[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 85 (Wednesday, June 29, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 29, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
             H O U S E  O F  R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S


Vol. 140


WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 1994

No. 85


House of Representatives

DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 4624) making appropriations for the 
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and 
the offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for 
other purposes; and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that general debate be limited to not exceed 1 hour, the time 
to be equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Lewis] and myself.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
  The motion was agreed to.

                              {time}  1442


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 4624, with Mr. Beilenson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  By unanimous consent, the bill was considered as having been read the 
first time.
  Pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement, the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Stokes] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. STOKES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, we bring before the House today the 1995 
VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations bill. Coincidentally, 
it is exactly one year to the day since we appeared before the House, 
last year with the bill.
  As always, this is a very difficult bill to prepare. It requires 
tough, difficult choices. But in making those choices, what we as a 
committee attempted to do, I believe, was to be balanced and fair.
  Our section 602(b) allocation was approximately $400 million in 
outlays below the President's request. The budget authority allocation 
is approximately $450 million above the 1995 request. But it is the 
outlay allocation that is the most constraining--and the question 
quickly becomes ``what programs should be reduced to meet the outlay 
allocation?''
  This problem is not unique to the VA-HUD Subcommittee. All 
discretionary spending is being squeezed as the budget caps continue to 
shrink the money available. And I think I can predict that next year we 
will be facing a discretionary cap that will force further spending 
cuts. And frankly, the outlook beyond 1996 appears equally grim.
  As I mentioned, the outlay allocation is approximately $400 million 
below the President's request. To that deficit in outlays, the 
committee added approximately $350 million in outlays for high priority 
programs in the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
Development.
  For example, VA's medical care account was increased to maintain the 
current services level. Medical and prosthetic research was increased 
to maintain the 1994 level. Additional funds were provided to address 
the increasing backlog in processing of veterans' claims. And operating 
subsidies for public housing projects were increased so as to provide 
for the well-being of low-income families.
  That brought the real outlay shortfall to approximately $700 million. 
This amount was offset by outlay enhancers of approximately $300 
million. These savings primarily result from including language to 
increase the Federal Housing Administration's mortgage floor and upper 
limit for high-cost areas, and expanding the Government National 
Mortgage Associations' real estate mortgage investment conduit program.
  In order to bring the bill within the section 602(b) outlay 
allocation, reductions were required in the requested increases for the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, and 
the Corporation for National and Community Service. A reduction was 
also required in the amount requested for the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration. However, each of these agencies received 
approximately one-half--or more--of its requested increase above the 
1994 appropriation level, despite reductions in the amounts requested.
  Let me stress this point because I believe it is very significant. 
EPA, the Science Foundation, and the Corporation each received 
approximately one-half--or more--of its requested increase.
  Mr. Chairman, the VA-HUD Subcommittee has received letters from each 
of the heads of the major agencies funded in the bill supporting the 
subcommittee's recommendations.
  There is another point I would like to mention--the President's 
investment proposals. The VA-HUD Subcommittee accounts for 
approximately $13 billion of the $90 billion in the investment package. 
This bill, as reported to the House, includes more than $12 billion for 
those investment proposals. That means the bill funds approximately 90 
percent of the President's investment package.
  Before going on to specific recommendations for the major agencies in 
the bill, let me explain the ground rules we used regarding legislation 
in the 1995 bill.
  With a few exceptions--the previously mentioned outlay enhancers 
being the main ones--there is no legislation in this bill. Funding is 
provided for ongoing programs for which enabling legislation presently 
exists--although there is no authorization for a specific amount of 
funds for fiscal year 1995. This practice is not different from the way 
we have proceeded in past years.
  Funds are not provided for a number of new programs in HUD, VA, and 
EPA for which there is no existing legislation. But, let me assure the 
members, the subcommittee will consider funding for all new programs, 
including those in HUD, VA, and EPA, in conference--after enactment and 
review of the authorizing legislation--and within the availability of 
funds in the subcommittee's allocation.
  Let me turn now and highlight a few of the subcommittee's major 
recommendations.
  For the Department of Veterans Affairs medical care account, we have 
provided a total of $16.2 billion--an increase of $111 million above 
the 1995 request. This increase represents the amount the VA estimates 
is needed to maintain the current services level in 1995.
  The increase in funds recommended, together with an increase of 
approximately $300 million requested for contract employment, will 
permit the VA to maintain the 1994 hospital staffing levels. It is the 
committee's intention that the Secretary have the discretion to 
determine whether the FTE level is 201,508, as proposed in the budget--
205,188, as provided in 1994--or some level in between. Any reduction 
below the 1994 FTE level will be offset with increases in contract 
employment. This places the responsibility for determining the proper 
mix of federal employees and contract employees where such an 
administrative decision should be--with the Secretary.
  Under housing, we are recommending $26.8 billion--which is an 
increase of $915 million above the president's request. The recommended 
amount is also an increase of $1.8 billion above the 1994 level.
  Where did that increase above the 1994 level go? Of the recommended 
amount, an increase of $279 million above the 1994 level is for 
homeless programs--the Secretary's number one priority.
  The bill also includes the following increases above the 1994 level: 
$200 million for the community development grants program; $280 million 
for public housing operating subsidies; and $1.3 billion for 30,000 
units of section 8 rental assistance.
