first is the rural water training and technical
assistance program, an EPA program. Small villages and cities
do not have the labs, resources of larger cities to meet
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. The technical
assistance that's being provided now to some extent on the
``circuit rider'' basis--taking a crumb out of the old pioneer
days in a religious community--is a way to provide that kind of
assistance.
You may remember, Chairman Lewis, I sent you a letter last
year from 47 members----
Mr. Lewis. Yes.
Mr. Bereuter [continuing]. Taking the lead on this floor,
this EPA program, and we're going to give you something similar
to that number this year of Members of the House whose
districts are very dependent upon this kind of technical
assistance.
EPA has just issued a report saying that the improvement in
compliance in small communities is much, much higher now and I
think in no small part it's because of the technical
assistance. I think it's particularly important that this
common crew stay a State and local effort and it is not
something that can be done by EPA technicians. So, I think a
``circuit rider'' approach is one that's going to be very
successful.
Second, the Indian Housing Loan Program. As you know, this
is almost a demonstration program. Yet, I am the author of the
legislation, I had a lot of bipartisan support. It is the first
program, I might say in some modesty but not too much, that's
providing privately financed homes through a loan guarantee
program on our Indian reservations. We had a trust territory
impediment for the local financial service community to
participate in the past.
Let me give you just a couple of examples in the way of
summing up here. HUD reported that of the approximately 338
closed loan projects, none are in default. HUD further
estimated there are approximately 150 loans pending in the
pipeline and the use of this program continues to expand. Thus,
the $6 million appropriation should facilitate over $68 million
in guaranteed loans. Some Indian tribes are just discovering
the program now. Others have been well along in using this
program to give unprecedented cooperation between the financial
service sector to help Indians actually purchase or build a
home on a reservation. And, it's a marked contrast to what
they've had to rely on which is strictly public housing.
Third, Community Development Block Grants, and I'm going to
say something here that you're not going to hear all the time.
I continue to oppose, in principle, the practice of carving out
special projects or earmarking grants out of the CDBG fund that
was reinstituted last year under the guise of the Economic
Development Initiatives program. I gather that's primarily a
Senate initiative.
Now, speaking very candidly to you as somebody must, HUD
Secretary Cuomo even has some of the private initiatives being
funded from the CDBG program. For example, Secretary Cuomo
proposed giving the section 202/811 program to the States to
administer, supposedly out of CDBG and HOME funds. When the
Secretary's Discretionary Fund dries up, he turns to the CDBG
to fund his private initiatives through earmarks. This is wrong
and Congress should stop this kind of raiding.
If, in fact, the rules of the game include earmarking for
special projects, I believe all communities will suffer because
this practice decreases the block grant funds available to all
communities. However, reluctantly I have to say that if the
game is played that way, I need to play that way too to be fair
to my constituents. So, I have a proposal here for you that is
very valid.
As an urban planner by training, I can bore you with
details about why this is a very important program, part of a
much larger program. But, I'll spare you that situation today.
Mr. Lewis. I promise you I will not hold up your request.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bereuter. I hope that you bring some sense to the
Senate. I think we've got to stop this raiding. I think things
are not going well in the Department, I think there's far too
much raiding of resources that belong to the communities of
this country, whether they're entitlement communities or those
that compete with State agencies.
Fourth and finally, nothing I'm asking----
Mr. Lewis. It's a good message, though. Very important
message.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you.
I'm not asking you to fund anything on this one, I'm just
asking you in the fourth area to use your persuasion if you can
in the area of the veterans.
There's something called the Veterans' Equity Resource
Allocation system, or VERA. It has very marked adverse effects
upon sparsely settled parts of the Nation. It is based strictly
on a per-capita distribution of funds in these hospital
networks that are created.
And I want to tell you that I think you might agree just on
equity that no matter where a veteran lives in this country,
there ought to be at least a minimal acceptable level of health
service for those who live there.
We are hurting greatly and I have asked for this blunder to
be changed. In the meantime, while we get promises, it means
that we have less and less money. So, I ask you, in addition to
the authorizing committee, to use your persuasive powers to get
the Department of Veterans' Affairs to have a more equitable
formula, so the people who happen to be veterans in Wyoming and
Alaska and Nebraska at least have an adequate level of service.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Bereuter. We, first,
very much appreciate your attention to the detail which
normally is your style and your concern about public policy. It
has been my experience over 20 years.
Mr. Stokes.
Mr. Stokes. I also appreciate this testimony and, Doug, as
always, is very thoughtful and very considerate and such a
different nature. As you say, it does give us all something to
think about. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you, Mr. Stokes----
Mr. Lewis. Thank you.
Mr. Bereuter [continuing]. And Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stokes. It's a pleasure.
Mr. Bereuter. Chairman Lewis, I appreciate your difficult
task.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1798 - 1800--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, April 23, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESSES
HON. WILLIAM J. COYNE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
PENNSYLVANIA
HON. MICHAEL DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
PENNSYLVANIA
HON. FRANK MASCARA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Lewis. Let's see, Mr. Coyne, Mr. Doyle, and Mr.
Mascara, all here? Come up, gentleman. We love to have a panel
shown together. [Laughter.]
I would suggest that, since the three of you have been
chatting, you can proceed as you will. We'll be glad to receive
your testimony. Your entire statements will be included in the
record.
Mr. Coyne. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Coyne?
Mr. Coyne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to take time to
share here today with my colleagues, Congressman Doyle and
Congressman Mascara, our thoughts on a project that's very
important to us.
First of all, we'd like to thank the Subcommittee for its
support for the Three Rivers Wet Weather Demonstration Project
in the VA-HUD bill last year and to ask you and the Ranking
Member, who was so helpful to us last year, for additional
assistance for this critical project in fiscal year 1999.
More than 80 communities in Allegheny County are under EPA
orders to eliminate sanitary sewer overflows, SSOs, from their
sewer systems. The cost of accomplishing this task, if
undertaken using traditional approaches, would be astronomical.
Consequently, the Allegheny Sanitary Authority has been working
to develop non-traditional solutions that could eliminate the
SSOs at a much lower cost.
Last year, ALCOSAN, which is the abbreviation for the
Sanitary Authority, developed a proposal for a demonstration to
design, construct, and evaluate a range of possible solutions
to the SSO problem, including incentives to reduce sewage
volume and promote cooperation between municipalities in the
area. The project is expected to produce solutions that could
be applied in communities with similar problems around the
country.
Last year, we asked for $2.5 million to be included in the
fiscal year 1998 VA-HUD appropriations bill. The final bill
included $1.75 million for the Three Rivers Wet Weather
Demonstration Project which, along with $500,000 provided in
the Corps of Engineers budget, provided enough money for the
project to get underway.
This year, we ask the Subcommittee to include $25.25
million for the Three Rivers Wet Weather Demonstration Project
in a fiscal year 1999 VA-HUD-Independent Agencies
appropriations bill.
My colleagues, Mike Doyle and Frank Mascara, would like to
briefly add their thoughts on the need for this important
project and funding. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Okay.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Lewis. Proceed as you will.
Mr. Doyle. I'd also like to thank you, Chairman, and
Ranking Member Stokes, for the opportunity to come before you
today to outline my priorities within the jurisdiction of this
subcommittee.
It's an honor to associate my remarks with my colleagues
from western Pennsylvania, Bill Coyne and Frank Mascara, and I
want to extend my sincere appreciation to the Subcommittee to
recognizing the critical nature of the sanitary sewer overflows
in Allegheny County and appropriating funding in last year's
budget. Federal support in the 1999 budget for the Three Rivers
Wet Weather Demonstration Program, which was developed by
ALCOSAN and the Allegheny County Health Department, is
absolutely critical if affected communities are to remedy the
existing sanitary sewer overflows in a cost-effective and time
efficient manner.
Without such assistance, this difficult situation is likely
to escalate and result in higher sewer rates, not improved
water quality. The vast majority of these communities are small
in population and are without the financial wherewithal to
eliminate their SSOs on their own.
In addition to the cost factor, these communities are in
need of technical assistance. As structured, the Three Rivers
Wet Weather Demonstration Program addresses both of these needs
in a comprehensive and coordinated manner. The requested amount
for fiscal year 1999, $25.25 million, for Three Rivers Wet
Weather Demonstration Program will not only help eliminate the
SSO in our communities, but will serve as a successful model
for the rest of the country. In other words, support for this
request is a low-risk sound investment.
Thank you for inviting me to testify today. I appreciate
your serious consideration of our request, and Representative
Mascara will conclude our testimony.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Doyle.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you for hearing my testimony.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Mascara?
Mr. Mascara. Thank you, Chairman Lewis, Ranking Member
Stokes, for this opportunity to testify before you on behalf of
the Allegheny County Sanitary Authority concerning its great
need for Federal assistance in meeting Clean Water Act
standards.
ALCOSAN treats the wastewater of nearly a million people
living in 80 communities in the Pittsburgh region that were
progressive enough, nearly 50 years ago, to join together to
clean up the three major rivers in our region.
And let me personally attest to the fact that they need
cleaning. I spent my childhood years along the Monongahela
River in the heyday of the coal and steel production. Back
then, our communities dumped raw sewage directly into the
rivers. I swam in those rivers and, let me tell you, I was
paddling through a lot more than just water. Nobody knows
better than I the important role that ALCOSAN played in the
early cleanup of our rivers and streams in southwestern
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Lewis. It turns your hair grey.
Mr. Mascara. Yes, it does. [Laughter.]
When ALCOSAN was created in 1940, it was one of the most
progressive, regional clean water systems at that time when the
rest of the Nation gave scant attention to these matters. It
was a very effective partnership with extensive coordination
among Pittsburgh and many of the outlying rural communities.
Now ALCOSAN struggles to comply with new EPA standards,
incurring fines for flow control once approved. It is
imperative that we commit funding to assist the region and
restore its heritage of exemplary public health service.
And, I thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Let me say that we appreciate very much your
being here.
As you know, as the budget allocation comes forth, we'll be
measuring the broad prospects. Last year, in terms of your
project, we ended up doing our work actually by way of the
Senate and through the conference. We have to actually measure
carefully what happens with our rule; we certainly don't want
to have your project be somebody's target. But, in the
meantime, we look forward to working with you and we'll try to
help.
Mr. Mascara. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stokes. I'd just like to thank all three of the
gentlemen for their presentation here. I'm very much aware of
your project, having worked on it with you last year, and we'll
certainly be endeavoring in every respect to try and
accommodate your needs this year.
Mr. Coyne. Thank you.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Mr. Mascara. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1804 - 1807--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, April 23, 1998.
FERNBANK SCIENCE CENTER, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
WITNESS
HON. CYNTHIA McKINNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
GEORGIA
Mr. Lewis. The Chair had indicated earlier that we are
going to stick to the list as it is outlined, and, as people
come in, if they're here, they'll be called up. And Ms. Waters
is next on our list and she just walked in.
Wait a minute. Excuse me. I'm wrong. Ms. McKinney is next
on my list and she's at it.
I'm not going to get you two women mixed up. [Laughter.]
Cynthia, that's not funny. [Laughter.]
Ms. McKinney. I'd be----
Mr. Lewis. Your entire statement will be included in the
record and you can expand on it if you like.
Ms. McKinney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr.----
Mr. Stokes. Good morning.
Ms. McKinney [continuing]. Good morning, Mr. Lou Who----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Stokes. Mr. Lou Who----
Ms. McKinney. It's an inside joke. [Laughter.]
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for letting me come here
this morning. I am interested in securing funding for the CEMA
program in the Teacher Center for Georgia's fourth
Congressional District for Georgia and for our region.
Our area is one of robust population growth, it is the most
ethnically diverse district in the entire southeast. DeKalb
County has embraced this infusion of population from all over
the United States and all over the world by currently planning
an international village to celebrate diversity, building an
unprecedented number of new schools to accommodate this growth,
planning and infrastructure, and teacher investment to cope
with the growth and number of students, as well as the growth
in diversity of the student population. The fourth district is
an education district for the adult population is one of the
best educated populations in the entire State of Georgia.
Thirty years ago, the homeowners of DeKalb County decided
to fund the Fernbank Science Center. This center is unique in
that it's the only one of its type found funded locally at a
school district.
Fernbank has a 500-seat planetarium, an observatory with a
36-inch reflecting telescope, a space science department with
an electron microscope, a program that provides science
education to students from all over Georgia, and, indeed, all
over the globe. The Distance Learning program collapses space
and time; via the Internet, students in Atlanta link with
students in Georgia with other students all over the world.
What Fernbank has accomplished is exciting but Fernbank can
do much more for science education opportunity in Georgia. We
know, for instance, that Georgia still lags behind the country
in science education and in test scores. Unfortunately, still,
the United States ranks fairly low in math and science
abilities of our own students and U.S. minorities lag ever
further behind.
Fernback Science Center is poised to improve student
performance on all three levels because of its unique location
in an area of growing ethnic diversity, its excellent
facilities and distance learning, and promotion of science
education statewide and nationwide.
We're asking for three programs to be located in Georgia;
the CEMA program, a teacher center, and the Globe program.
Finally, the amount we're requesting is $900,000 over three
years. This would fund the teaching center and the CEMA
program.
I believe the residents of the fourth district have
demonstrated their readiness and willingness to participate in
and fund science education willfully. With NASA's partnership,
children all over our State and our country can benefit from
NASA's science education program.
Mr. Lewis. Okay. Ms. McKinney, we've had a lot of work over
the years with NASA and educational programs like this. If you
ask your staff person this, when you focus on this, for you to
contact our office, we might very well connect them to one of
the major antennae by way of your computers and classrooms----
Ms. McKinney. Okay.
Mr. Lewis. It'd be very interesting effort to connect
Georgia with southern California----
Ms. McKinney. Oh, great----
Mr. Lewis [continuing]. Why not do that?
Ms. McKinney. Great, great.
Mr. Lewis. We do it with third graders and they teach each
other----
Ms. McKinney. Great.
Mr. Lewis [continuing]. Terrific--Mr. Stokes.
Mr. Stokes. The program he's talking about is an excellent
program and he and I have interacted on that program, a number
of years ago. It's something that you should follow through on
because----
Ms. McKinney. Okay we will.
Mr. Lewis. It'd be very interesting.
Mr. Stokes. Definitely try to work it out.
Ms. McKinney. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Ms. McKinney.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1810 - 1811--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, April 23, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
HON. MAXINE WATERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
Mr. Lewis. The gentlelady from southern California.
Mr. Stokes. Nice to see you. Good morning.
Ms. Waters. Thank you. How are you doing?
Mr. Lewis. All right.
Ms. Waters. I'd like to thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Your entire statement will be included in the
record and you can just summarize, if you will.
Ms. Waters. Thank you. First, let me say, Mr. Chairman,
that I appreciate the opportunity to be here and I must say
that this may be the last time that I get an opportunity to
come and ask the Ranking Member----
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lou----
[Laughter.]
Ms. Waters [continuing]. Congressman Stokes----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lou----
Mr. Stokes. Mr. Lou----
Ms. Waters [continuing]. For some help. [Laughter.]
So, I want to say to him, I want to thank him for all of
his service and the assistance that he's given to so many
Members and let him know how much I appreciate the time and
effort that he's put into his job and his responsibility here--
--
Mr. Stokes. Thank you very much.
Ms. Waters. Even though I know that you will be leaving us,
I'm not satisfied and I wish you weren't. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. You think you've got a problem, look at mine.
Ms. Waters. Yes, that's right----
[Laughter.]
Well, I've come this morning to urge the Committee to fund
all of HUD's programs. I would like to focus on a few of the
programs that I think will revitalize our distressed
communities.
The President's budget includes a proposal for about $400
million in budget authority to create a new economic
development program called the Community Empowerment Fund. I
think that's very important. This program would combine two of
the existing programs in HUD; the Section 108 Loan Guarantee
program which I've paid a lot of attention to and the Economic
Development Initiative.
The program combines loan guarantees with critically-needed
equity capital for localities to engage in economic
development. It is clear to me that if we are to help
distressed communities, if we are to grow, a community's
economic development is the key. It is the answer. With all
that we are doing with welfare reform, it is extremely
important that we do job creation through economic development
so this emerges as an extremely important program.
Let me just say that there is one little caveat, and
there's nothing we probably can do about it here. I don't like
the idea that Section 108 loan guarantee money is used for
housing. I think that we should--we have got a lot of housing
resources, and, of course, we need more. And we should keep
those targeted for housing, but I think this should be purely
economic development money. And some of our cities, when they
get this money, it goes right off into their housing because
you can use it for either/or, when, in fact, you can develop
all of the housing that you want--and we need more low-income
housing--but if you have communities where you are beginning to
use your commercial strips to develop housing and you don't
have commercial development to go along with it, all you are
doing is creating ghettos.
Mr. Lewis of California. Well, let me suggest Ms. Waters--
--
Ms. Waters. Yes.
Mr. Lewis of California. You have added your voice to many
voices suggesting we do need an authorization bill that might
be able to address some of these questions.
Ms. Waters. Alright, okay, alright. So that is very
important to me. We believe that we can create 280,000 jobs.
Work vouchers are extremely important. Many of the jobs have
been created increasingly in suburbs and areas where it is hard
to get transportation back and forth, but they are housing
opportunities. Much of the housing that is being created
increasingly in the outlying areas could be good housing that
could be used for those who are seeking jobs, and we could
match up the housing with the jobs and that is important.
I would like for you to fund the Welfare to Work vouchers.
Housing for people with AIDS, treatments for those living with
AIDS have greater need for long-term housing. And the budget is
$225 million, 10 percent increase over the 1998 levels, over
74,000 individuals served by this program.
I would urge you to continue your commitment to renew all
the expiring section 8 contracts through the year 2002. HUD's
request for $7.2 billion to renew the 2 million units expiring
in 1999 will allow Congress to make good on their commitment.
I would like to thank you for your work. I think we do have
a statement that we will submit for the record.
Mr. Lewis of California. Thank you very much, Ms. Waters,
appreciate your being with us.
Ms. Waters. You're welcome.
Mr. Stokes. Mr. Chairman, let me just thank my chairperson,
Ms. Waters, for her testimony here this morning. The areas in
which she has testified this morning, that section 108 program,
in particular, is an area where she has been a leader, and this
legislation comes about as a result of her leadership. And I do
not know of anyone in Congress that knows more about the
economic development in that area, particularly using
financing, better than she. So I appreciate very much your
testimony this morning.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lewis of California. We appreciate your being with us,
Maxine.
Ms. Waters. Okay, thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1814 - 1816--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, April 23, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
HON. FRANK LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
OKLAHOMA
Mr. Lewis. Frank? Mr. Lucas? You have been more than
patient. You were ahead of time and we appreciate it.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. It is going to be a long day but we are glad to
see you. You, too, Doc.
Mr. Lucas. Absolutely, sir. And I ask consent that Mr.
Istook of Oklahoma and Mayor Kirk Humphreys of Oklahoma City
statements be included in the record at this hearing.
Mr. Lewis. They will be included, thank you.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Actually, that just cuts back the time we spend
and your testimony is appreciated.
Mr. Lucas. Absolutely, sir. Absolutely. If I can quote from
a book, I think, that came out shortly after the bombing, from
a 10 year old boy in Norman, Oklahoma, Eric Charles Baker, Mr.
Chairman, ``I dreamed that all the babies and people that died
in the explosion came down from heaven to help fix the
buildings and find all the victims and survivors. They helped
people's hearts so they could build the buildings the way they
were before the bomb, then they brought down roses on their
wings so they could be planted all around and honor the
victims, the firemen, the rescue workers, and all the friends
that helped. They stayed until it was done and, as they left,
the babies told the people never to let this happen again.''
Last Sunday was the third anniversary of the Oklahoma City
bombing. As a Member of Congress who represents the downtown
area, I have been asked by the City fathers and mothers to come
to this subcommittee to request additional funds to continue
the efforts to make Oklahoma City whole again. And I do that on
behalf of my colleague, Mr. Istook, Mayor Humphreys, Eric
Baker, my city, State, and our Nation.
In the second supplemental bill of 1995, there was included
$39 million to help in Community Development Block Grants to
assist Oklahoma City in recovering from this man-made tragedy.
Since then, it has become quite clear that it was difficult to
gauge the true nature of the tragedy, the true cost of the
rebuilding effort and that is why I am here today is to request
first, grant money to use to rebuild, and also money to help
re-establish business in the bomb ravaged area.
On the 23rd of this month, there is an approximately $6.6
million shortfall to building costs and the issue of economic
revitalization has only been minimally addressed. And that is,
to be honest with you, Mr. Chairman, as I look out of the
windows of my office in downtown Oklahoma City I can still see
buildings that have plywood nailed up over the windows left
over from that event. That is, as much as anything, that brings
me here is a request to you to finish the process that we began
as a result of that tragedy. And all of us who were there and
saw that, well, we will be impacted for a very, very long time.
And I appreciate the assistance of the subcommittee in the
past and respectfully request further consideration.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lucas, you have been very responsible in the
way you present a request to us over time. And, as you know, I
was there just after the bombing occurred. It was indeed a
tragedy for the whole community. We will continue to work with
you and appreciate the two-way input that has been a part of
this process as a result of your work.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Stokes.
Mr. Stokes. Chairman, I would just like to say, I think the
whole Nation was moved by the spirit of the people of Oklahoma
City after this tragic occurrence. I had the occasion to be out
there. I have never seen people who were undergoing the healing
process in the way that they were doing. It was something to
behold, to see the whole healing process taking place after
what they had undergone. And so we can certainly empathize with
what you are talking to us about, and certainly are going to
try to do whatever we can to help.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Stokes, it has to be noted that Mr. Lucas,
when he arrived today, he was not asking for very much money
but he wore his UCLA tie, which is really incredible.
[Laughter.]
Talk about sensitivity.
Mr. Stokes. What a good statement. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. It is great to see you, Frank.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Lewis. I will take that tie any day.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1819 - 1828--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, April 23, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
HON. WILLIAM F. GOODLING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE
OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Lewis. We are proceeding by following the list as they
are presented. And the next on our list--that just walked in
the door--Mr. Goodling? Bill Goodling, you are up.
Welcome, Mr. Goodling. Your entire statement will be
included in the record and you can be as brief as you like.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Goodling. I am waiting for my people from back home----
Mr. Lewis. Is that right?
Mr. Goodling [continuing]. To see you in action. I paid big
bucks----
Mr. Lewis. You in action, my friend, you in action.
Mr. Goodling. Well, I thank you very much for the
opportunity to testify. We have a very interesting situation
back in the district in that the City of York has large
overcapacity in their sewage treatment area, and it will remain
that way simply because of York City not being able to expand.
However, right outside of York City you will discover that
Springettsbury Township, on your map, is having the opposite
problem.
And, as a matter of fact, our Department of Environmental
Resources. Well, it is not DER anymore, it is DED, I think. At
any rate, they determine that Springettsbury facility is
hydraulically overloaded, and they have ordered further hook-
ups in Springettsbury Township be severely restricted. Now what
that has meant to Springettsbury Township, which is--was a
booming area----
Mr. Lewis. Kind of closed it down.
Mr. Goodling [continuing]. All of sudden leadership in
Springettsbury Township have to say, ``no more expansion, no
more development.'' And so now, of course, they discover daily
people requesting to come into the area and they have to turn
them down. And it is just a tragic situation because York is
right next door and could really help solve this problem.
So what is needed, very simple, yet effective, would be--
which would directly benefit the 150,000 residents of York
County and spur the growth of that region again. And when I
talk about that region, we are talking about growth such as the
Caterpillar, and Harley Davidson, and so on, that came into the
Springettsbury Township over the years. But what they need is
to be able to hook to the York system. And all that is required
is the construction of a small connector pipeline between the
two facilities.
The Federal request--Federal participation has helped to
achieve that goal, and it is pretty modest. The total project
cost of diverting Springettsbury flow to York is approximately
$6.6 million. This figure includes legal engineering and
administrative costs, and the estimated Federal share of the
project would be about 55 percent, $3.63 million. Communities
that are involved here are absolutely committed to contributing
their share to the whole project.
Another benefit of our proposal that can be completed in a
short amount of time, which is very, very important, in
connection to the system is much smaller in scope than would be
the expansion of their present system. That would take forever
and an awful lot of money. I think something like $46 million.
Mr. Lewis. Is there cooperative agreement?
Mr. Goodling. Pardon?
Mr. Lewis. York is willing to participate?
Mr. Goodling. Oh, yes, yes, no question. So the major
economic benefits are great and the positive effect that it
would have on the environment is also great. So I hope that we
can get some help because they are really in dire need at the
present for that kind of help.
With me, I have representatives from Springettsbury
Township who have to deal with this problem every day and every
day.
Then I would just shift gears to the little Borough of
Delta, which is down in the very end of my district. They have
been told by our environmental protection people that they no
longer--they must go into a sewage treatment program. They no
longer can have their normal house by house waste treatment
program.
To that little community, a dollar means an awful lot. They
need about $500,000 to help them complete a $2.8 million
project. Now the amazing thing about that is right across the
border is Maryland, and because the demand in Maryland is not
as great as in Pennsylvania to get block grant money, Delta
cannot get any from Pennsylvania, and those residents then see
the Maryland people having great benefits from the Federal tax
dollars that they cannot get. And it is a real mess. And,
again, that is about a $500,000 program.
Mr. Lewis. What is the distance between Delta and the
Maryland line?
Mr. Goodling. They go right against each other.
Mr. Lewis. They do?
Mr. Goodling. Right against each other.
Mr. Lewis. Okay.
Mr. Goodling. So the people sitting on this side of the
street say, ``Now, wait a minute.''
Mr. Lewis. I understand.
Mr. Goodling. How come Maryland is getting this----
Mr. Lewis. Okay, Mr. Goodling, we will talk further about
this.
Mr. Goodling. Good.
Mr. Lewis. Okay.
Mr. Goodling. I will appreciate it and, as I said, I cannot
overemphasize a problem that could be settled pretty quickly
with very little money in relationship to what it would cost if
Springettsbury--were they would have to try to expand their
system.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Goodling, your entire statement will be
included in the record. We appreciate your taking the effort to
come, and appreciate your guests as well.
Mr. Goodling. I will appreciate it. Very good.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you.
Mr. Goodling. You will hear from me.
Mr. Lewis. We will be chatting.
Mr. Goodling. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1832 - 1835--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, April 23, 1998
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON
Mr. Lewis. Doc Hastings.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
to be here.
Mr. Lewis. It is good to see you, Doc.
Mr. Hastings. You are allowing the records to be full
statements?
Mr. Lewis. I will include your entire statement in the
record, and you can just briefly tell us what you like.
Mr. Hastings. Briefly, let me tell you, this is the big
part of the Columbia Basin Project, which is this part of
Washington State. And, just to kind of put things into
perspective, here is where Grand Coulee Dam begins. The reason
I say that, Grand Coulee Dam, the water behind Grand Coulee
Dam, irrigates all of the Columbia Basin Project. This has been
going on for some 40 years. And there has been in the past
several years, and by the way, these dots are wells where they
have taken tests on wells, and they have seen that the nitrate
level has come up. They think part of that is because of the
irrigation practices, and that, indeed, may be true.
So the response of EPA initially was to declare all of this
area a ``sole-source aquifer,'' which, frankly, did not make
any sense because there is so much diversity here. There is no
single aquifer. In fact, I can, right here, Moses Lake, within
about two miles, there were two potato plants that were
drilling down to hit an aquifer and within a mile or two there
were two different aquifers.
So EPA kind of backed away and they allowed for the
counties then to look at the nitrate problem on their own. The
State Department of Ecology sanctioned a Groundwater Management
Area. That is essentially this, these, well, actually all of
this area right in here. It has been funded partially by the
State, and partially by local governments. We are asking for
some money to come out of the Environmental Programs and
Management budget for a Federal match to study this and come up
with solutions to this program. The county commissioners in
these counties are all involved in that. They are anxious to
work to get this thing done.
And you are from the West, like I am from the West, we know
when sometimes EPA comes in with an edict, an unfunded mandate,
and kind of sends chills through our spine. And so they want to
do this. EPA has cooperated to this point. So what I would
request is $1.948 million for this Groundwater Management Area.
I think the county commissioners can do a responsible job in
this regard, and they are looking forward to doing that. So
with that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. I appreciate your coming, Congressman Hastings.
And we will take your statement for the record and, indeed,
personalizing this is very helpful.
Mr. Hastings. Okay.
Mr. Lewis. So we will chat.
Mr. Hastings. Good, thank you very much.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1838 - 1839--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, April 23, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESSES
HON. BARNEY FRANK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
MASSACHUSETTS
HON. JAMES P. McGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
MASSACHUSETTS
HON. JOHN TIERNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Lewis. I believe next on our list, we have Barney
Frank, Jim McGovern and John Tierney. The three of you want to
come up together?
Your statements will be included in the record in their
entirety. So if you will briefly describe that which you would
like to communicate, we would appreciate it.
Mr. Tierney. I will do that. First of all, thank you very
much for giving us this opportunity. You remember last year
that we were before you basically talking about the same issue
I would like to address today, and that is looking for your
support and leadership--as you have given in the last year--
with regard to wastewater treatment improvements in my
district, that would be the South Essex Water Treatment Plant,
and individual treatment efforts by communities like Lynn and
Gloucester--sizeable communities that are seeing a tremendous
impact on the cost of their taxes locally because they need the
help meeting the Federal standards.
Last year, you came forward and you helped and it was
really appreciated. You will see some benefit from that. We
have always, historically the committee has given money to the
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, and to other projects
throughout the country. Last year and the year before, that are
the first years the committee was good enough to give money to
the Sixth District and for the South Essex sewer district, and
the other projects within that district.
We have had tremendous financial pressures on that area.
But I can report to you that, with the help of the Committee,
it has made a difference. The local assessments had increased
to $6.3 million. Now they are down to $4.1 billion last year.
So I think you can see that, you know, the efforts that were
had through this committee have complemented the support from
all levels of Government, the local government, and the State,
and the continued relief is basically going to be critical in
that regard, and that is why I am here today.
You are aware, I am sure, of the high costs of water
treatment and sewer improvements, and the strain it puts on
municipal budgets. They are competing for relief with all the
other local needs, you know, whether it is schools, or roads,
or other services.
I can site you one example: in the community of Gloucester,
homeowners there are facing between $12,000 and $22,000 per
home. The impact of making the improvements to meet the
standards that we have federally. It is a tremendous impact for
everybody of all ages, but obviously, particularly, to the
seniors who are people that are trying to put their kids
through school and use the house equity. It has been a crushing
blow to them. And what we can do here is give them some relief.
And we have tried to movewith--this committee has been good
enough to do for in such a way that it goes to those communities where
it has the most impact on that.
So I am hopeful, as you have in the past two years, that
you would see fit to grant our request for $4 million in relief
so that we can put it into the appropriate areas and give a
real worthwhile impact.
I thank you, obviously, for your consideration of this in
the past and ask you to continue with it this year.
Mr. Lewis. I appreciate--the brevity of your remarks helps
an awful lot with your request. [Laughter.]
And if the two of you will keep that in mind.
Mr. Frank. Please and thank you. [Laughter.]
Mr. McGovern. And I agree with Barney. [Laughter.]
Mr. Frank. You have listened to us before, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just say, first, I just want to acknowledge how grateful
we are to this committee under your predecessors' chairmanship
and yours. Obviously, this is something that should be done
through the authorizing process, and it is a problem because we
have not completed the authorization act. A lot of us would
like the Clean Water Act to be authorized. The one promise I
think we can give you is if we get that authorization through,
we will not have to come and intrude upon your time anymore
because the appropriate authorization process--the bill, the
authorizing bill that went through the House, had problems on
the other side, would have accommodated this problem and I do
not think any of us would have to be here.
Mr. Lewis. That is right.
Mr. Frank. So we appreciate that. Until then, it is very
important, I think, to do this. Obviously, the great bulk is,
the tally still is not being paid for locally and by the State.
But what is important, I think, is we do not want to get the
kind of revolt at the local level that would lead people to
undercut the whole basic statute. I think the fact that the
Federal government, absent some effort on your part, this
becomes a totally unfunded mandate. And it then becomes
leverage against the bill. The appropriate place to deal with
that is in authorization. We hope that will happen, but in the
interim this is important, both financially, and is an earnest
that the Federal government has not abandoned them.
Mr. Lewis. One of the ironies that we live with day in and
day out is about 85 percent of our bills are not authorized,
and yet, authorizing committees say, ``You know, how come you
guys are always authorizing on this bill.'' [Laughter.]
Mr. Frank. And I think that you point out, Chairman, people
have this backwards on the turf battle. Most of us would rather
have the other people doing their job.
Mr. Lewis. Absolutely, absolutely.
Mr. Frank. But I did want to say, this is for both the
money that I'm particularly contending for and the money for
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.
Mr. Lewis. Okay. Mr. Stokes?
Mr. Stokes. I just appreciate the gentleman, their
testimony, and, of course, we worked with them in the past and
we will certainly continue to do so in every way we can.
Mr. McGovern. Let me just say, I share a community with
Barney, Fall River, that has a problem with the funding, the
CSO project, and I am here to second what he is saying. And I
have two other projects that are in my testimony which----
Mr. Lewis. We will look at that very carefully.
Mr. McGovern. Absolutely terrific, and thank you very much.
Mr. Frank. Could I just add that we were also talking
particularly about communities--myself and Mr. Tierney
represent communities which have been hit hard by federally-
mandated cutbacks in fishing; Fall River, by, you know, Federal
trade policy and textiles. So these aren't people who we're
trying to vest, but other Federal policies have put them in a
somewhat different situation.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Mollohan.
Mr. Mollohan. Sounds like a good request to me, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you all very much.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1843 - 1845--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, April 23, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW
JERSEY
Mr. Lewis. Got to you as fast as I could, Mr. Saxton.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, Mr.
Frelinghuysen and I represent a State in which 7.6 million
people share the dubious distinction of having the most
Superfund sites of any State in our country. And so it is in
our desire, my desire, and I hope, I am sure I speak for Rodney
as well, that the $2.1 roughly billion that has been requested
by the Administration for Superfund be appropriated.
In my district, there is a town which also has the dubious
distinction, that is, there is an abnormally high rate of brain
stem cancer in young children. And through your help and with
Mr. Frelinghuysen's help last year, we set up a $5 million
study program in cooperation with the State of New Jersey, that
is a $5 million Federal program in cooperation with the State
of New Jersey, administered the Agency for Toxic and Substance
Disease Registry, we appropriated, you appropriated $2 billion
last year. The appropriation for $2 billion this year will
continue that study to try and determine what it is that is
causing the abnormal number of young people to have brain stem
cancer.
Also, of primary importance on a slightly different
direction, is funding the National Estuary Program, which has
been requested for this year which is $30 million for fiscal
year 1999. And it is important, I think, that the EPA's
administration expenses with regard to that number be capped at
25 percent or $4.3 million--that arithmetic does not work but I
guess----
Mr. Lewis. We will look very carefully at your testimony
and make sure we calculate the numbers right.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Appreciate it, Mr. Saxton.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lewis. Okay, thanks Jim.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1847 - 1853--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, April 23, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
HON. MIKE McINTYRE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Shays is not here. Mr. Saxon has just made
his presentation. Mr. Roemer is not here. Mr. McIntyre? We are
going to just keep going right through the roll, and if they
are not here we will just. Mr. Blumenauer? Joe Kennedy? Peter
Visclosky? Have we cut out for their time yet?
Barbara Kennelly? Lane Evans? Very unusual. We are going to
get very close to schedule here. [Laughter.]
Jim Clyburn? Jerry Kleczka? Tom Barrett? And I have not
seen Mr. Oberstar. All of those that have submitted testimony
will be included in the record as though they were presented.
[Laughter.]
Frank Pallone, Jr.? Jerry Weller? Are we up to schedule
yet? [Laughter.]
If you will excuse me, I will make a phone call.
[Laughter.]
Isn't this great? I love this. If I have the support of my
members, I will include in the record the testimony of all
those members up through Mr. Saxton. Mr. Roemer is due at
10:18.
Mr. Mollohan, do you want to give your testimony?
Mr. Mollohan. I have got a few that----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. I think we have a chance to talk about your's.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Mollohan. You are not recording now are you?
Mr. Lewis. We are still on the record. Why don't we just
close her down for moment. Mr. McIntyre, we are including
Members' statements in their entirety in the record, and you
can summarize your comments, requests, or otherwise. The
briefer testimony normally gets much higher level of
consideration. [Laughter.]
Mr. McIntyre. Great. That is why you are running ahead of
schedule, right? Well, that is why, as I was practicing law the
last 15 years, those who got to the point the judges would talk
good about, those who had to spend an hour explaining it, they
knew there was a problem. [Laughter.]
So I will be glad to go right ahead if you are ready for
me.
Mr. Lewis. We are ready.
Mr. McIntyre. Thank you for this opportunity. I am here to
testify on behalf of a very small town in my district that is
predominately African American. Its, most of its elected
officials are African American, and they need $2.5 million to
construct a facility that would serve as both the community
center and a museum.
In this town, of Navassa, N-A-V-A-S-S-A, North Carolina,
there is no adequate meeting hall, health care facility, day
care facility for children after school, or for senior
citizens, or recreational facilities. What we are looking at is
one multi-purpose facility that could meet a host of needs that
are very dire.