  Turning to the Corporation for National and Community Service, the 
Committee is recommending a total of $490 million in 1995. This is an 
increase of $120 million above the 1994 level and a decrease of $120 
million below the 1995 request.
  For EPA, the Committee is recommending a total of almost $7 billion 
in 1995 for activities of the Environmental Protection Agency. This is 
$368 million above the 1994 level and $170 million below the 1994 
request.
  Turning next to NASA, we have included $14 billion for the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration in 1995. That is a reduction of 
$240 million below the budget request and $527 million below the 1994 
level.
  Included within the recommended amount is the full request of 
$2,120,900,000 for the space station program.
  For the National Science Foundation, the bill includes $3.1 billion. 
This is an increase of $88 million above the 1994 level and $93 million 
below the 1995 request.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank all of the members of the subcommittee 
for their active and interested participation in the hearings and 
deliberations that resulted in the development of this bill. I want to 
especially thank the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] for his cooperation and 
assistance. It is a pleasure working with him. I also want to express 
my appreciation and that of our subcommittee members, to our hard-
working staff: Paul Thomason, Michelle Burkett, Robyn Bason and our 
detailee, Doug Reber. They have done an outstanding job.
  Lastly, Mr. Chairman, crafting this bill would not have been possible 
without the hard work and long hours expended by the members of this 
subcommittee. I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lewis], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], and the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Gallo] for their work on that side of the aisle; and 
the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Chapman], the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Torres], and the gentleman from Arkansas 
[Mr. Thornton] on this side of the aisle. They are good Members, and we 
have produced a good bill.
  I urge the Members to support the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, at this point I will include a table with the 
Committee's recommendations compared to the 1994 levels and the budget 
estimates.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                            Bill compared with--        
                                                             Appropriated,    Budget estimates,    Recommended in  -------------------------------------
                   Department or agency                           1994               1995               bill          Appropriated,    Budget estimates,
                                                                                                                           1994              1995       
[1]                                                                     [2]                [3]                [4]                 [5]                [6]
                                                                                                                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Battle Monuments Commission.....................       $20,211,000        $20,265,000        $20,265,000            +$54,000  .................
Cemeterial Expenses, Army................................        12,738,000         12,017,000         12,017,000            -721,000  .................
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board...........  .................         4,250,000   .................  .................       -$14,250,000
Community Development Financial Institutions.............  .................       144,000,000   .................  .................       -144,000,000
Consumer Information Center..............................         2,074,000          2,008,000          2,008,000             -66,000  .................
Consumer Product Safety Commission.......................        42,286,000         40,009,000         43,486,000          +1,200,000         +3,477,000
Corporation for National and Community Service...........       365,000,000        611,388,000        491,388,000        +126,388,000       -120,000,000
Council on Environment Quality...........................           675,000            997,000            997,000            +322,000  .................
Court of Veterans Appeals................................         9,159,000          9,429,000          9,289,000            +130,000           -140,000
Department of Housing and Urban Development..............    24,966,681,000     25,901,078,000     26,815,784,000      +1,849,103,000       +914,706,000
Department of Veterans Affairs...........................    36,665,953,032     37,105,920,061     37,283,863,061        +617,910,029       +177,943,000
Environment Protection Agency............................     6,619,797,900      7,158,095,000      6,988,017,000        +368,037,100       -170,078,000
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation\1\.................     1,178,000,000        842,000,000        842,000,000        -336,000,000  .................
Federal Emergency Management Agency......................       786,289,000        702,000,000        831,322,000         +45,033,000       +129,322,000
National Aeronautics and Space Administration............    14,527,399,000     14,240,684,000     14,000,684,000        -526,715,000       -240,000,000
National Credit Union Administration (limitation on                                                                                                     
 direct loans)...........................................      (600,000,000)      (600,000,000)      (600,000,000)  .................  .................
National Science Foundation..............................     3,017,797,000      3,198,909,000      3,106,063,000         +88,266,000        -92,846,000
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation....................        32,000,000         38,667,000         38,667,000          +6,667,000  .................
Office of Consumer Affairs...............................         2,159,000          2,166,000          2,166,000              +7,000  .................
Office of Science and Technology Policy..................         4,450,000          4,981,000          4,981,000            +531,000  .................
Office of National Service...............................           160,000   .................  .................           -160,000  .................
Resolution Trust Corporation; Office of Inspector General        34,314,000         32,000,000         32,000,000          -2,314,000  .................
Selective Service System.................................        25,000,000         22,930,000         22,930,000          -2,070,000  .................
Budget scorekeeping adjustments..........................        -6,323,000         15,565,000         15,746,000          22,069,000          +181,000 
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total..............................................    88,306,001,932     90,109,358,061     90,563,673,061      +2,257,671,129      +454,315,000 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Included such sums as necessary for losses under the Savings Association Insurance Fund.                                                             