This is a very poverty stricken area. It has been
designated as being economically depressed by the North
Carolina Rural Center. It would include an opportunity for
health care services to be given through this facility when we
have rural health care needs that come to the area. This is an
area that also has been subject to hurricanes. It is not right
on the coast, but it is in a coastal region not far from the
coast. In times of national emergencies, or the hurricanes that
my district was hit with two years ago when our entire area was
declared a Federal disaster area.
Specific organizations, cultural heritage organizations,
recreation, and then, as I have said, for senior citizens, as
well as for day care for young children, and for students who,
quite frankly, do not have any alternatives. And we know the
concerns there with juveniles in terms of having no outlet at
all for recreation. It would also have the opportunity to be
used as a multi-purpose center to include an auditorium for
special events there in the community as well.
And when we talk about health care we already have a tie in
with the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, which is
only about 12 to 15 miles away with their School of Nursing,
that they would come in to work with senior citizens and to
work with infants and children in terms of health care needs.
They would also let this be a cultural center to document some
of the African American heritage in that area and could also
use it during appropriate hours when it was not being used for
other activities as a museum there and cultural center.
I would ask you to consider this. I think given the amount
we are requesting of $2.5 million that this would be money that
would be worth ten times that amount in terms of the multi-
uses, the multi-ages, and the multiple impact it would have on
that area.
And I will implore your kind consideration.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. McIntyre, we very much appreciate your
input. As I indicated, we will, as we go forward with our
budget allocation, we will look carefully at your request. Your
personalizing it is very much appreciated.
Mr. McIntyre. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Mollohan?
Mr. McIntyre. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. That is it. Make sure you leave that testimony
we will be glad to----
Mr. McIntyre. Great.
Mr. Mollohan. I have myself spent time in this area and can
say with firsthand experience how much this would mean to that
area.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mike.
Mr. McIntyre. Thank you, have a good day.
[The information follows:]
[Page 1856--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, April 23, 1998.
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
HON. EARL BLUMENAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
OREGON
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Mollohan, Mr. Frelinghuysen was suggesting
that the odds are very, very good that in this very room last
century Members were coming in and doing exactly the same
thing. We did not have the mechanical devices, but it was the
same process which I thought was an interesting comment.
Mr. Mollohan. I think it is the essence of this democracy,
actually, that we are able to do that and bring those needs
directly from a district to a congressional committee with a
prayer for funding.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Frank earlier suggested that Bill Dannemeyer
probably did not know about the paintings in this room or we
might have been closed down.
Mr. Mollohan. Is that right? [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. Nothing is off the record.
Mr. Mollohan. I am surprised Frank noticed. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. He scribbled a note.
Mr. Blumenauer has arrived. He now has two minutes left in
his time span. [Laughter.]
Mr. Blumenauer. Do I need to use all of it? [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. You really do not need your notes. If you could
submit your testimony for the record and summarize it, we would
very much appreciate it. I must say we have a lack of
membership so we kind of feel unattended to.
Mr. Blumenauer. Well, it maybe, Mr. Chairman, it maybe
speaking to the----
Mr. Lewis. Well, with that tie you do not have to do
anything. That is wonderful.
Mr. Blumenauer. Good. Well, we will just submit a list. I
do appreciate the opportunity to spend a couple of moments. And
I will try and be brief. I will be submitting a statement for
the record, and I will be also following up with some
information in one particular area that I may be seeking
guidance from the Committee in terms of what we might be able
to do for a very innovative program dealing with homeless
youth, as I have been working around the country.
I have only been in Congress two years, but I have had a
chance to visit 30 different cities. And I have been stunned at
how people have been wrestling with the same problem. There
seems to be a growing part of the homeless population. And a
group of businessmen and women in Portland have come together
with a fully privately funded program--it actually has some
roots in California--focusing on ways to treat these children
in a more directed fashion. They are not looking necessarily
for Federal funds but I think the opportunity for the Federal
government to help evaluate, does it really work, can we pull
these children out? Eliminating premature deaths, the crime,
and the heartbreak that goes with their, that lifestyle. And so
I will be submitting some information about that. I think it is
worthy of some consideration.
Mr. Lewis. Yes, please do. We will include it in the
record.
Mr. Blumenauer. A more traditional approach that I will be
following up on very briefly speaks to some of the work that we
have had in the City of Portland with the development of
Housing and Urban Development to connect urban housing with
transportation under the Department's Special Purposes Grants.
And there are two components that I would touch on, one, is the
Central City Streetcar, and the second project called
University House. The Central City Streetcar is being developed
in Portland, using Federal investment in a way to connect parts
of the downtown to promote urban redevelopment. The Portland
State University is keyed into this through the, on the path of
the Streetcar. And they are looking at developing an assisted
living and retirement center called ``University House,'' which
would provide housing and services to a range of seniors,
including Medicaid clients. Having the housing directly
adjacent to the streetcar line would do much to both strengthen
the Central City and improve the quality of life for the
seniors. The City and Portland State are requesting $4.7
million for the two projects.
Another project that has a significant impact on the
quality of life in our community is FEMA's Project Impact. I
have been on the Water Resources Subcommittee. I have been
stunned with what FEMA is doing to try and prevent disasters
and get taxpayers out of the process of bailing out people,
literally and figuratively. FEMA has requested $20 million to
be added to the Pre-disaster Mitigation Program Fund,
increasing the total to $50 million. This increase would permit
FEMA to create a Project Impact community in every State. As
members of your subcommittee know, the Project Impact Program
will help show the communities the benefit of risk prevention,
saving lives in scarce budget dollars. I am convinced this
investment will literally save hundreds of millions, if not
billions, in the long-run and be a step towards more
responsible activity.
We have also a request for some assistance with the
Columbia Slough Revitalization Project. Columbia River Slough
is a severely polluted area due to its physical separation from
the diluting powers of the Columbia, Willamette Rivers. These,
the continued Federal support for this program is very
important now because Portland is the first urban area that has
been impacted under an ESA, Endangered Species Act, still had
recovery. We think that we will have an opportunity to show how
urban areas can work in a cooperative sense to try and deal
with species restoration in a cost-effective fashion and get
some of our urban dwellers involved.
I think it has two benefits: one, in terms of species'
restoration, and for people who are a little cranky about the
ESA, it may also help demonstrate that these things pinch in
urban areas, as well as rural as well. So we would like your
consideration to continue the second phase of that project.
As I say, I submit information about the evaluation of the
homeless program. I appreciate your courtesy today, and I hope
I did not take too much more than my allotted two minutes.
Mr. Lewis. Congressmen, we appreciate your input and your
entire statement will be in the record. I want you to know that
I have a good deal more empathy for your trout problem than I
do for the New Delhi Sands ever-loving fly which is a gnat that
is interrupting a hospital being built. But in the meantime,
you know, all things in their own way. Very much appreciate
your being here. Your mentioning FEMA is important. Their
mitigation efforts are very, very significant. And I agree with
you, they are on a pathway that, if designed properly, will
save us at least millions, maybe well beyond that. Thanks a
lot.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Lewis. You have submitted, you will be submitting your
testimony, right?
Mr. Blumenauer. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lewis. Got it? All right. Thank you, good.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1860 - 1863--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, April 23, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
INDIANA
Mr. Lewis. We will just go in to recess for a moment.
[Recess.]
Mr. Frelinghuysen [presiding]. Thank you Mr. Visclosky for
being with us. Again, a copy of your entire statement will be
put in the record. Thank you very much for being with us.
Mr. Visclosky. Chairman, thank you very much. The members
of the Committee, the staff have been very good to work with
the past. You have been very kind, considerate, and generous in
the past, and I would anticipate working closely with you as we
approach PARKA. The statement is a matter of public record and
appreciate your consideration.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you very much. Any questions or
comments, David?
Mr. Price. No, glad to have our colleague here.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We are really moving along here.
Mr. Visclosky. Thanks.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1865 - 1867--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, April 23, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
HON. BARBARA B. KENNELLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE
OF CONNECTICUT
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Pleased to welcome Congresswoman Barbara
Kennelly, how are you? Thank you for coming.
Mrs. Kennelly of Connecticut. I never saw such speedy----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We are really coming along.
Barbara, a copy of your full statement will be put in the
record, and we welcome you here this morning.
Mrs. Kennelly of Connecticut. Oh, thank you so much,
Rodney. And thank you all for having me here this morning to be
able to testify about a project that is very near and dear to
my heart. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I think you do know the City
of Hartford and you know its proud history, and this is an area
right downtown, away from downtown, which is very, very key to
the area.
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis [presiding]. Thank you. Sorry for that. Please
proceed.
Mrs. Kennelly of Connecticut. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Your entire statement will be included in the
record. I am sure he probably told you that, and, you know, we
are happy to see you.
Mrs. Kennelly of Connecticut. I want to tell you about an
ambitious and important revitalization project being undertaken
in my hometown of Hartford, Connecticut and to ask for your
support for my request of $5.9 million in Economic Development
Initiative funds for severely depressed Southside city.
I was just saying, Mr. Chairman, that when people think of
Hartford, Connecticut, they often think of the insurance
capital of the world. Unfortunately, Hartford is the fourth
poorest city in the Nation of cities over 100,000. Its
residents continue to struggle through difficult economic
times. A 1990 survey for the Southeast neighborhood that we
are, excuse me, the Southside neighborhood, that we are talking
about found that 62 percent of all households are below
poverty, 72 percent headed by single heads of the household,
and only half of the over the age of, only half of the people
over the age of 28 have finished high school. Forty-five
percent of the children who start high school drop out, many
fail----
Mr. Lewis. Is that right?
Mrs. Kennelly of Connecticut. This is, no one realizes
about Hartford, Connecticut, but unfortunately this is
developed a, we have very, very, very strong zoning regulations
within the surrounding suburbs, and very large lot sites. So
they are very difficult for somebody in poverty to come out of
the city into the surrounding area, and so, as a result, there
has been an impact building up for years.
Fortunately, the city and its community leaders and
organizations have not turned their back on the Southside
neighborhood. Instead they have come together to turn this
trend around and to make this city and its neighborhoods thrive
again. The Southside Institution Neighborhood Alliance, SINA,
is working on a community investment, a renewal plan, to
revitalize 15 block areas in the heart of the historic Frog
Hollow, Barry Square neighborhoods of Hartford. SINA, led by
Trinity College, the Connecticut Children Medical Center, of
Hartford Hospital, the Institute of Living, and Connecticut
Public Television and Radio, have already contributed $10
million of their resources to this project, this community-
based project.
I would like to mention to you, Mr. Chairman, that Trinity
College is now headed up with an incredibly vital, exciting new
president, Evan Duvell, who has really put his life on the line
for this neighborhood. And part of his taking the job was that
he could be involved intimately with the revitalization of the
area around Trinity College which, as you know, is a
longstanding, well-known college. And the Connecticut Children
Medical Center is a new hospital, Mr. Chairman, which has
several funds in it and could not have been completed unless
Federal funds had been allowed to go into that hospital. The
hospital is a magnificent hospital, but, unfortunately, as we
all know, children's hospitals do not get Medicare payments. So
many things are going on here but because of the leadership of
the city and the people involved, there is great hope.
The Neighborhood Initiative encompasses projects to renew
housing, increase home ownership and employment opportunities,
spark retail and commercial development, expand parking, and
improve streetscapes. It is estimated these projects will
result in 400 new jobs.
The second part of this renewal project is the Learning
Corridor. This is what I am very excited about which would be
constructed over the next four years on the site of a former
bus garage which I, as a city councilwoman, got taken down
because the environmental problems of that bus garage, and it
has been acquired. Since then it went to the State of the
Connecticut, and it is back to have some wonderful things
happen on this area. The site will house the regional
Montessori-style public elementary school; a public
neighborhood middle school; a regional math, science and
technology high school; a resource center; a regional arts high
school program; and a professional teacher training and
development center.
While SINA and its partners have met success since the
beginning of this initiative in 1996, more needs to be done.
Let me illustrate some of these successes. SINA has raised $3
million for the Family Life Center, $1.2 million in private
funds for the construction of Boy's and Girl's Club.
The list goes on, Mr. Chairman. What I am trying to
emphasize is there is leadership, there is money being put
forth from the community, and this is why this additional help,
it is not as if we are coming when there is nothing happening,
we are coming because so much is happening that this could
really make things blossom.
SINA has also cleared up a major hazardous waste site,
provided financial assistance to the Hartford Police Department
in its fight against drugs. It is truly a community-based
effort focused on all aspects of life for the residents of this
area around the greater downtown Hartford, moving out into the
surrounding neighborhoods. Federal support to leverage the
private, corporation, and local money is in place of being
raised, is critical to the overall success of the neighborhood
initiative. The $5.9 million which I have requested would be
used for the following comprehensive developments: $2.6 for gap
financing for first-time homeowners; $2.5 million for the
development of 25,000 square feet of rental space for
unemployed and underemployed community residents; the Learning
Corridor, as I talked about, a $750,000 Micro loan program. It
is estimated that the funding will create 84 new home ownership
places, and this is where Mr. Duvell has become so incredibly
successful in Trinity buying up property around the college and
really emphasizing home ownership within that area with the
hospitals with Trinity College. It is all there, made to be
better.
The project is a critical step for the revitalizing of the
Crest neighborhood and the city of Hartford and I would
appreciate any support you might give me; there is great
support at home for this project. I am asking that we get more
support. The Federal government has been supportive and I thank
you very much for the time you have given me.
Mr. Lewis. Congresswoman Kennelly, we appreciate your
coming and personalizing these problems. Hartford, Connecticut,
does provide that vision that you suggest. You think of the
insurance companies, this new leadership, Trinity College being
tapped as a resource. All of that is very logical to me and if
we can help, that's fine.
Mrs. Kennelly of Connecticut. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very
much.
Mr. Price. No questions. I know that this project has
received national attention though; the leadership of Trinity
College and working with the city.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Kennedy, your questions have been submitted
for the record; we'll see you later. [Laughter.]
Ms. Kennelly of Connecticut. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much. Good to see you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1871 - 1878--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, April 23, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
HON. JOSEPH P. KENNEDY II, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE
OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Lewis. I was only partially kidding. Get up here, Joe.
Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Brevity is important.
Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts. I get the message. The
quicker I talk, the more money I get? [Laughter.]
Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I
appreciate the opportunity to come and talk before the
Committee this morning.
I am here to discuss the need for increased funding for
homeless programs in our country. As you know, Mr. Chairman,
you have been one of the strongest voices for continued support
for housing programs and it has been very, very critical to
many, many very poor people around the country to have had your
leadership and I want to thank you for that. I know how
difficult some of those fights have been in the last couple of
years and how much you have, in fact, stood up for HUD in times
when it was easy to take potshots at that agency. So I, first
of all I want to thank you, and other members of the Committee,
for the work that you have done and just let you know that
despite your very important efforts, as you are well aware,
homeless funding and housing in general has suffered
unbelievable budget cuts in comparison to almost every other
Federal agency.
In the last couple of years we have seen housing funding
generally cut by almost 25 percent and the same with homeless
funding at the same time. And, as a result, the amount of money
has been reduced to just over about $820 million. The fact of
the matter of it that while the economy is booming and we see
so many statistics about how well things are going, if you look
at actually what is going at the homeless shelters across our
country we see unbelievable increases in the demand for
homeless shelter system.
I think the nationwide studies the Council of Mayors
recently indicated that there was a 64 percent increase in
demand on homeless shelters. I have spent time going around to
homeless shelters across Massachusetts. Just in the last month
I probably visited over a dozen of them, Mr. Chairman, and
every one of them has--and I can give you a whole list of
statistics on the increases, but the fact of the matter is that
the demand is staggering and it is staggering at a time when
generally you see, at least on a traditional basis, that with
the coming of the warmer months people tend not to use these
shelters as much, and yet, at this particular time, we see the
demand increasing.
I know that you are aware that the Chairman, as well as the
Ranking Member, including the chairman of the Housing
Committee, Mr. Lazio, and myself have all written to you and
members of this committee asking for a billion dollar level
instead of the $823 million. I know funds are short, but I do
believe that this is an important program.
HUD has come up with a way to, I think, fund this program
without asking for an overall aggregate increase in their
budget authority numbers so I am hopeful that maybe we can find
a way of actually getting them the increase that they really
need this year.
This isn't the kind of situation where I hoped we go from
$823 million, with a smaller increase to, and I really hope we
can get to the billion dollar level of funding this year, which
would really just restore it to where it was, you know, about
four or five years ago.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Kennedy, we very much appreciate your input.
I know that you are as aware as any Member of the House that
authorization would help us a lot in this process. You are one
of the people who is banging on the door saying we ought to get
that job.
Indeed, it is important to the Committee. We do not want to
do the authorizing work on our subcommittee and yet we don't
really have much alternative.
So your continued effort there--I wish that Mr. Stokes was
able to be here for this is his last year and I know he would
want to join with the rest of us expressing our appreciation to
you as you go on to expanded horizons. We will miss your smile
as well as your voice.
Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts. I don't know how ``expanded''
they'll be, Mr. Chairman, but, nevertheless, they will be
challenging, and I am looking to them.
You know, I very much appreciate and I always had hoped
that we could find a way to get these bills authorized. I think
it is important that people take the authorization process much
more seriously and find ways to compromise on issues to enable
a bill to get passed into law. As you know, this has really
become an issue over some intractability on individuals'
behalf, because I think we have found ways to get these bills
passed, and passed overwhelmingly, but the truth of the matter
is that people don't, in the end, between the House and the
Senate find a way to compromise out the differences. So it
doesn't quite work.
So it's up to you, and we need the billion dollars.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. Thank you for coming and asking.
Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Mr. Chairman, I want to add my thanks to our
colleague, a classmate, in my case. We came in together and
were on the Banking Committee together for a number of years,
and Joe's continued to be a strong advocate on that authorizing
committee. So I appreciate what you are trying to do there and
hope that we can figure out some way through our appropriation
to be of help, because these are urgent needs. You are
certainly correct about that.
Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts. Thank you very much.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Joe. Good luck to you.
Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Could I ask you, Mr. Chairman. Have you formed any opinions
about the whole issue in terms FHA versus Fannie in terms of
raising the ceilings on the loan limits?
Mr. Lewis. We certainly have no formal position. There,
too, we are awaiting the authorizers. There are people who
suggested that perhaps that should be done by way of this bill,
and being from the West, where we have high house prices, there
is some temptation, but at the same time we want to see if the
system will work. For a while we're going to massage that
before we make a decision here.
Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts. Well, all I would say is, if
you are looking for the billion dollars, that would be a way to
get it. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. It's like $400 million, as I understand it.
Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts. Yes.
Mr. Lewis. Really you are correct on all of this. I heard
by way of an echo over here that we might pick it up by way of
permission from the authorizers.
Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts. Absolutely. [Laughter.]
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1882 - 1888--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, April 23, 1998.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
WITNESS
HON. LANE EVANS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS
Mr. Lewis. Lane Evans has been very patient during all of
this. Mr. Evans come on up.
Mr. Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. You probably don't know, we've been trying to go
by the way of order of the list, and while you were patiently
here, Joe popped in.
Mr. Evans. I think you are right on time, actually, trying
to run a good committee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak
to you. I would like to submit a written statement for the
daily record.
Mr. Lewis. It will be included in its entirety and if you'd
summarize it for us, we'd appreciate it.
Mr. Evans. I also want to pay tribute to our colleague, Mr.
Stokes, who is leaving us. He's been a good voice for veterans
in Congress and we appreciate his many years of service to our
country.
Congress in the face of competing demands must demonstrate
the courage our veterans have repeatedly shown over the decade.
We've got to have the courage to provide nothing less than the
resources needed to adequately fund benefits for veterans. The
House Committee on Appropriations, and this subcommittee in
particular, have a unique and special opportunity and
responsibility to provide those resources needed to meet our
Nation's obligation to its veterans.
For the next fiscal year, I request that you provide no
less than $18.1 billion for veterans' health care, an increase
of $481 million over the Administration's recommendation; a 20
percent increase in current education benefits for veterans,
their dependents, and survivors, not contingent on the proposed
elimination of compensation for smoking-related illnesses
determined by the VA to be service connected.
Mr. Chairman, it is very important that we improve
education and make sure that veterans on the GI bill are not
left out getting adequate resources to go to college and
vocational schools.
For the Veterans' Benefit Administration $21 million over
the Administration's request to improve claims processing and
related employee training; a total of $865,000 for the
veterans' consortium pro bono program, which provides lawyers
to needy veterans who are appealing VA decisions at the Court
of Veterans Appeals; $43 million above the administration's
request for grants to the States for grants to veterans'
nursing home; $134 million more than requested by the
administration for construction of VA facilities, and I have a
number of other proposals, Mr. Chairman, that I will put into
the record.
I just want to finally conclude that 50 years ago,
President Roosevelt reminded the American people that, ``Those
who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy forget in
time that men have died to win them.''
America's veterans have kept their solemn oath to support
and defend the Constitution of the United States and in so
doing, they have made extraordinary sacrifices in order to
preserve the liberties and freedoms that we take for granted.
Thank you for the opportunity.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Evans, your testimony is very much
appreciated. Very few Members come and go through ten pages in
two minutes.
Mr. Price. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to add my welcome to our
colleague and thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Evans. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1891 - 1894--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, April 23, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
HON. JAMES E. CLYBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
SOUTH CAROLINA
Mr. Lewis. Let's see, Jim Clyburn's been here for a while.
Come on up, Jim. Did you see that? How fast he went through
that? [Laughter.]
Mr. Evans. Oh, yes.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, good to see you.
Mr. Clyburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Committee. It's nice talking to you. Thank you for allowing me
to be here. I appreciate this opportunity and want to talk to
you on behalf of three projects in South Carolina's Sixth
Congressional District.
The first project is the Lake Marion Regional Water Agency.
This is a dynamic initiative which will provide much needed
potable water for residents in fourteen municipalities and six
counties in my district. Most remarkably, all of the
jurisdictions in the service area have signed into the
agreement called the Lake Marion Regional Agency to provide the
required service. The project will include a water intake at
Lake Marion, a water treatment plant, and transmission lines to
meet a projected maximum demand of 21 million gallons a day by
the year 2015.
Mr. Chairman, when the Roosevelt administration constructed
Lakes Marion and Moultrie, it implemented the largest WPA
project east of the Mississippi. I view this Lake Marion
Regional Water Agency as a natural extension of this federally-
recognized resource.
Mr. Lewis. Was it WPA constructed?
Mr. Clyburn. The problem we have here though, Mr. Chairman,
is that this projected system is surrounded by, of the area
contains high unemployment, largest concentration of
minorities, highest levels of poverty, and the largest
concentration of welfare recipients in our State.
Yet, it is surrounded by 8 technical colleges, 12 four-year
institutions, colleges and universities, and the Port of
Charleston, and 2 interstate highways.
Yet, all of this is to no avail if we do not cure the
quality of water in this area so we can attract industry.
Now, the second project I am talking about is the
Shulerville/Honey Hill Water Project in Berkeley County. This
project will provide potable water service to over 700
residences and businesses, and two public schools. Why this
project is so important to us is that the South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control has already put
us on notice that this area is going to be declared an imminent
health risk to South Carolina. Two schools, two public schools,
two big industries, 700 residents--we really need to do
something about this, Mr. Chairman. In fact, Macedonia High
School, located in this area, burned to the ground a couple of
years ago because there aren't any hydrants at all in this
area.
Now the third project that I want to talk to you about is
the Williamsburg County Industrial Park. It is located in
Williamsburg County, South Carolina, a county that ever since
I've been in the Congress, ever since I can remember, has had
the highest unemployment in South Carolina, usually between 14
and 20 percent every month.
A dramatic drop in the month of March and it is attributed
to trade and tourism, but if you are going to sustain that, you
need an industrial park in this area and we are asking for $1.5
million to do that, Mr. Chairman. We believe that the people in
this county are very deserving of more activity on their behalf
and are asking for your consideration today or remedial
projects to do things where a high concentration of people
live, yet, they are the things that people take for granted
outside of this area.
Mr. Lewis. Let me, just make a couple of points. I wish
that Mr. Stokes were here, but I know that you will communicate
personally with him about some of these types of concerns.
I, frankly, am grateful that the Congress doesn't determine
where hydrants should go. I mean, that should be a fundamental
problem of the local planning people. Sometimes we can help
with funding dollar resources that allow that planning to go
forward in terms of real product, but there needs to be a plan,
a comprehensive plan on the part of people that will use these
money successfully.
But another item relative to this area that struck me as
you provided your testimony is this consortium of colleges and
universities that has potential in terms of impacting and
motivating the educational opportunities for the young people,
especially in that impacted community. I presume there may be
some consortium effort going on. If not, I think it would be
very worthwhile.
Mr. Clyburn. Well, absolutely. And I agree with you. In
fact, the school that I'm a graduate of is located in this
area, and we are educating people. The only problem is these
people have to leave if they ever want employment.
The most dramatic thing I find in this area--and this is
about six to seven miles along Interstate 95 that I'm talking
about, and in that seven-mile stretch, we're producing $28
million of work per day. The same stretch, the same distance
along I-85 up in Greenville/Spartanburg they produce $242
million a day. We're talking about the difference in 792
industries up there and 95 industries in this area. The
difference is 9,000 jobs in this area and 67,000 up there. And
you are not going to cure that problem if you do not cure the
potable water problems in this area.
We can educate all that all you want. But if they want to
employ, if they want to raise their quality of life, if they
want to lower their instances of diseases, we've got to cure
the water problems in this area, and the State has not
committed itself to this.
It took me four of the five years I've been here to get
these municipalities and these six counties all in the same
room to sign the agreement. And I've been working on this since
I've been here. I feel that we over halfway there by doing
that, but I do know that, in spite of a willingness to now sit
down together, we are going to have to find the resources for
them, and the State has now begun to make a commitment. I
announced in the Federal Government to make a commitment as
well. I believe we can really see a dramatic change in the
quality of life as well as the opportunities for the people in
this area if we can have a commitment.
Mr. Lewis. Well, thank you very much for coming, Mr.
Clyburn. We will have your entire testimony in the record.
Mr. Clyburn. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1898 - 1899--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, April 23, 1998.
MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
WITNESSES
HON. THOMAS M. BARRETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
WISCONSIN
HON. JERRY KLECZKA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
WISCONSIN
Mr. Lewis. Are Mr. Kleczka and Mr. Barrett here? If you
will come up.
Gentlemen, your testimony will be included in the record in
its entirety and you may be as brief as you wish.
Mr. Barrett. I think I'll start out. We're here to support
the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District proposal to repair
and rehabilitate its most essential wastewater conveyance
infrastructure, the central metropolitan interceptor sewer
system.
This proposal includes the repair and replacement of 36
miles of pipeline and 700 manholes constructed between 1885 and
1925. These ancient pipelines, many made of brick and sometimes
wood, carry 60 percent of the wastewater flow. The system is
located in the oldest section of Milwaukee, which is also the
downtown central business district. Also the area is located at
the confluence of three major rivers, the Milwaukee, Monamine,
and the Kinnickinnic, at the point of discharge into Lake
Michigan, the main source of drinking water for the Milwaukee
area.
The timing of the project is critical. The sewers are in a
state of constant surcharge, and have been for many years. It
is a technical engineering challenge to evaluate, investigate,
and rehabilitate this sewer system. The first challenge was to
locate a place to divert wastewater to allow both investigation
and construction. A diversion option was not available until
the completion of the in-line storage system in 1994.
The second challenge is the dewatering of the pipelines,
which could result in collapse and other structural damage to
the sewers. Because of these dangers, this project calls for
extraordinary state-of-the-art investigation techniques such as
sonar, ground penetrating radar, seismic imaging, underwater
inspection, and wall core extraction.
These techniques only recent being applied to sewer
investigation could serve as a national demonstration project.
I would like to share a brief story with you that I think
will highlight the urgency of the needed changes. Recently
during a routine system check, sewer workers in Milwaukee
discovered a life-threatening situation where the sewer system
is located. A sewer had collapsed, causing the soil above the
collapse to be washed away. The road above the collapse was
literally suspended in midair with the asphalt and concrete
holding itself up. The section of road happened to be directly
in front of the Miller Brewing Company facility, where hundreds
of trucks come and go each day. It was only a matter of luck
that one of these trucks hadn't crashed through the pavement
into the large hole in the ground caused by the decrepit sewer
system which would have resulted in thousands of Americans not
having beer. [Laughter.]
That section of the sewer system and the road were repaired
before any serious injuries had occurred. It is only a matter
of time before similar situations arise. Cave-ins or collapse
could result in injury, death, property damage, and sewer
service disruption.
The danger posed to roads and motorists isn't the only
danger. A faulty sewer system poses dangerous health and
environmental hazards as well. Because of its proximity to Lake
Michigan, the deteriorating sewer system poses a threat of
contamination to Milwaukee's drinking water.
In conclusion, both Congressman Kleczka and I are here to
underscore the severity of the situation. The dangers are real
and the problem needs to be addressed. We hope this committee
agrees with us that the MMSD needs assistance to ensure that
the Milwaukee has a safe and environmentally sound sewer
system.
Thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen [presiding]. Thank you.
Mr. Kleczka. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to be
here before the Subcommittee to emphasize the importance of
Federal assistance in rehabilitating the central metropolitan
interceptor system in Milwaukee.
My colleague, Tom Barrett, has already explained the severe
ramifications that may occur if the central metropolitan
interceptor system, or MIS, is not reconstructed in a timely
manner. I would like to talk about the financial aspects of
this project.
The total cost of the MIS system reconditioning is
estimated to be $238 million over a 10-year period with the
Fiscal Year 1999 cost totaling $46 million. We are here seeking
a 50 percent match, or $23 million, in Fiscal Year 1999 from
the State and Tribal Assistance Grants program to move forward
with this critical project.
The metropolitan sewerage district's share will be financed
through a loan from the Wisconsin Clean Water Fund, 70 percent
of which are State contributions. Repayment will be made
through revenue received from Milwaukee area ratepayers.
Furthermore, the loan from the Clean Water Fund will consist
only of State contributions--meaning the sewerage district's
share of the cost will be financed exclusive with State and
local funds.
Repairing the MIS is also critical to preserving past
investments by the sewerage district. Milwaukee recently
completed the in-line storage system--a rainwater overflow
storage system--at a cost of $2.1 billion. Seventy-eight
percent of these funds came from State and local authorities,
which increased tax rates by as much as 600 percent. A
catastrophic failure of the MIS would prevent sewage from being
conveyed to the in-line facility, thereby canceling its
usefulness and wasting the enormous financial investment by the
Milwaukee citizenry.
As Mr. Barrett points out, devastating sewer failures
threaten the public health and welfare, but they also have
serious financial implications. A failure of a twenty-foot
section of sewer in downtown Milwaukee in 1990 cost the
sewerage district $1.5 million in emergency funds. The repairs
to the sewer took over nine months to complete, disrupting area
businesses and adjacent utilities. Clearly, it is financially
prudent to attend to the MIS before it collapses so that local
ratepayers will not have to pay for emergency repairs to the
tune or $1.5 million for twenty feet of pipeline. Remember
there are thirty-six miles of sewer in disrepair.
Finally, Milwaukee area residents continue to pay an
additional $60 a year, or 30 percent more than the national
average, for wastewater conveyance and treatment.
Rehabilitation of the Central MIS will ensure that rates will
not go higher.
We hope we have relayed the critical need for the funding
for this project. I want to thank the committee for its time
and consideration.
Mr. Lewis [presiding]. Mr. Barrett and Mr. Kleczka, we
appreciate very much your being here. Jerry, your testimony is
very helpful.
Mr. Kleczka. I wasn't brief. You were just in the other
room.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Price?
Mr. Price. No questions, but thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thanks, Jerry.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1903 - 1905--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, April 23, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
NEW JERSEY
Mr. Lewis. If you would like to address the Committee, Mr.
Pallone, you have approximately 30 seconds, can you summarize
your remarks.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. And your entire statement will be included in
the record and we know all of your view on these issues and we
appreciate your voting for our bill once in a while.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you very much. Do you want me to say
anything?
Mr. Lewis. Please.
Mr. Pallone. The sediment decontamination study, which you
have so generously supported and provided funding for in the
past, we'd like to see that continued to the point now where we
have a full-scale processing facility up and running in the
Port of New York-New Jersey area. And, also, we'd like to
change the nature of this now so that the emphasis is on
basically the end product, and marketing, and putting together
private/public partnerships so we can sell the end product.
That's all I am going to say. I'm looking for $5 million
for that. You have generously supported us in the past. My
colleague from New Jersey will be, I think, particularly
supportive of the idea that we consider broadening the program
to include some of our New Jersey institutions. All of the work
has been done in New York; we'd like to see some of it done at
Rutgers, the Stevens Institute, and NJIT.
The helicopter, the President put $300,000 in for the
helicopter that monitors ocean water quality. I would like to
see that in the bill. The EPA Region II labs in Edison are in
need of substantial upgrading; I talked about this in the past.
We would like to see $3 million in that building and facilities
account for formal construction of a design plan because it is
really old and out of date. If you would look into that, I
would appreciate it.
A couple of general things: Clean lakes, I'm not sure that
you are aware of the fact that--I know that you suggested to us
that we fund the Clean Lakes Program where there hasn't been
any money in the last few years by using, I guess it's the
Nonpoint Source Pollution Program. That hasn't really worked
out; most of the money isn't being used for the Clean Lakes
Program and the lakes that required this project in the past
are now not eligible, or the EPA is not letting us use the
section 319 nonpoint source fund.
Mr. Lewis. Correct. I would think that if you'd address
yourself very carefully and specifically to the director to
EPA, you might help us get her attention.
Mr. Pallone. Well, I'll try, but I would still like to see
if there was some way to get some money into the clean lakes
fund itself. Because, I mean, that would be preferable.
And, then, again, I support the President's budget request
with regards to clean water and the nonpoint source pollution
testing here as well. And also the Superfund, he's requested
$2.1 billion for that, that would make it possible to do a lot
more superfund cleanup in New Jersey and elsewhere and I would
hope that you would support that as well as the EPA's request
on Brownfields.
Again, I know that this is a lot of money but these things
really go far. You know my committee, the Commerce Committee,
is looking at Superfund for reauthorization but I don't think
anything is going to happen this year, so just because that
hasn't happened doesn't mean we shouldn't try to continue with
the current program and do more cleanup.
Mr. Lewis. We are looking at the authorizing committees to
do their work as I ask continually, but in the meantime, we
have a strong voice here who is looking out for your interests,
Mr. Pallone, and we appreciate your being with us. And, as I
indicated, your entire statement will be in the record and good
luck.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1908 - 1912--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, April 23, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
WITNESS
HON. CHRIS SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW
JERSEY
Mr. Lewis. Is Lindsey on his way? Okay. Well, his testimony
has already been taken.
You can summarize your testimony. Brevity counts in the
committee.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Basically what I'm asking for, Mr.
Chairman, is an additional increase in the money for the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
The President has requested a $10 million cut in the ATSDR.
That would cripple some of the ongoing programs. This committee
was very helpful in ensuring a cancer study in Toms River, a
three-year study.
We have an enormous amount of autism cases, regrettably,
showing up in a place called Brick; a sevenfold increase over
what would be expected in other areas. And we've met with the
ATSDR people; they think it is very significant. They have
already begun to put together programs to undertake a study
there. They've allocated $150,000, but it will take much more
than that. But if the $10 million cut goes through we may have
to kiss that good-bye, and that would be a tragedy. Like I said
sevenfold increase, it leads the other places in autism.
We have, as Rob knows so well, and as you know, Mr.
Chairman, more toxic waste dumps than anywhere else in the
country.
Mr. Lewis. I know you do.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. We have over 100 on the in-field
site or registry. All told, my parents and my wife's parents
died of cancer, leukemia. My father-in-law worked for duPont
and he died of leukemia. We know that there is an environmental
linkage the ATSDR is very helpful in trying to weed out fact
from fiction, and New Jersey would be a great beneficiary of
this, as would be the other chemical or oil-refining States. So
I do hope that you would consider going up to $80 million from
the current $74 million and absolutely reject a cut of $10
million as proposed by the President.
I have just one other thing in my testimony. I am Vice
Chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and I've been doing a
great deal of research on those veterans who have been
adversely affected and ought to get presumptive disability
because of cold-weather injuries. These are mostly the Korean
War vets, and a number of the guys never got recompense or any
kind of service-connected disability payments from the VA.
We're asking for a $1 million study. I have a bill that would
provide full coverage on a presumptive disability basis. VA
comes back and says, ``Study it.'' It's studied. So we're
asking you if you would help with the study to lay out all the
details.
Mr. Lewis. If you'd help us as well with the authorization
process.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Sure.
Mr. Lewis. Take a look at VISN and VERA and otherwise help
us solve these problems, it would be much appreciated.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Okay.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you.
Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much. I appreciate your being
with us.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1915 - 1918--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, April 23, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
HON. JERRY WELLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Weller.
I called Dr. Coburn to get him over here because nobody was
showing up so he cut into your time so kindly summarize your
statement for the record, you know how we are around here.