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first respond to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Stokes] and express my gratitude, not only for his expression of 
friendship and the pleasure we have had working together, but to say to 
the Members of the House that Lou Stokes is not just one of the finer 
members of the Committee on Appropriations, he is one of the best 
chairmen to have to work with. I look forward to continuing this newly 
developed partnership that is doing so well.
  My colleagues, I rise to express my strongest support for H.R. 4624--
the fiscal 1995 VA-HUD appropriations bill. In 1980, I read an 
editorial in the Los Angeles Times regarding the conclusions reached in 
the public policy process regarding land planning for desert wilderness 
in California--a subject, most of you know, that has my foremost 
attention these days. It concluded: ``It's a good compromise. None of 
the principals can be totally satisfied with the final result.''
  That's precisely the way I would describe our VA-HUD appropriations 
bill. Almost every conceivable interest has to accept some pain or 
sacrifice in order to balance the competing interests in this bill.
  The Clinton administration supports the bill but it has paid a price. 
In return for station and the substantial reinvention of the U.S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, the President and Director 
Panetta have had to surrender $170 million from their requested 
investment initiatives at the Environmental Protection Agency. The 
anticipated ramp up in the first full year of the Corporation for 
National and Community Service has been cut in half. And although total 
HUD funding is substantially more robust than this Member would like to 
see, pending concrete progress in resolving the Department's chronic 
management deficiencies, this bill defers funding of six new housing 
initiatives totalling $1.049 billion.
  It is hoped that the veterans service organizations and those who 
serve on the authorizing committee will join us in support of the 
decisions reached regarding discretionary veterans programs. We provide 
the funds which make it possible for Secretary Brown to avoid a 
reduction of nearly 3,700 employees in this Nation's largest Government 
run medical care delivery system. While that runs counter to Vice 
President Gore's recommendations in the National Performance Review, it 
is a direct reflection of the will of this House.
  We have restored a proposed cut of $41 million or 16 percent for VA 
medical research. The price for these decisions is that we have 
severely reduced VA major construction. We are, for the moment, $302 
million or 73 percent below last year's enacted appropriations level. 
Additionally, we have increased total medical care funding by $611 
million. while that's no small chunk of change, the subcommittee has 
traditionally added at least $1 billion above the previous year's 
appropriations. We no longer have the flexibility to provide such 
increases and address the bill's other challenges.
  I want to take just a few moments to describe what has the become the 
foremost controversy in our bill. And let's get it right. It's no 
longer Freedom or Alpha and it most certainly is not MIR II. It is 
truly an international space station. My chairman has had his doubts 
but he's nothing if not loyal and determined. And I am not just 
enthusiastic about the progress which NASA has made, I am deeply 
impressed by the level of enthusiasm of the current administration for 
this program.