Mr. Weller. I will, Mr. Chairman. Actually there's an
elevator over in the Longworth Building I thought of the movie
Groundhog Day. I got it in, it went up, and we finally kept
going back to where we started. I'll have to talk to whoever is
in charge over there and get that fixed.
Mr. Chairman, you know I've spoken to you personally about
this, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify before your
subcommittee in requesting $10 million for what is nicknamed
``Deep Tunnel'' in the Chicago area, but it's the Tunnel and
Reservoir Plan, TARP, that is an important environmental
initiative. There are sixteen miles of an unfinished portion of
this project which the taxpayers at a local, State, and Federal
level have invested over $201 billion.
The reason that this project is so particularly important,
not only does it provide flood relief to almost half a million
homeowners, including 131,000 homeowners in suburbs that I
represent as well as in Representative Jackson's district. But
also, it protects the drinking water in the Chicago area.
Primarily in the City of Chicago and the suburban area, the
City of Chicago and the suburbs gather their water from Lake
Michigan and of course when there is a storm, there is always
the risk that raw sewage and storm water runoff will go into
Lake Michigan. This is a very important initiative to complete
our desire to implement the Clean Water Act.
I have Jim Giglio, who is a Thornton Township Trustee, and
is also the flood control chairman for the village of South
Holland, one of the primary communities that it benefits.
I'd like to ask the commissioner if he'd say a few words
from the local perspective.
Mr. Lewis. Welcome, Mr. Giglio. Any comments that you have
will be made a part of the record. We emphasized to Jerry that
brevity is here. He talks to me all day on the floor about this
project. So please proceed.
Mr. Giglio. I'll keep my comments brief. I'd like thank you
for this opportunity to talk to you, Mr. Chairman and
Subcommittee, about this crucial community issue.
My testimony will support Congressman Weller's about the
absolute importance of completing the Thornton Township, the
TARP Torrence Leg, and the Thorn Creek Diversion Tunnel to
provide the flood relief the south suburbs so desperately
needed.
As Chairman of the South Holland Flood Committee, I have
experienced firsthand the strife and hardship that homeowners
living in flood zones endure sometimes as frequently as twice a
year.
As a child, I grew up on the Little Calumet River but the
flooding at that point was an adventure for me. I thought it
was kind of unique and fun. But my experience never included
the inundation of the flood waters into my home, the experience
was though that I got to help my neighbors whose homes were
ruined, furniture, carpeting, mementoes such as photographs and
personal items.
Part of that experience was one of the reasons Mayor Don
DeGraff appointed me as chairman of the Flood Committee. I have
worked with Congressman Weller, retired Congressman Myers, and
MWRD, and many local administrators in trying to complete this
project.
Our efforts have been twofold: we're trying to alleviate
the impact and devastation that flooding causes, but we are
also trying to protect our drinking water, and that's by
allowing the sewerage to be held somewhere instead of dumped
into Lake Michigan, which is our main source of drinking water.
Also today I have some letters with me from homeowners that
live in the flood zone and we brought some copies for each of
you. And these letters are from residents who are repeatedly
inundated with floodwater. Many of them have lived in South
Holland most of their lives and wish to continue living there,
but they see no recourse, no reason to stay, if we can't offer
them flood relief. They have continued to receive higher
insurance premiums, their property bills have fallen, they've
received no property tax relief, and there is really nothing
keeping them there if we can't offer them floor relief.
There have been no programs or projects to offer them a buy
out of their homes. So they have a home that has devaluated
greatly and they see no answer on the horizon except for these
project.
So today I would like to thank you again for this
opportunity to testify.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Giglio. We appreciate it. Those
letters will be made part of our files. I want to make sure you
have an opportunity to respond if you wanted, Congressman?
Mr. Weller. Well, I just ask that they be submitted as part
of the record. There are approximately 531,000 homeowners in
the district I represent, roughly half-a-million homeowners on
the South Side of Chicago and all the south suburbs and this is
the unfinished portion of the project that this committee has
invested about $33 million just over the last four years so we
do ask if you can give another $10 million for the cause.
Mr. Lewis. We'll include those letters in the packet for
certain and in the meantime I'll make certain you have access
if you wish.
Mr. Weller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1921 - 1930--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, April 23, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WITNESSES
HON. TOM COBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
OKLAHOMA
HON. LINDSEY GRAHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
SOUTH CAROLINA
Mr. Lewis. Whatever testimony you might give, if you'd like
only for it to appear in the record it will be and from there
we're just anxious to hear your comments.
Mr. Coburn. Let me just start. First of all, I want to
thank you for the opportunity to come before you. You guys did
a great job last year by the vote that came across on your
bill, 360 or 270, which probably had almost the highest of any
Appropriations subcommittee. We wanted to just talk about a few
areas that we were interested in in terms of total spending and
also some priorities. Lindsey is going to talk about one in
particular, but I wanted to mention a couple.
If you look on the website on the funding for HOPWA, which
is Housing for People with AIDS, there's no question we support
that; the question is should there be an increase given how
some of the money is spent. And if you will look at ACT-UP
sites and some of the other sites, you'll see a large portion
of that money is not being spent on housing for people with
AIDS, it's being spent on administration, large salaries,
flying to D.C. to lobby for it, and I think that before any
increase in that it should be stated again that we ought to
have some very strict guidelines on what that money can be used
for coming out of your committee.
Last year the Section 8 was the big jump in housing, which
we all agreed to; we passed authorizing legislation to do that.
We would want to see some real restraint in terms of increases
in those funds since we did such a large jump last year.
Mr. Lewis. Let me stop you right here and just mention
this. It is a very important item for both of you gentlemen to
discuss with our colleagues.
As you know, we had a surge in Section 8 reserves this last
year that are a reflection of moneys that will have to be
available if we are going to meet the challenge of contract
renewals, which are about to take place in the coming fiscal
year.
If we move into 1999 without funds for those contract
renewals, literally contracts will be cut off and we are going
to find people suddenly in areas that are affected probably
without places to live and that literally could be in the
streets.
Under those circumstances, you've got a very, very volatile
political situation, and as you know, we tapped all those
reserves by way of the offset for programs in the supplemental.
How we work our way through that is a very important question
and is not a light political question.
Mr. Coburn. Well, I would just commit to you I would be
willing to work with you to try to solve the problem. We don't
want anybody to lose their housing or their housing benefitted,
but it doesn't mean that we need--we understand how that will
kick through, and we will work with you, but on a trim line, is
what we are talking about. Once we set this trim line, once we
give the big bump with the new authorization, then we ought to
be able to plan this year and years out, to make sure that we
don't jump ahead of that and that those dollars are efficient.
And a final thing, and I know that you are in a hurry. The
EPA, Ms. Browner worked with Senator Inhofe in the Senate in
terms of 2.5 particulate matter studies. I am on both
committees and both subcommittees that evaluated that data,
both on the Commerce and Science Committees; it is less than
good data. They have agreed with Senator Inhofe to pay for
monitoring in the major cities.
We already have some monitoring in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and it
disputes what the EPA says. So, the fact is they have language
in there to delay implementation of the penalization for ozone
standard of six years and nine years on the 2.5.
The reason that is important is because we are beginning to
think we don't know right now what the truth is and we ought to
collect the data to know what we are doing on a finite basis
and that has not been done anywhere in the country. The idea is
good. We all want to include the quality of the air; 2.5 micron
data, there is a lot we don't know about. We need to get that
information before we start enforcing.
Mr. Lewis. And this is language that is where?
Mr. Coburn. It's in the Senate bill. Administrator Browner
has concurred in the Senate----
Mr. Lewis. It's in the authorization bill?
Mr. Coburn. I think it's in the authorization bill and they
are going to be working to have it in the appropriation bill as
well.
Mr. Lewis. We'll look for it very carefully.
Mr. Coburn. And then the final thing that I would bring
forth, is we ought to be working with compliance rather than
penalty. We ought to help people do a better job and our
emphasis ought to be let's go help them do it right, rather
than plan to do this so we take taxpayers' money in the local
area and penalize them rather than use that same money to give
us better quality air and better quality of life.
Mr. Lewis. Good. Okay. Mr. Graham.
Mr. Graham. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. I appreciate your being here.
Mr. Graham. Thank you very much. And to the point,
AmeriCorps developed the political philosophy, I think there's
some objective data out there showing that the program is not
really working the way it was designed and that the projected
cost of $6.43 per hour for each AmeriCorps participant is
actually $15.55 an hour for a volunteer. That is pretty good
pay. You can't get it in my district. Forty-two percent of the
young people from 15 to 24 make less than AmeriCorps
volunteers.
An independent audit has found Americorps volunteers at
political rallies, handing out political campaign literature.
There is no evidence that it is going to offset college
expenses. The program I think under any objective analysis, is
not doing too well.
The point I'm trying to make, whether you like or not, are
for Americorps or not, in 1997, Mr. Tiahrt had an amendment to
zero out the program and it passed on voice vote. In 1998, an
amendment passed by voice vote to reduce the appropriation in
half and what happened last year was a good thing. I really
think it was a good thing; we got 300 and something-plus votes
and I was one of them.
And the process on the floor that Tom and others engaged in
of having amendments to say this is where the House is at was a
good exercise; it made us all feel better. And I would suggest
to this subcommittee that the House, on this issue, is at zero
or substantially less than the Administration wants. Whether
you like the program or not, and if the Subcommittee and
Committee report out a bill that mirrors the world of the House
and we have an amendment on the floor, that amendment should be
to offer an alternative and let us vote on it.
I just ask the Subcommittee to remember the 1997/1998vote.
Report out a bill that I think is close to the objective fact, and
close to where the House is and change the dynamic that happened last
year and there will be a lot of good will generated and let's have a
vote on the NEA or Americorp on the floor. I would hope the Committee
would listen to some of the votes we had last year.
Mr. Lewis. I think you folks know that in the past the
committee has taken specific actions on the floor. One year I
remember an amendment that I offered that related to veterans'
benefits. Strange things happen when we get to conference----
Mr. Graham. We understand that you can't win every fight
and I know the Senate has a different view, but the rule of the
House is pretty clear when two amendments are passed by voice
vote to zero out a program and cut in half. I think that is
where the House is a body as Republicans and Democrats, and not
unanimously. We just ask that the Committee reflect and when
you get to conference, do the best you can.
Mr. Lewis. One other item I'd like to mention to the two of
you, especially, for you've been very thoughtful about some of
these subjects.
In many ways it would be helpful if people like you were on
the Appropriations Committee so you could see the process from
the other end. Eighty-five percent of our bill is not
authorized. We keep saying to our authorizers, ``Please we
don't want to do your work.'' Yet, if you take, for example,
housing programs that involve the elderly, if you don't put
language in it to involve section 202, sometimes those programs
go out the door. There is a disconnect here and not an
understanding in the House that we need. If you would help us
pound on those authorizers----
Mr. Coburn. If I would suggest, the best way to pound on
authorizers is to not appropriate anything for anything that is
not authorized, and pretty soon you can say we're going to
either throw out the authorizing process and you all become the
authorizers as well which I'm fully for or quit spending money
on something that is not authorized.
Mr. Lewis. I have suggested that more than once, and
somewhere it just----
Mr. Coburn. You have got to start. You have got to start
and you have got to say, ``Our committee will not pass anything
unless it is authorized. Now, we are going to hold up; we are
going to give you a month; go get it authorized.'' If you
don't--what good is it to have House rules if we continue the
exception to House rules and say, ``Well, sorry, we are going
to----''
Mr. Lewis. I think you have noted with care people wringing
their hands and saying how come these guys are authorizing and
yet the authorizing never quite get there. We have that
frustration and we want you to know we are frustrated by it.
Mr. Coburn. The way to eliminate it is do not fund one
thing that is not authorized, and I guarantee you it will get
authorized very quickly.
Mr. Graham. May I make a suggestion along those lines? If
you are looking for a database to find out how the House feels
even though it is not going to the Authorization Committee, we
have taken a series of votes over several years like AmeriCorps
that pretty well shows that the House position on AmeriCorps is
near zero. That is a form of authorization even though it is
not the proper form, so there is a database out there. If you
look at that database, I think we will have a good year.
Mr. Lewis. Okay, Mr. Price?
Mr. Price. All right. I want to make sure I understand what
you are saying or what you are asking the Committee to do about
AmeriCorps. You are suggesting we report a bill that contains
no funding for AmeriCorps.
Mr. Graham. In 1997, an amendment was voice voted, fiscal
year 1997, voice voted where the committee accepted by voice
vote an amendment to zero it out. In 1998, the appropriation's
folks on the floor accepted an amendment to try to cut it by
200, cut it in half. I am saying that that to me shows that the
rule of House is not very much behind this bill--I mean this
program. I have got serious problems with the program, but I am
just one member. I am just telling you, look at the database
out there about a program like AmeriCorps and you will find
where most House Members are at.
Mr. Price. What are you then saying about the amendment
that would be in order on the floor. I just want to make sure I
understand what you are----
Mr. Graham. I would suggest that you start with zero,
because I think that is where the majority of the House Members
are at, but if I am wrong, allow somebody to make an amendment
in order and say that we want to fund it at the Senate level so
let's have a vote on it, and the problem we had last year is we
felt that the committee started with the position that was
pretty much contrary to the House position on most of these
emotional tough programs, and you all have got the hardest beat
in America. You all have got the hardest beat in Congress, I
know that; a lot of emotional programs the NEA. Let's have a
vote on the NEA, and if the NEA is funded, so be it; let's have
a vote, but I think the committee should reflect pretty much
where the votes have been.
Mr. Lewis. We do not have that one.
Mr. Graham. I know. Well, okay.
Mr. Lewis. We do not want that one. [Laughter.]
Mr. Graham. I was see from the example, but AmeriCorps is
something similar but not quite as emotional. I would think
that I would hope the Committee would see that the House is not
overly enamored with this program. Start up with a markup to
reflect that position and allow somebody who is a supporter of
the program come on and say we need more money, and let's have
an honest debate out on the floor.
Mr. Price. You are aware, though, that bringing a Member to
the floor to add something does require offsets normally. Heavy
burden of proof on adding something to a bill; much less a
burden of proof on deleting something. So, if you do not like
AmeriCorps, why not shift the burden of proof?
Mr. Graham. Well, just when the Committee will accept the
voice vote to zero it out, there is a disconnect between what
the Committee does and what the Members want.
Mr. Coburn. The other thing is does it have full
authorization, AmeriCorps? Is it an authorized program?
Mr. Graham. No.
Mr. Coburn. It has never achieved authorization, so that
tells us something to begin with.
Mr. Price. If you apply that standard to programs under our
jurisdiction, I am afraid you are in for slim pickings.
Mr. Coburn. I am ready to do that, and I am ready to help
you all enforce that.
Mr. Price. Although, you will not find disagreement, I
think, on this committee, because of our ability of having
timely authorizations.
Mr. Graham. You all have a tough job, I fully realize that.
Mr. Coburn. I guess one of the things that would help your
job is if people want to put programs that are not authorized
into spending bills, make them do it where they have to talk
about it to the American public and have to explain it.
Mr. Lewis. I agree.
Mr. Coburn. So, the best way to purify a process and add
integrity to the rules that we already have is to start
following the rules. If they want to add AmeriCorps back, let
them add it on the floor; it may pass. Big deal, then that is
the will of the House. That is a form of authorization, but to
put it in a committee when it has not been authorized by the
committee that has jurisdiction over it, totally precludes and
ignores and the rules that we have set under which we are going
to authorize, and we cannot ask other people to continue to
follow the rules of the House when we all ignore the rules of
the House.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much for your testimony;
appreciate it.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1936 - 1939--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, April 23, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
HON. NICK LAMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Lewis. Let's see, Nick Lampson. Your entire testimony
will be included in the record, Nick, and if you want to
summarize it----
Mr. Lampson. It will be very short, yes.
Mr. Lewis. I want your guests to know that I am not going
to be leaving because I do not want to hear all of your
testimony but because Mary Bono is a new Member of the House,
and I have got to introduce her at a luncheon meeting, but my
friend, Mr. Frelinghuysen is going to take over for me in a
very able way.
Mr. Lampson. This is about the Gulf Coast Hazardous
Substance Research Center. It is a consortium of universities
located throughout the South, and all these gentlemen are
representatives who have participated in the----
Mr. Lewis. Welcome to the committee, gentlemen.
Mr. Lampson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for the opportunity. We are going to request continued line-
item funding in the amount of $2.5 million for the Gulf Coast
Hazardous Substance Research Center. It is, again, a
university-based consortium. The center carries out a program
of peer-reviewed research evaluation, testing, and development
and demonstration of alternative innovative technologies that
may be used in minimization, destruction, or handling of
hazardous wastes associated with petroleum chemical and other
Gulf Coast industries. We seek better protection of human
health in the environment.
Since the establishment in 1998, the Center sought to build
a 300 multi-year project with more than 200 different principal
investigators; approximately 400 graduate students at the
affiliated universities. There have been over 600 publication,
species, technical presentations, and it has been extremely
successful in leveraging additional--outside of research--
support for projects recently funded through the Center through
Federal, State, or industrial resource grants.
The Center has gained recognition through the U.S. as one
of the major university environmental research centers. The
major category areas of research: waste minimization by
technology inventions and modifications; emerging technologies
and remediation and waste treatment. The major areas of
technology research include biological mediation, soils and
sludge treatment, separations, hazardous substance, monitoring
and detecting combustion oxidations pollution prevention in
modeling and risk management. Projects from this center have
received national awards from the EPA which is a presidential
chemistry challenge award, the State of Texas Governor's Award.
The Center's technology transfer programs were designed to
bring technology for a cleaner environment out of the
laboratory into the fields as practical application. As a
component of the technology transfer program, the Center
operates the Gulf Coast Environment Library as a service to
academic and non-academic public. The center provides the
coordination of the activities of the research consortium of
the Texas A&M University system, the University of Texas, Rice
University, University of Houston, Lemar University, the
Louisiana State University, Mississippi State University,
University of Alabama, and the University of Central Florida.
The centers enters into research agreements with private
research organizations and industry.
I would like to introduce the Center director, Jack Hopper,
down here at the very end. Dr. Hopper is from the north,
located at Lemar University, and then the other representatives
are Mr. George Talbert who is the assistant director for
Technology Transfer----
Mr. Frelinghuysen [presiding]. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Lampson. Bill Batchelor; Dr. Batchelor is at the Texas
A&M University; Dr. Manoj Chopra of the University of Central
Florida; Dr. Dennis Clifford, University of Houston; Dr.
Richard Corsi, University of Texas; Dr. David Cocke from Lemar
University; Dr. David Constant of Louisiana State University;
Mason Tomson of Rice University, and Dr. Allen Ford, who is the
former center director.
So, I want to thank you for your time, and if you have any
questions, I would be happy to answer them. I, again, request
that the Subcommittee provide continued support for funding for
the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research Center at the level
that we have been funding at, at $2.5 million per year, and we
thank you very much.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I would like to thank you very much for
your testimony and for your leadership on this project. I know
Mr. Price and I and Chairman Lewis recognize your work and
dedication and that fact that you have walked such a large
amount of hired talent to sit behind you, I think that is
weighed to your case substantially.
Mr. Lampson. Well, thank you. We really believe in this,
and it something that seems to be very specific to the Gulf
Coast, and that is why it is nice to have representatives from
every area along the Gulf Coast where this kind of chemical
activity is involved.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you. Mr. Price?
Mr. Price. Of all the Members we have heard from today, I
would say you are the best backed up. [Laughter.]
That is quite a chorus behind you. What is the history of
this line-item in terms of recent funding--recent years of
funding?
Mr. Lampson. I think it was funded at for $2.5 million.
Mr. Price. For what period of time?
Mr. Hopper. From the very beginning.
Mr. Lampson. From the very beginning, 1988, so this will be
the 10th year at that level. It has some pretty significant
accomplishments to talk about.
Mr. Hopper. Authorization was for $5 million per year.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. If you would be good enough to give your
name for the record, so the reporter can have it.
Mr. Hopper. My name is Dr. Jack Hopper. I am the director
of the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research Center.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. H-o-p-p-e-r?
Mr. Hopper. H-o-p-p-e-r, right, like grass. [Laughter.]
This Center was originally authorized for $5 million; it
has been appropriated $2.5 million each of those years.
Mr. Price. All right; a 10-year history of funding at that
$2.5 million level.
Mr. Lampson. We would love to have it twice. We think that
that would be a most appropriate thing to have.
Mr. Price. All right, and the number of institutions
involved here is----
Mr. Hopper. Nine universities involved. There is nine in
the State of Texas and then LSU, Mississippi State, University
of Alabama, University of Central Florida.
Mr. Price. And you are based at Lamar.
Mr. Hopper. I am based at Lamar University.
Mr. Price. And that is the center of the----
Mr. Hopper. That is where the staff is, the organization,
but all the research is carried out at these other all nine
universities.
Mr. Price. All right. Well, we appreciate your bringing
this distinguished group here today. We will look at this
request very carefully.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Price. Mr. Lampson. Thank
you very much, gentlemen, for being here. The Committee stands
in recess until three o'clock.
Mr. Lampson. Thank you very much.
[Recess.]
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1943 - 1947--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, April 23, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
HON. DARLENE HOOLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
OREGON
Mr. Lewis [presiding]. Ms. Hooley, step right up. Your
entire testimony, I have been heard to say, will be included in
the record.
Ms. Hooley. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. And if you can summarize the highlights for us,
we would appreciate that, and most important is relative ease
to money.
Ms. Hooley. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My mom did not raise any dummies. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let
me just talk very briefly about one particular project you
have, I think, was turned in a list of the projects that I am
asking for.
The first one is a very innovative project that is in my
district. It is a $16 million project. We have lots of partners
in this project. It is to treat wastewater for city water for
the fund of the city. It is also a demonstration project. It
deals with wetlands and to clean the water. It is going to be a
horticulture center, so it is an educational place as well as a
tourist attraction, so it has all of these partners that work
together. EPA has been very helpful. Again, it is a $16 million
project. We have $15 million; we are asking for $1 million for
this project.
Mr. Lewis. Fifteen million and you are asking for $1
million?
Ms. Hooley. Yes.
Mr. Lewis. Out of $16 million. That is reasonable.
Ms. Hooley. Is that not good? I think that is very good.
Mr. Lewis. It is. If you will notice her pen. She got that
from Norway, no?
Ms. Hooley. Yes.
Mr. Lewis. Norway is good, I heard about Norway.
Mr. Stokes. Oh, yes. [Laughter.]
Ms. Hooley. The second project, again, is to finish up a
start of a project and that is the completion of an
environmental computer center at Oregon State University. They
have all the super computers on the first floor. They have not
been able to complete the project which is two additional
floors where the students would work in all the labs, and they
have got all these computers on the first floor, super
conductor computers. It is for the ocean and atmospheric
science programs. We are asking for $2 million. It would
complete the project to add two additional stories onto the
building. So the $2 million----
Mr. Lewis. Okay, so it is a construction project.
Ms. Hooley. It is a construction project; the $2 million
completes that project.
Mr. Lewis. Once we have completed that project how do we
feed the cow? How do you pay for it? Is it taken out of the
ongoing budget?
Ms. Hooley. It will be taken out of the ongoing budget. It
is a matter of trying to get all of it in one place.
Mr. Lewis. All right, thank you.
Ms. Hooley. The third is a $1.2 million request, and it is
also funded through EPA, and this is to address water issues
along the coast. It is to measure the currents, and it helps
with navigation down the Columbia River. It is a research
program, and it is called the Marine Environmental Research and
Training Station, and it does forecasting for tides, and that
again is $1.2 million.
And then the other two programs are national programs. I
just want you to know I am very supportive of the State and
Tribal Assistance Grant that is in the President's budget at
$2.9 billion. Please do not count that toward my request.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Stokes. She is smart.
Ms. Hooley. The other is in the President's budget, and
that is non-point source control monitoring program at $200
million, and I hope you would keep both of those.
Mr. Lewis. Okay.
Ms. Hooley. That is it.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much for your input,
Congresswoman Hooley.
Ms. Hooley. Thank you very, very much.
Mr. Lewis. It is our pleasure to work with you.
Ms. Hooley. And if you have any questions----
Mr. Lewis. Is this your first appearance before this
subcommittee?
Ms. Hooley. This is, yes, thank you.
Mr. Lewis. So, is the last year that Congressman Stokes
will be with us, and he has made a fabulous contribution to
this committee over the years. He is my chairman, and we are
dear friends, and I am proud to say that.
Mr. Stokes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to commend
her for her first appearance. She did an excellent job.
Ms. Hooley. Thank you, thanks.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1950 - 1953--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, April 23, 1998.
HOUSE AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS
WITNESS
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE
OF TEXAS
Mr. Lewis. Eddie Bernice Johnson.
Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. Good afternoon.
Mr. Lewis. Good afternoon. How are you, young lady?
Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. All right. I think I am
fine, and when I leave, I hope I will even be better.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. All of your testimony will be in the record.
Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. Thank you. There are
two projects for which I am coming to make an explanation and
request for. One, is for the Veterans' Administration facility
which was authorized in 1996, but it was not funded. It has
been reauthorized this year. It is a psychiatric facility that
needs to be upgraded. I used to work there, and I had to
organize--I had to open the first unit of it back in the
fifties, and it has not had any upgrading, and what we have
done there is open a day treatment center and a day hospital
that were open and old living quarters of physicians and nurses
from the thirties, and that is where they still are. And it is
hard to have a secured area to walk patients a mile away on the
premises--not really quite a mile, but I think it is three-
quarters of a mile--without having supervision, because the
premises are so scattered, and so they are asking for $24
million to upgrade that and bring it together. They are known
for their service. We have one of the largest and I think more
efficient Veterans' Administration's medical centers in the
country that takes in the whole north Texas area where Sam
Rayburn use to be, and so that is one.
And then the other----
Mr. Lewis. Before you go on to the other one, is this
project in the President's budget? I mean, did they request if
from the Department or has it been authorized by the Committee?
Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. It has been authorized
by the Committee.
Mr. Lewis. But the other end of it, they have not responded
yet?
Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. Right. I have spoken--
the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs currently is aware of it,
and they say----
Mr. Lewis. The new Secretary?
Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. The new Secretary. As
soon as he is confirmed, he has promised to go and look at the
facility.
Mr. Lewis. Would you tell him for Louis Stokes and I that
we want to know what he thinks about this facility. Tell him we
said that.
Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. Okay.
Mr. Stokes. Very good, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. I will, indeed.
Mr. Lewis. He is a good guy.
Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. Yes, but it has been so
long, and it really is pretty antiquated facilities there, but
they have done a good job. I do not know if you know that much
about the Veterans and the way it works, but Waco, which is
about 87 miles south of there, had the psychiatric unit which
had about 2,500 beds, all psychiatric. It got to be that all of
this pretty just tonic housekeeping of holding people because
of its location and holding staff. In Dallas, we opened up the
acute area there. It was closely associated with the medical
school in Dallas, and they do quite a bit of research on
schizophrenia there, and so the facilities to put people back
in the community, way back when we first started, people
stayed; it was just like home, and they did not get discharged,
and now they are trying to move them out, and it takes a lot of
training at the training facilities at the treatment center
where they have on-the-job training. And the day hospital is
after they leave and not come to the facility everyday but need
some supportive therapy along the way, and that is where they
use the old dormitories, and it is pretty antiquated.
Mr. Lewis. Okay, I thank you for that. Go right ahead.
Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. And the other one is
probably--and this is all in the same section of the town which
is for the most part--the core of it is in my district; some of
it is Jeff Session's and some of it is in Martin Frost's, but
this is the southern end of Dallas County. There was a recent
study done that talked about two different cities in one: the
north end of Dallas and the southern end of Dallas. The
salaries in the southern end is 60 percent less than the
northern end. Most development has taken part in the northern
end. So, right now, there is a real thrust; the only land left
undeveloped is available in that southern sector.
Our business leaders, as of yesterday, eight of the banks
have put together a $2.1 billion package of loans for helping
to establish businesses; brownfield initiative's been going.
They are asking for $2.1 billion, I believe, to further fill in
some of the gaps--$2.5 million to fill in some of the gaps to
help get this going, but there is a real--we call it the global
strategy to put together work force training.
We have 3 percent unemployment in that area. The jobs are
there. They are high tech; they are very high tech now. The
people who cannot meet the qualifications for the most part
live in this area. We have just started to develop some
training in that area. Our companies of Dallas have a
tremendous involvement in the businesses there. Texas
Instruments and EDS, all of the various companies have come
together to support some of this development, and we need this
money to supplement some of the dollars and matched dollars
that have been committed from the private sector to help with
this new thrust. The Vice President was there in October to
help launch some of it. He indicated that he thought this would
be a model for the country if we were able to get it done. It
houses 45 percent of the city's population and 97 percent of
the land is available. It is just--you know, the river, the
Trinity River which we are trying to develop now kind of
divides the city, and this is the southern end, and so,
hopefully, we can influence you to approve it; it is not a lot.
Mr. Lewis. Well, thank you very much for your testimony,
and as we go forward with our budget allocation we will do what
we can for you.
Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. Thank you. I know it is
tight.
Mr. Lewis. Now, do not mention to this to Mr. Stokes
privately.
Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. Listen, this almost
brings me to tears to have to accept that I have such a short
time to serve with him. He is an outstanding Member. The only
thing that I have ever been able to take home, he helped me get
it. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Frelinghuysen, any questions?
Mr. Frelinghuysen. No, thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Stokes?
Mr. Stokes. No, but when Ms. Johnson was talking about
health care there, I do not know whether you know it or not,
but she is--I do not know how many there are in Congress--but
she is a registered nurse.
Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. There are two now that
Ms. Capps is one.
Mr. Lewis. That is right.
Mr. Stokes. That is right; that makes two of them.
Mr. Lewis. Listen, I have been advocate--I do not know if
you know this--but I have been advocate for well over a decade
of actively, aggressively seeking women to run for Congress,
but we need that louder voice, and these additions are helpful.
Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. Well, I tell you,
California is leading the way.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much for being with us.
Mr. Stokes. Thank you.
Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. Thank you so much.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1957 - 1959--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, April 23, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS
WITNESS
HON. ROBERT WEYGAND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
RHODE ISLAND
Mr. Lewis. Bob, come on up; it is your turn.
Mr. Weygand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Congressman Weygand----
Mr. Weygand. It is my time up.
Mr. Lewis. It is your turn. Your entire statement will be
included in the record.
Mr. Weygand. Thank you. I will then, therefore, try to be
as brief as I possibly can----
Mr. Lewis. You can do that.
Mr. Weygand [continuing]. Which I know you would love to
have.
Mr. Lewis. That is exactly right; that is perfect.
Mr. Weygand. We are very, first of all, very thankful that
you are having a hearing on this. We think that the VA and HUD
bill is extremely important. Rhode Island, as you know, is a
very small State; only 1 million people and there is only two
representatives in the State.
Mr. Lewis. And they are you and----
Mr. Weygand. Patrick Kennedy.
Mr. Lewis. Patrick Kennedy.
Mr. Weygand. On the Senate side, Jack Reed and John Kerry.
Mr. Lewis. Is Providence in your district?
Mr. Weygand. We split the city.
Mr. Lewis. Okay.
Mr. Weygand. Yes, I have the poor side and Kennedy has the
wealthy side. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. You have the public housing in your district.
Mr. Weygand. I have a lot of that. I have a lot of the low-
income housing, and other parts of the State too, but Patrick
also has some as well, but in the city of Providence, the lower
income is primarily in my district.
Mr. Lewis. Let me mention that Louis Stokes--on another
matter--and I may want to talk to both you and Patrick in the
near term depending on what happens.
Mr. Weygand. Sure, okay; be happy to.
Mr. Lewis. It is not a matter for today's meeting but
another time.
Mr. Weygand. Speaking of that issue, though, in Providence
in some of the areas that we have looked at, what has happened
with the HUD bill is very, very important to us. A number of
the programs that HUD presently has have been extremely
helpful. For instance, the Title I Program; approximately, 96.7
percent of the housing rehab that goes on is financed in a way
like that. We think that what the Secretary has been trying to
do to reorganize within his department, make it a little bit
more effective and efficient, is good. We also think that it is
important under the present proposal that we have to strengthen
some of the existing good programs that work.
The programs I think that I would like to talk about is
just a couple of them. Two of the requests of HUD, the Low-
income Tax Credit Program and the FHA Loan one that are
particularly of interest to us. Those two programs will mean a
great deal. Changing the low-income tax credit from $1.25 to
$1.75 is really going to help those areas of Providence and
other areas similar to that with regard to housing. We have
seen some of that already, but it will just add a lot more
players into the mix and be able to put a lot more units online
that, perhaps, we would not have.
We have seen with the recovery in Rhode Island we are
sandwiched between Hartford and Boston. Our economy is very
much reliant upon what happens in Massachusetts and
Connecticut. We came out of a very difficult banking, credit
union crisis out of 1990 and 1991. I was a member of the
legislature and Lieutenant Governor at the time, and we had to
bail out credit unions because we had a terrible problem with
that. As a result of that, housing virtually stopped and
virtually stopped up until about a year and a half ago, and so
the HUD programs really do provide a great vehicle to keep the
housing in those areas going that we need to, and the low-
income housing tax credit and raising the loan limit, as you
know, right now, ranges from about $70,000 to $187,000 to one
loan limit for the entire country v. 250 different loan limits.
We think it would be better for us--and certainly in Rhode
Island where we average around $152,000 now for the FHA loan
limit--raising it up will really allow for more housing in our
area.
We have seen on the Banking Committee which I sit on in the
Housing Subcommittee----
Mr. Lewis. You are on the Housing Subcommittee; I did not
know that, Bob.
Mr. Weygand. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lewis. This is our authorizer.
Mr. Stokes. That is great. [Laughter.]
Mr. Weygand. Why do I feel I am being used. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. We do not want to be the authorizer.
Mr. Weygand. We have seen HUD come before us on a couple of
the programs, and I was critical of some of the things they
were doing, and the other day we were talking about loans and
we were saying that, ``You know, you do not even require a
simple thing like a housing inspection; you require an
appraisal.'' So, they have got a lot of things in HUD to clean
up, but some of the programs that they are talking about
improving are very, very good, and the tax credit and the FHA
loan limit, I think, are two very, very good programs.
A couple of things that we are not very happy about would
be the consolidation of two very important programs, 202 and
811. Those section programs, to us, we would prefer to see them
separated and to function. Just last year, we received $6.2
million for 3 projects or programs that came out of both of
those section areas. It really made a big difference in
Providence and the adjacent neighborhoods. My testimony is
being submitted, too, Mr. Chairman, so I am not going to go
through the rest of this.
Mr. Lewis. Thanks, I appreciate it.
Mr. Weygand. I would appreciate taking a closer look at 202
and 811 and the FHA loan and the tax credit. To us, in our
community, in my community--and I have the poorest part of
Rhode Island and the wealthiest part of Rhode Island. It makes
a difference to the entire district not just to the poor
section; it really does. It is an infusion of money; it is
jobs; it is wages; it is vendors; it is contractors, and all of
those, but more importantly in an area right now where we have
housing stock that people are ignoring that we really need to
rehab and to put back on the marketplace, this will help us
tremendously.
Mr. Lewis. I appreciate very much the testimony,
Congressman Weygand. I think it is important to hear from
people with your background about the significance of having
programs like 202 and 811 designated separately. There are
differences in our policies since, but these are fundamental
policy questions that your committee ought to be dealing with
that the Department is moving ahead almost without us on some
of these things, and I must say that Secretary Cuomo is to be
given high marks for his effort to reorganize the Department
and so on, but in the meantime with a lack of policy
perspective from the Congress, the people over there have their
ideas about the way the world should work and certainly the
Secretary cannot focus on everything, so he needs some input
from the committee.
Mr. Weygand. My background is one of architecture. I owned
an architectural company before I got into politics, and
building and housing is something I have grown up with since I
was 15 years old. I cannot tell you what a difference it does
make when I--I often use as a barometer of how well the economy
is doing as based upon whether I see housing stocks, additions,
renovations or those types of things, and it is true. While it
may seem like some old kind of economics, it is true, and
housing is extremely important in the old New England areas
where new housing stocks and urban areas where we really need
the housing effort is not there without HUD, and so I
appreciate your help, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Before you leave, let me say, I have used your
State for years, and I might as well let you know about it. The
map is different from the territory in this business, you know,
but on my wall is a picture, and there are five eastern States
that sit neatly desert side of my district; your is one of
them. You start at beautiful downtown Rudlins and drive 70
miles an hour and 4.5 hours later you are in Bishop, and you
are still in the district, and yet the same constituency. The
mix of the people is very much the same, and the problems are
very similar in many ways.
Mr. Weygand. I am very fortunate I have a small State, and
when I was Lieutenant Governor I could rotate around the State
three times in one day. My district is more concise, but it is
a beautiful State that has probably the same problems as any
other district. We have agriculture; I have seashore; I have
low-income housing problems, and I have the wealthiest of
people, and what you are doing on this will be very important
to all of them. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Nice to be with you. We appreciate your coming.
I did not ask members if they had questions, but he was so
articulate, what questions could we have? Thank you for being
with us.
Mr. Weygand. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1964 - 1967--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, April 23, 1998.