  So the chairman and I are here today in unified support of continuing 
America's program of manned exploration of space and pleased to be able 
to tell you that we welcome Russian participation in America's space 
station with open arms. Let me drive the point home.
  The two most frequently asked questions are: What will it cost and 
when will we see concrete results from America's collaboration with the 
Russians? As of last week, NASA and the Russian space agency have a 
fixed price $400 million contract. With that we will be buying 
hardware. With that we will have a common airlock and docking module. 
We will have access to the existing Soviet space station. American 
research will be conducted on Russian research modules.
  Much more importantly, next year when we have this debate an American 
astronaut will have flown in space for 3 months on a Russian station. 
He will arrive on the Russian Soyuz vehicle and return on the shuttle 
after it has docked with the Soviet station. Our astronaut will be in 
space for 90 days--breaking the previous American record of 84 days on 
Skylab. That is a most concrete result and we will have it with your 
help when we debate this bill next year.
  I have already told you the price this administration is paying in 
other investment priorities. You should know that NASA is paying the 
price as well. In this bill NASA has an overall funding cut of $526 
million or -4 percent from last year. It will sustain this cut, and 
contrary to the rhetoric we will hear from others, will do so with a 
fully funded space science budget and without the cancellation of any 
major science initiative.
  We present you with a bill which spends $70.4 billion in Federal 
domestic discretionary dollars.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], a member of the subcommittee.
  (Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the subcommittee, I want to 
commend the distinguished chairman of our committee, the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Stokes], for his cordial but disciplined handling of this 
very, very complicated bill, and also the ranking minority member, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], for his vigilance throughout.
  Let me say this is a very hard committee to serve on, because we have 
so many different departments and agencies under our jurisdiction. We 
were not able in this budget because of the constraints we are working 
under to fully fund all requests for the Environmental Protection 
Agency. We know across this country there is unfinished cleanup 
business in every corner of the Nation.
  We were not able to fully fund the National Science Foundation, where 
so much of our future is tied to basic research. And we were not able 
to fund the Corporation for National and Community Service at the level 
requested by the President.
  We made cuts in HUD's housing program, in EPA's water treatment 
grants, and in the Superfund program. This coming year we are going to 
be able to only fund about 5 percent of the sites on the national 
Superfund priority list. So much work remains to be done.
  We consider it a victory that we were able to keep the VA medical 
research budget at its current level of $252 million, a victory just to 
keep the current research programs going, no new programs added. We 
were able to do a little bit more for the homelessness problem that has 
plagued this Nation for well over a decade. And we were also able to 
pay particular attention to housing for chronically mentally ill 
veterans and to support rehabilitation services for disabled veterans, 
as this Nation promised them when they put their lives on the line for 
the Nation.
  In terms of welfare reform, I think the additional funding in the 
bill for the family self-sufficiency centers that will help public 
housing residents access jobs and educational opportunities, was a real 
progressive step.
  One of the most important steps we took in the bill in concert with 
the authorizing committee was to enhance FHA's maximum mortgage limit 
to $172,678, which will help to aid the recovery across our country.
  I have to say in closing, that one of the most difficult aspects of 
serving on this committee is that the manned space station takes so 
much money that we have to put constraints on every other single 
program under our jurisdiction. This was extremely difficult for me as 
a member of the committee, as I watched other priority programs taking 
a second place, really, to the manned space program, which we all know 
is important, but, in essence, put a lock on every other single program 
under our jurisdiction.
  So although we could not fully fund other programs, I think our bill 