AMERICORPS, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
WITNESSES
HON. SAM FARR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
HON. TIM ROEMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA
HON. ROBERT ANDREWS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW
JERSEY
HON. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
HON. STEVE HORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
Mr. Lewis. Let's see, Roemer was around here a while ago,
wasn't he?
Mr. Roemer. I am still here.
Mr. Lewis. There he is. Oh, I remember you. Sam, why don't
you two guys come up, both of you. So Shays is the only one
missing, is that right? Oh, Morella is not here either. She
won't be able to make it? We will take that as an indication
that she no longer supports it. [Laughter.]
Tim, just so you know, I have a note here that says,
``Roemer's name should not have been in the list this morning.
His office was supposed to cancel him and put him on later
today.'' So, you know our conversation on the floor, I keep
paying attention to you.
Mr. Roemer. You are all right.
Mr. Lewis. If I just get you to vote for my bills
sometimes. [Laughter.]
He has not voted for our bills, Louis, since you were
chairman.
Mr. Roemer. What kind of preface is this? Does this mean
you are not open to anything I am going to say? You might not
want me to testify. [Laughter.]
Connie and I both better leave.
Mr. Lewis. Please proceed. All of your testimony, as you
might want to adjust it or otherwise, it will be included in
the record, but brief remarks would be appreciated.
Mr. Farr. I will defer to my senior member.
Mr. Roemer. Well, let me start off by talking about
AmeriCorps since that is what, I think, Rob is going to talk
about and what Sam is going to talk about and what Connie was
going to talk about. I am here as a strong supporter of the
AmeriCorps program. I am here to encourage you, Mr. Chairman,
and our ranking member and members of the Committee to support
the President's request of $500 million. I believe that this is
an important program because it stresses two things: personal
responsibility and community service.
We first talked about this program several years ago when
the President proposed it and said that it might be able to
accomplish some wonderful things. Well, in Indiana it is
accomplishing some wonderful things for the environment; for
the homeless; for education, and in a host of other areas. We
have 19 people working on the envirocorps in the city of
Elkhart cleaning up streams; cleaning up a lake; testing homes
for radon gas; doing things that require more and more
expertise, and focusing in on the environment.
We have 13 individuals working at the light treatment
center working on alcoholism; working on homelessness; working
on training people to get out of homeless situations where we
are seeing more and more families come into homeless
situations, and we have--I have brag about having the best
homeless center, I believe, in the country where Mr. Cisneros
and now Secretary Cuomo have awarded our homeless center new
funding to train people to perform the same kinds of services
at other homeless centers. We have AmeriCorps working there,
and, finally, we have 100 AmeriCorps people at the University
of Notre Dame where they are trained in a master's program to
then go out and serve in schools that have a paucity or a
shortcoming in terms of the overall features in those schools.
They are primarily inner city schools where the teacher
population is very, very short, and these 100 students go into
these schools and end up performing a lifetime service in
teaching. So, in the environment and the homeless centers and
education, AmeriCorps is working very, very well, and I
strongly support the Committee--encourage the Committee to
support the President's proposal.
Mr. Lewis. And Sam and Rob, Tim, has taken up most of your
time allowed, and he does not vote for bills. What would you
like to say? [Laughter.]
Mr. Farr. I would just like to mention sort of a personal
thing both as a young kid in this country and now as a Member
of Congress. I got out of college in 1963. I was not sure what
I wanted to do, and there were very few alternatives in those
days. I went into the Peace Corps. It had been created as a
Federal program and was something that--it just changed my
life, and what I realized from that--not at the time, but I
think as I became a parent and became older--is that these
programs, these kind of service programs, the hope for them is
tremendous for this country; That we have these opportunities
for youth.
And as a Member of Congress, it appears to me, one, that I
think we are all in this business of politics because we like
people and we like fixing things that are broken, and we care
about it. We all involved in community service. I was a
delegate to the President's Conference on National Service
which General Colin Powell shared a volunteer summer in
Philadelphia, and what came out of that was something that I
think we forget in this institution, that if we are really
going to solve the hard problems in this country, the
microproblems, it is going to take hands on; it is going to
take a lot of people. Government program structure is not going
to do it. It is going to take this personal contact. AmeriCorp
is not really one of the programs that really allows you to do
that, and why it gives hope as a Member of Congress is that we
have AmeriCorps program in the County of Santa Cruz, and they
work with the county group there, and they have a thing called
the Rapid Response Corp which is for disaster relief. When we
had the El Nino disaster, out of this what happened is that a
man named Jim Moran--no relation to our Jim Moran--he was a
homeless man. He was working in the project AmeriCorps runs, it
is called the Homeless Garden Project which is an urban growing
fresh fruits and vegetables. He was part of the Rapid Response
Corp; he volunteered for that. He was so good at what he did in
his Rapid Response that the American Red Cross honored him, and
said, ``You know, we need people of your skills and your
leadership.'' What he is doing now is they found him some
transitional housing. He is no longer living on the street.
They have got him involved in an educational program. He had
his high school diploma; he is now working for a bachelor's of
art. This would not have been possible without a program, and I
think we lose a lot of politics here on this stuff, but we lose
that kind of how important this is to individual human beings;
how important it was to me to have a Peace Corp; how important
it is to Jim Moran to have AmeriCorps, and I just leave you
that as something that I think these programs give Americans
hope, not only hope for serving but hope for solving problems.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you for your remarks; very poignant.
Robert?
Mr. Andrews. The first thing I would like to say is to say
thank you for the time that you put into this. All of us are
aware of the demands put on members' time and to sit herefor I
guess was a very long day, looking at the list, and to give us each a
chance to do this, we really do appreciate it. We realize the sacrifice
of time you are making and the nitty gritty non-glitzy of just what you
are doing. We really do appreciate it.
I also wanted to say that I am well aware of the fact that
in the debate about national service there has really been two
kinds of people. There have been people on both sides who
wanted to make ideological points, and that is fine, and then
there have been people who wanted to find a way to make the
program work better, and I think this Subcommittee under your
leadership, Mr. Chairman, has very much been in that camp, and
we appreciate that.
I wanted to give you a report as the supporter of an
increase in the appropriation as to the progress that has been
made which you are well aware, but I wanted to have it on the
record. There have really been three things we tried to do
since the--the problems in the early days of the program have
been pointed out.
The first was to bring down the overall cost of
participating in the program; the second was to reduce the
amount of administrative overhead in the Corporation which runs
the program, and then the third thing that we have tried to do
is to address the specific audit issues that have been raised
over the course of the last couple of years. Senator Wofford, I
think, has done an exemplary job at doing just those three
things. In 1999, it appears that the cost for participants will
be around $15,000 per participant or under. That is significant
progress over where we were a few years ago.
Second, there has been a reduction in the Corporation's
administrative budget by 12 percent. There has been a cut in
the National Civilian Community Corps headquarter staff by 25
percent. The campus staff has closed by 30 percent, so they
really have reduced the overheads so they could increase the
program.
The third thing on the audit issues--and it is detailed in
a report that I know that Senator Wofford has made to this
committee--97 of the 99 audibility items that were raised in
the 1986 audit have been addressed in some significant fashion.
Not all of them have been resolved, but I think that is very,
very significant progress, and I would just implore you to look
at that record. I think it justifies the increase that I am
supporting which is $76.8 million up from the fiscal year level
of $425 million, and I thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Robert. Mr. Shays? Welcome.
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much. I just also want to thank
all of you for serving the way you do. I used to serve on the
Appropriations Committee, and it was--I just am in awe of what
you all do. I have a frustration and it is not with this
committee. I know this committee has funded AmeriCorps; I know
that it has done so over the objection of a good number of our
members. But what frustrates me as a Republican is that, first,
this is a voucher program for education. As a Peace Corp
volunteer, Sam and I were given a small stipend when we were
done and we could spend it on anything, but when an AmeriCorp
participant is done they have to spend it on education and they
want to, and I think that's something that this Congress should
favor.
Secondly, it is not a national program. It is a program
where two-thirds, basically, is done at the State and local
level, and it is to me a program designed candidly with a
Republican perspective done by a Democrat administration, and
they did it because they really wanted it to be bipartisan, and
I think even though it didn't get the support of Republicans,
we still tried to make it be that kind of program. I know they
have had some problems on the audit side, and they are
addressing that some of that was programs that existed before
that they had to incorporate, and I think that the per unit
cost even when we talk about being $16,000 this year realizing
that $4,700 is the grant, $1,275 is health care--maybe they
shouldn't get health care but they do, and I am content with
that and the salary is a measly $9,000. Let me just finish up.
I see it in my urban areas. These are kids that need a job
where there is mentoring training; they get both, and when they
are done, they get an education and they know they have served
their country. I cannot say I would die for this program but
nearly close to it. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. Gentlemen, if I could respond to all of you in a
way. This may just be a reflection of our frustration. I know
that we are going to hear from Members who talk about the
dollar figures that you are talking about, and they will come
to you, Rob, and say, ``What is the average income of the
average family in your home State?'' ``Does Indiana have that
average income number?'' ``And this is a volunteer program,''
et cetera. I can handle those kinds of discussions, but I will
never quite forget the first year I had this job, as Louis and
I took this bill to the floor, and we were attempting to send
messages to a number of our agencies that had not had a certain
kind of oversight for a while, and especially in this case we
were looking at Veterans' Affairs, where all of us know--all of
us know--that VA medical care has a knee-jerk bipartisan
support base and over the years we just put money out there and
didn't really worry about what happened to veterans in the
hospital. They have numbers on their foreheads, and they were
treated not like human beings, and yet we were trying to send a
message: Get your house in order; begin to readjust this. So we
made some much lighter adjustments in the VA program. When we
went to the poor, nobody, but nobody would hear it.
You were the greatest supporters of AmeriCorps and sat
there with all of us because the amendment being produced from
the Veterans' Committee was a trade-off when the AmeriCorps
funding was put in VA. Frankly, in the final analysis, we took
over the amendment and did it ourselves because it was obvious
that the House was going to do it. But there was no base out
there to support.
The following year I just about lost my head when I voted
for a minor little amendment, but for my chairman, where he was
trying to put money back in AmeriCorps. Well, one way or
another, we have to do a better job of this than lose our heads
in the process and I'm just frustrated by it and I want you to
know that. I appreciate very much the testimony. I appreciate
those of you who worked for our bill as well.
Mr. Andrews. Mr. Chairman, if I may, just for my own part,
I would certainly enlist as a volunteer in any effort to whip
and work an amendment that would raise these issues. I
understand that's my reciprocal obligation to you.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Stokes?
Mr. Stokes. I just want to say that this issue--these are
three of probably the most articulate spokespersons in the
House, and obviously know this issue extremely well and from
their own personal knowledge. I think we understand your
viewpoint. The Chairman, I think, has been clearly supportive
in this area.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. I echo Mr. Stokes' sentiment, as well.
Mr. Shays. Could I just point out that I also submitted
items this morning in support of HOPWA and brownfields. Your
brownfields legislation has done more good in urban areas than
any other program I have seen in the urban areas.
Mr. Lewis. We have not received our budget allocations yet,
but it is our position to move forward as though we've seen
them. We can allocate proportionately a lot of things but the
programs that you are interested in are going to receive
significant levels of support.
Mr. Stokes. Ms. Nancy Pelosi did an excellent job on the
HOPWA issue.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you for being here. Thank you all.
Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Farr. Yes. I have one issue and you understand it.
What's happening in California is that we have closed military
bases, and in fact, Mr. Stokes' former base, Fort Ord, is
closed. They want to build a veterans' cemetery there, and the
VA doesn't want anymore veterans' cemeteries.
What you can have is the partnership of the States, and
Senator Bruce McPherson, a Republican, is offering a bill in
the State legislation. There is a request to put $10 million
into the State cemetery. It's a program we--they essentially
are veterans' cemeteries run by the States. We put some Federal
money in for startup, but then the costs are borne by the
State. We need this at Ft. Ord. This isn't a Ft. Ord earmark;
$10 million for the whole Nation, but I'm here to request that.
We're kind of stuck because the Veterans' Committee doesn't
want to create any new national cemeteries because they got a
backlog and yet they don't want the States to run them either
and this committee is in a position where you can run----
Mr. Lewis. But you also know that we are somewhat stuck, as
well, because all of you point to us and say, how come you guys
are doing all of this authorizing all the time? Eighty-five
percent of our bill is unauthorized and yet the authorization
committees say, how come you guys aren't----
Mr. Andrews. Feel free to authorize AmeriCorps. [Laughter.]
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1974 - 1981--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Lewis. Maybe we should. Karen Thurman is here though.
Can we get you in and out maybe?
Mr. Roemer. Can I just review my statement from this
morning, sir?
Mr. Lewis. Yes.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1983 - 1987--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, April 23, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
HON. KAREN L. THURMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
FLORIDA
Ms. Thurman. Water, water, water, brevity, money.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. Okay.
Ms. Thurman. Is that the way it is?
Mr. Stokes. But I don't think the Chairman knew that I was
stationed at Ft. Ord. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lewis. We appreciate very much your testimony.
Ms. Thurman. Bill Young put in a request. I'm actually
trying to complement his. I heard he's talked to you.
Mr. Lewis. Yes.
Ms. Thurman. You all know this. You've been great for us
for the last couple of years. We just need to keep it going.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much for your help.
Ms. Thurman. I know.
Mr. Stokes. Do you want some water, Karen?
Ms. Thurman. No. [Laughter.]
Believe me, Mr. Stokes, I wouldn't be here about water.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1989 - 1990--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, Arpil 23, 1998.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WITNESS
HON. MICHAEL P. FORBES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
NEW YORK
Mr. Lewis. We will be in recess until after we vote.
[Recess.]
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Forbes, your entire testimony will be
included in the record. If you would briefly summarize it for
us, we not only will get through this process, but probably
with a bit more money. [Laughter.]
Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much and I thank
the committee the very generous support that this committee
made possible for a very important institution on Long Island--
Hillside Hospital. Hillside Hospital is best known, certainly
by the National Institute of Mental Health and the Clinical
Research Center because of their tremendous emphasis on the
study of schizophrenia and other psychiatric disorders. Not
only are they involved in psychiatric research and
rehabilitation and treatment, but in the region they are well-
known for the mental health and substance abuse work that they
do. They treat over 30,000 individuals a year who come through
that facility--even on outpatient bases largely for 223 bedside
deaths are possible.
It is, frankly, well over 50 years old--the structure and
this committee expressed its sensitivity and I appreciate it
again. Last year, and I would just made an appeal. We obviously
made an appeal, the Committee could help in a small way again
this year, we've asked formally for $3 million.That's just part
of the overall $40 million renovation and rehabilitation that the Long
Island Jewish Board of Trustees has approved and largely those dollars
will all be private sector dollars so there is a healthy private sector
involvement rather than expecting public dollars to do the lion's share
of the work. So I just want to make an appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, and
to the committee for your----
Mr. Lewis. Let me add to your commentary, Mr. Forbes, if
you would. You may remember last year, we had a thing called
the line veto around that time. I don't anticipate it is going
to play a role in this year's circumstances and there were more
one than project in the region that was under some
consideration. Rabbi Balcony was in my office earlier today and
I indicated that--I think, in fact, he went and talked with Mr.
Walsh on my behalf. In the meantime, I would hope the two of
you would talk about those items and get back to me and we'll
see what happens.
Mr. Forbes. He is a very good friend of mine and I would be
more than happy to share that. Thank you for that. Just one
other final area, if I could raise the sensitivity. I know this
committee is already sensitive to it, but the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry--I have had a tremendous
experience--a very favorable experience with this agency. They
have, for example, in just recent years--they have been
involved in studying two Superfund sites in one commercial
gasoline station which has been a large source of problems to
our sole-source aquifer on Long Island. They had done a
tremendous job there at that agency and I know that the
President's budget reduces the monies for the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, ATSDR, by about $10 million. I
would hope that maybe the committee would be sensitive to--
really the excellent work that this committee's doing--I should
say this agency is doing. They have an operating budget of
about $74 million. If we were to go along with the President's
recommendation, we would see some discontinued activities along
the line of a tremendous backlog in Superfund sites alone.
I have to say that I think there is an area here--in just
national public policy--that dictates that I think the ATSDR is
probably going to have an even more dominant role in helping
communities--neighbors who are living adjacent to some of these
sites work through what is largely a great concern on the part
of health care concerns. Sometimes in all due respect to them,
a lot of times it may be overstated, but the ATSDR has the
ability to professionally go in and help communities work
through some of their concerns. In other areas, they do help to
separate a lot of the hyperbole and rhetoric from actual
concerns and they have done a tremendous job. So if the
Committee in your deliberations can see fit to try to sustain
the funding as opposed to cutting it by $10 million.
I know there are a lot of demands on this committee, as
there are on some of our other subcommittees, and I am very,
very sensitive to the juggling that has to be done to make sure
that we stay within the framework of a balanced budget. But I
just again--Mr. Chairman and to the Ranking Member--I want to
make sure that you understand that I am most appreciative
personally for the excellent work that is done by this
committee and for the very wonderful dialogue that we have had
over the last couple of years on some issues.
Mr. Lewis. Well, thank you very much for your testimony,
Mr. Forbes. We appreciate not just the sensitivity but the
patience you have with this committee over the past year. But
we look forward optimistically.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stokes. I just concur with the Chairman's comments and
I want you to know we appreciate very much your testimony.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Stokes. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 1993 - 1996--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Lewis. I might mention to my colleague that the next
two people on our list are friends and that is the end of our
hearing today. David Bonior talked to me personally recently
about an item that he was interested in. I am not sure if
either of you have talked yet.
Mr. Stokes. I have talked with him and I suggested that he
come over but if he has talked with you, then we can----
Mr. Lewis. Might I suggest that in view of this schedule
that we just may include that information on the record. When
we get to it, we will do what we can do. In the meantime,
William Jefferson is the last witness. I am not sure exactly
what his priorities might be, but frankly, what I would suggest
that we include his testimony in the record and suggest to him
that we will give it the highest priority consideration and you
and I will do what we can for him.
Mr. Stokes. I concur fully, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Any problem with that?
Mr. Frelinghuysen. No.
Mr. Lewis. With that, then we have completed the testimony.
We will accept all of those items for the record and appreciate
the gentlemen participating. The meeting is adjourned. We are
through for the year.
Mr. Stokes. Mr. Chairman, congratulations.
[Pages 1998 - 2003--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Andrews, Hon. Robert............................................. 1968
Anthes, R. A..................................................... 1633
Atlas, Ronald.................................................... 483
Baer, T. P....................................................... 1661
Barnes, M. G.................................................1561, 1614
Barrett, Hon. T. M............................................... 1900
Becker, S. W..................................................... 745
Beedle, Ralph.................................................... 506
Bereuter, Hon. Doug.............................................. 1795
Bergen, Stanley, Jr.............................................. 1180
Blum, J. O....................................................... 606
Blumenauer, Hon. Earl............................................ 1857
Boeding, Bob..................................................... 164
Boesen, C. D..................................................... 1454
Bogan, Jim....................................................... 1923
Bolin, Dave...................................................... 545
Bonneau, Don..................................................... 1521
Boone, Linda..................................................... 1645
Bowles, Liza..................................................... 1017
Burke, Dr. W. A.................................................. 1750
Bursell, Sven-Erik............................................... 305
Buttigleg, Joseph................................................ 1294
Bye, Dr. R. E., Jr............................................... 1536
Cagey, Henry..................................................... 1685
Calkins, C. L.................................................... 1410
Campion, R. J.................................................... 956
Carr, Chester.................................................... 1452
Church, Dr. R. A................................................. 1604
Clark, Les....................................................... 1691
Clyburn, Hon. J. E............................................... 1895
Coburn, Hon. Tom................................................. 1931
Cole, Anthony.................................................... 972
Cole, B. J....................................................... 1527
Conley, Lisa..................................................... 1521
Cox, Christopher................................................. 917
Coyne, Hon. W. J................................................. 1801
Cressel, Fred.................................................... 1095
Cunha, Manuel, Jr................................................ 1691
Dalston, Jeptha.................................................. 1479
Davenport, Robert................................................ 1209
DeAlmeida, Lino.................................................. 654
Dearborn, Dorr................................................... 447
Delaney, Bruce................................................... 729
Dellums, Hon. R. V............................................... 1772
Dermer, David.................................................... 790
DeWitt, R. M. T.................................................. 1929
Doyle, Hon. Michael.............................................. 1801
Dubose, Sherwood................................................. 1304
Duggan, D. M..................................................... 1668
Eisenberg, A. C.................................................. 962
Erickson, Jerry.................................................. 698
Erlanson, Deborah................................................ 1607
Evans, Hon. Lane................................................. 1889
Farr, Hon. Sam................................................... 1968
Forbes, Hon. M. P................................................ 1991
Foscarinis, Maria................................................ 1742
Fox, Dr. Peter................................................... 1573
Frank, Bill, Jr.................................................. 662
Frank, Hon. Barney............................................... 1840
Freeman, Peter................................................... 1
Friedman, Dr. Louis.............................................. 1638
Furmanski, Philip................................................ 1282
Futrell, Jean.................................................... 95
Futter, Ellen.................................................... 465
Gallo, Betty..................................................... 1200
Garner, James.................................................... 1786
Geller, Howard................................................... 737
Glenn, G. A...................................................... 1557
Goodling, Hon. W. F.............................................. 1829
Gorden, Stephen.................................................. 517
Gordon, Hon. Bart................................................ 1776
Graham, Hon. Lindsey............................................. 1931
Grant, G. A...................................................... 1180
Gray, Albert..................................................... 767
Grogan, Paul..................................................... 256
Gunther-Smith, Pamela............................................ 1231
Hanle, Paul...................................................... 685
Harper, J. M..................................................... 1622
Hastings, Hon. Doc............................................... 1836
Hiscox, John..................................................... 1007
Holiaman, Andrij................................................. 754
Hooley, Hon. Darlene............................................. 1948
Horn, Hon. Steve................................................. 1968
Humphreys, Kirk.................................................. 1823
Iarossi, Brad.................................................... 1333
Istook, Hon. E. J., Jr........................................... 1822
Jaffe, Arthur.................................................... 207
Johnson, David................................................... 129
Johnson, Hon. E. B............................................... 1954
Jollivette, C. M................................................. 472
Joseph, L. R..................................................... 1146
Kaatz, Gary...................................................... 1665
Kahn, Bernard.................................................... 1265
Keairns, D. L.................................................... 330
Kelley, Rev. Aloysius............................................ 1676
Kennedy, Hon. J. P., II.......................................... 1879
Kennelly, Hon. B. B.............................................. 1868
Kenny, M. P...................................................... 1691
Key, M. M........................................................ 754
Kick, Ann........................................................ 1925
Kilpatrick, Hon. C. C............................................ 1126
Kleczka, Hon. Jerry.............................................. 1900
Kleine, M. A..................................................... 1539
Kraut, Alan...................................................... 44
Krebs, J. W...................................................... 1702
Krizek, Raymond.................................................. 435
Lampson, Hon. Nick............................................... 1940
Lancaster, Ronny................................................. 720
Landman, J. C.................................................... 1579
Larson, Larry.................................................... 1525
Lawrence, Francis................................................ 370
Lee, Hon. Barbara................................................ 1998
Lee, Virgo....................................................... 1324
Leiby, V. M...................................................... 636
Lewis, T. H...................................................... 1216
Kipke, Sheldon................................................... 1209
Loew, Dr. Murray................................................. 1350
Lucas, Hon. Frank................................................ 1817
MacDonald, Douglas............................................... 990
Manley, Audrey................................................... 1231
Martin, Robert................................................... 527
Mascara, Hon. Frank.............................................. 1801
Mason, Dr. R. J.................................................. 1570
Mathews-Amos, Amy................................................ 1590
Mauderly, J. L................................................... 566
Maulson, Tom..................................................... 1671
Maves, Michael................................................... 455
McCarthy, Hon. Carolyn........................................... 1786
McCarty, Dr. Richard............................................. 1360
McClain, R. M.................................................... 669
McDonald, George................................................. 1245
McGarry, S. J.................................................... 1392
McGovern, Hon. J. P.............................................. 1840
McIntyre, Hon. Mike.............................................. 1854
McKinney, Hon. Cynthia........................................... 1808
McKinney, Stan................................................... 1343
Mendell, L. M.................................................... 1546
Miller, Ann...................................................... 1036
Moakley, Hon. John............................................... 1781
Muench, J. E..................................................... 1419
Munzer, Alfred................................................... 1026
Nasr, Nabil...................................................... 102
Nellor, M. H..................................................... 1573
Nemtzow, David................................................... 777
Neylan, John..................................................... 217
Norris, P. M. P.................................................. 1567
O'Brien, T. J.................................................... 1626
Oberstar, Hon. J. L.............................................. 2001
Ordorica, P. I................................................... 1399
Ortiz, Hon. S. P................................................. 1274
Ouchley, Don..................................................... 1274
Overbey, M. M.................................................... 186
Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr.......................................... 1906
Panetta, Leon.................................................... 1757
Partridge, Col. C. C............................................. 1434
Pasinski, Theodore............................................... 1532
Patrick, Barbara................................................. 1691
Pavel, Mary...................................................... 1154
Pelosi, Hon. Nancy............................................... 1763
Pinsky, Mark..................................................... 1315
Polf, William.................................................... 926
Raabe, O. G...................................................... 581
Ray, Melvin...................................................... 351
Reheis, C. H..................................................... 1691
Reischman, Michael............................................... 361
Reynolds, M. D................................................... 1550
Rhea, Larry...................................................... 1501
Rice, Rudy....................................................... 536
Robfogel, Nathan................................................. 102
Robins, E. M..................................................... 711
Roe, Robert...................................................... 1209
Roemer, Hon. Tim................................................. 1968
Roman, Nan....................................................... 950
Salazar, Javier.................................................. 981
Sanchez, Jorge................................................... 1047
Sandorf, Julie................................................... 1440
Saundry, Peter................................................... 497
Saxton, Hon. Jim................................................. 1846
Schlender, J. H.................................................. 1156
Schultz, L. C., Jr............................................... 1926
Schwartzkopf, Larry.............................................. 1162
Serna, Joe, Jr................................................... 1630
Sessler, Andrew.................................................. 67
Shays, Hon. Christopher.......................................... 1968
Sheehan, Lorraine................................................ 1101
Siebert, Jerome.................................................. 859
Siedow, James.................................................... 33
Silver, H. J..................................................... 174
Sklar, Scott..................................................... 627
Slade, David..................................................... 851
Slaughter, Hon. Louise........................................... 119
Sloan, Martha.................................................... 342
Smith, Hon. Chris................................................ 1913
Smith, Tom....................................................... 998
Sperling, Andrew................................................. 1113
Stamps, Andrea................................................... 1123
Steadman, Kenneth................................................ 1471
Steinberg, Dick.................................................. 937
Suflita, Joseph.................................................. 797
Suki, Wadi....................................................... 298
Thompson, Barbara................................................ 1254
Thurman, Hon. K. L............................................729, 1988
Tierney, Hon. John............................................... 1840
Trybula, Maryann................................................. 1924
Visclosky, Hon. P. J............................................. 1864
Vitikacs, John................................................... 1510
Volpe, Mark...................................................... 1553
Walter, Paul..................................................... 67
Waters, Hon. Maxine.............................................. 1812
Weller, Hon. Jerry............................................... 1919
Weygand, Hon. Robert............................................. 1960
Williams, Patrick................................................ 558
Wodraska, J. R................................................... 1655
Young, Dr. Stephen............................................... 1461
Yount, Ralph..................................................... 67
Yuill, Thomas.................................................... 616
Zaterman, Sunia.................................................. 1136
I N D E X
----------
Page
Community Development Financial Institutions:
The Coalition of Community Development Financial Institutions 1315
Environmental Protection Agency:
Alliance to Save Energy...................................... 777
American Academy of Otolaryngology........................... 455
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy............. 737
American Lung Association.................................... 1026
American Museum of Natural History........................... 465
American Public Power Association............................ 1695
American Society for Microbiology............................ 483
American Society of Civil Engineers.......................... 435
American Water Works Association............................. 517
American Water Works Association Research Foundation......... 527
Association of National Estuary Programs..................... 851
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators........... 636
Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc................ 1525
Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians............. 1577
Brownsville Public Utilities................................. 1274
California Industry and Government Coalition on PM-10/PM-2.5. 1691
California Rural Water Association........................... 558
City of Gainesville, FL...................................... 729
City of Miami Beach, FL...................................... 790
City of Newark, NJ........................................... 1180
City of Patterson, New Jersey................................ 1561
City of Sacramento........................................... 1630
City of Tallahassee.......................................... 1216
Coalition of EPSCoR States................................... 351
Colorado State University.................................... 1623
Environmental Lung Center, National Jewish Medical and
Research Center............................................ 1570
Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indian............ 1162
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission.............. 1154
Ground Water Protection Council.............................. 545
Health Physics Society....................................... 581
Institute for Food Technologists............................. 859
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians....... 1671
Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority........................ 1527
Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute...................... 566
Lummi Indian Business Council................................ 1686
Massachusetts Foundation for Excellence in Marine and Polymer
Sciences................................................... 1557
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority...................... 990
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California........... 1655
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago... 1625
Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics Research Center...... 754
NASULGC...................................................... 616
National Association of Conservation Districts............... 536
National Institute for the Environment....................... 497
National Utility Contractors Association..................... 654
Natural Resources Defense Council............................ 1579
North American Lake Management Society....................... 1521
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission........................ 662
Nuclear Energy Institute..................................... 506
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners........................ 1209
Pediatric Pulmonology, School of Medicine.................... 446
Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufactures Association......... 606
Rochester Institute of Technology............................ 102
Rochester Institute of Technology............................ 102
Society of Toxicology........................................ 669
Soil Aquifer Treatment Project............................... 1573
Solar Unity Network.......................................... 627
South Coast Air Quality Management District.................. 1750
STAPPA/ALAPCO................................................ 745
The Academy of Natural Sciences.............................. 685
The Association of Minority Health Professions Schools....... 720
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.............. 1633
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey........... 1180
University of Miami.......................................... 472
University of Tulsa.......................................... 797
Water Environment Federation................................. 767
Water Environment Research Foundation........................ 1698
Federal Emergency Management Agency:
American Society of Civil Engineers.......................... 435
Association of State Dam Safety Officials, Inc............... 1333
Catholic Charities USA....................................... 1294
National Emergency Management Association.................... 1343
National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty.............. 1742
Seismic Safety Coalition..................................... 1757
Housing and Urban Development:
AIDS Action.................................................. 981
American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging..... 1146
American Association of Retired Persons...................... 1036
Boston Symphony Orchestra.................................... 1553
Center Point, Inc............................................ 937
Chabot Observatory and Science Center........................ 1550
City of Compton, CA.......................................... 1095
City of Newark, NJ........................................... 1180
City of Tallahassee.......................................... 1216
Columbia University.......................................... 926
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities.................... 1113
Corporation for Supportive Housing........................... 1440
Council of Large Public Housing Authorities.................. 1136
Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries............................ 1123
Fairfield University......................................... 1676
Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indian............ 1162
Golden Gate University....................................... 1539
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission.............. 1154
Haymarket House.............................................. 972
Hebrew Academy for Special Children.......................... 1265
Local Initiatives Support Corporation........................ 256
Lorain County Community College.............................. 1604
Metro Miami Action Plan...................................... 1304
Metropolitan Family Services................................. 698
Mystic Seaport Museum, Inc................................... 917
NAHB Research Center......................................... 1017
National American Indian Housing Council..................... 1452
National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials.. 1607
National Council of State Housing Agencies................... 1254
National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty.............. 1742
Navajo Nation................................................ 1709
New York Downtown Hospital................................... 1324
New York University.......................................... 1282
Pediatric Pulmonology, School of Medicine.................... 446
Public Housing Authorities Directors Association............. 1007
Rural Enterprises Incorporated............................... 998
Spelman College.............................................. 1231
St. Joseph's Hospital Health Center.......................... 1532
The Arc of the United States................................. 1101
The Cancer Institute of New Jersey........................... 1200
The Doe Fund, Inc............................................ 1245
The Enterprise Foundation.................................... 1593
The National Alliance to End Homelessness, Inc............... 950
U.S. Conference of Mayors.................................... 962
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey........... 1180
University of Puerto Rico.................................... 1017
National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
American Academy of Otolaryngology........................... 455
American Museum of Natural History........................... 465
American Psychological Association........................... 1360
Association of American Universities......................... 370
Coalition of EPSCoR States................................... 351
Juvenile Diabetes Foundation International................... 1350
SPIN-2....................................................... 1567
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers................. 361
The Planetary Society........................................ 1638
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.............. 1633
University of Miami.......................................... 472
National Science Foundation:
American Anthropological Association......................... 186
American Association of Engineering Societies................ 342
American Chemical Society.................................... 67
American Chemical Society.................................... 1544
American Institute of Chemical Engineers..................... 330
American Physical Society.................................... 67
American Psychological Association........................... 1360
American Psychological Society............................... 44
American Society for Microbiology............................ 483
American Society of Civil Engineers.......................... 435
American Society of Plant Physiologists...................... 33
Association of American Universities......................... 370
Coalition of EPSCoR States................................... 351
Computing Research Association............................... 1
Consortium of Social Science Associations.................... 174
Council for Chemical Research, Inc........................... 95
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.... 67
Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive
Sciences................................................... 129
Florida State University..................................... 1536
Joint Policy Board for Mathematics........................... 207
Juvenile Diabetes Foundation International................... 1350
Marine Conservation Biology Institute........................ 1590
National Corn Growers Association............................ 164
National Institute for the Environment....................... 497
Society for Neuroscience..................................... 1546
Spelman College.............................................. 1231
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers................. 361
The Cancer Institute of New Jersey........................... 1200
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.............. 1633
Selective Service System:
American Legion.............................................. 1668
Department of Veterans Affairs:
Air Force Sergeants Association.............................. 1702
American Academy of Otolaryngology........................... 455
American Association of Nurse Anesthetists................... 1392
American Heart Association................................... 1584
American Psychiatric Association............................. 1399
American Psychological Association........................... 1360
American Society of Transplant Physicians.................... 217
Association of University Programs in Health Administration.. 1479
Fleet Reserve Association.................................... 1410
Friends of VA Medical Care and Health Research............... 1461
Jewish War Veterans.......................................... 711
Joslin Diabetes Center....................................... 305
Juvenile Diabetes Foundation International................... 1350
National Association for Uniformed Services.................. 1434
National Coalition for Homeless Veterans..................... 1645
Navajo Nation................................................ 1709
Non Commissioned Officers Assoication of the United States of
America.................................................... 1501
Research Society on Alcoholism............................... 1700
Society for Neuroscience..................................... 1546
The American Legion.......................................... 1510
The American Society on Nephrology........................... 298
The Retired Enlisted Association............................. 1419
Veterans of Foreign Wars..................................... 1471
Members of the House of Representatives:
Hon. Robert Andrews.......................................... 1968
Hon. Tom Barrett............................................. 1900
Hon. Doug Bereuter........................................... 1795
Hon. Earl Blumenauer......................................... 1857
Hon. James Clyburn........................................... 1895
Hon. Tom Coburn.............................................. 1931
Hon. William Coyne........................................... 1801
Hon. Danny Davis............................................. 972
Hon. Mike Doyle.............................................. 1801
Hon. Lane Evans.............................................. 1889
Hon. Sam Farr................................................ 1968
Hon. Michael Forbes.......................................... 1991
Hon. Barney Frank............................................ 1840
Hon. Sam Gejdenson........................................... 917
Hon. Bill Goodling........................................... 1829
Hon. Bart Gordon............................................. 1776
Hon. Lindsey Graham.......................................... 1931
Hon. Doc Hastings............................................ 1836
Hon. Darlene Hooley.......................................... 1948
Hon. Steve Horn.............................................. 1968
Hon. Ernest Istook, Jr....................................... 1822
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson................................... 1954
Hon. Joe Kennedy............................................. 1879
Hon. Barbara Kennelly........................................ 1868
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick...................................... 1123
Hon. Jerry Kleczka........................................... 1900
Hon. Nick Lampson............................................ 1940
Hon. Barbara Lee............................................. 1998
Hon. Frank Lucas............................................. 1817
Hon. Frank Mascara........................................... 1801
Hon. Carolyn McCarthy........................................ 1786
Hon. James McGovern.......................................... 1840
Hon. Mike McIntyre........................................... 1854
Hon. Cynthia McKinney........................................ 1808
Hon. Joe Moakley............................................. 1781
Hon. James Oberstar.......................................... 2001
Hon. Solomon Ortiz........................................... 1274
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr....................................... 1906
Hon. Donald Payne............................................ 1180
Hon. Nancy Pelosi............................................ 1763
Hon. George Radanovich....................................... 937
Hon. Bill Redmond............................................ 566
Hon. Tim Roemer..........................................1968, 1982
Hon. Jim Saxton.............................................. 1846
Hon. Christopher Shays....................................... 1968
Hon. Louise Slaughter........................................ 102
Hon. Christopher Smith....................................... 1913
Hon. Karen Thurman........................................729, 1988
Hon. John Tierney............................................ 1840
Hon. Peter Visclosky......................................... 1864
Hon. Maxine Waters........................................... 1812
Hon. Jerry Weller............................................ 1919
Hon. Robert Weygand.......................................... 1960