accommodates in a reasonable way congressional and Presidential 
priorities.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Gallo].
  (Mr. GALLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GALLO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Lewis], for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by congratulating both the chairman, 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], and also the ranking member, for 
a masterful job in crafting this bill.
  Our subcommittee was faced with a very difficult task. Their strong, 
effective and cooperative leadership has enabled us to bring this bill 
to the floor, and it merits your support.
  I want to express my strong support for the subcommittee's 
restoration to last year's level of funding for the section 202 elderly 
housing program.
  This program has created more than 250,000 affordable housing units 
for low-income seniors over the last 30 years.
  Yet, demands remain great. In my district alone, more than 2,500 
seniors are on waiting lists for affordable housing.
  This year the President's budget contained an 87-percent cut in this 
important program.
  This is the second year in a row that our subcommittee has had to 
restore major cuts to this worthy program.
  I hope the White House and HUD finally understand the strong support 
senior citizen housing enjoys in this Congress.
  Also in the area of senior citizen housing, I want to express my 
continued concern about the problems facing seniors who live alongside 
substance abusers in mixed population housing.
  The committee expressed its concern in the report, and I hope that 
HUD Secretary Cisneros will take the action needed to ensure that those 
seniors do not live in fear.
  I also believe that the subcommittee has met its obligation to our 
veterans. Our country owes an enormous debt of gratitude to the men and 
women who have defended us, both in war and in peace. I am pleased that 
this bill recognizes that fact through its funding for veterans' 
programs.
  I also would life to express my support for the subcommittee's 
appropriation for NASA. The bill supports the international space 
station without short-changing other important NASA efforts. I am 
confident that under the direction of NASA Administrator Dan Goldin, 
the station will be brought in on-time and on-budget.
  This bill also funds the Environmental Protection Agency. In that 
context I want to express my frustration with EPA's decision to issue 
regulations mandating the use of ethanol in reformulated gasoline.
  This mandate is in direct violation of the Clean Air Act. Congress 
specifically directed the EPA to issue fuel-neutral guidelines for 
reformulated gasoline. The EPA has overstepped its bounds, and Congress 
is letting them get away with it.
  The States should have the right to be able to pick the mix that they 
want. As it is, those that are not going to be able to reach the 
attainment levels can expect a 7- to 15-cent-per-gallon gas increase.
  The State also has lost its prerogatives as a result of EPA's action 
in dealing with mandating that 30 percent ethanol has to be utilized in 
their mix.
  It does another harmful thing. There are a lot of companies out there 
that are dealing with alternative fuels. What it says to them is, 
forget it. The Federal Government has made a decision that ethanol is 
going to be the mix, and that is it. And I do not really have a fight 
with any of the alternatives. I just think that the States should have 
the prerogative to be able to figure out what blend they want in their 
mixture.

                              {time}  1510

  And it should not be mandated. I have sent a letter to the President 
indicating that I would hope that he would rescind the EPA's 
regulations, because I do not feel that they are proper. I think that 
they penalize and take away the flexibilities that the States need.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I stand ready to support this bill. I again 
want to thank my ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lewis], and the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], and all 
of the Members that participate as members of the subcommittee for 
their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery], chairman of the Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs.
  (Mr. MONTGOMERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill and 
especially as it relates to veterans programs, which provides funds for 
the Department of Veterans Affairs and the American Battle Monuments 
Commission. Millions of Americans who saw the commemoration of the 
Allied landing at Normandy also saw the serene beauty of the American 
cemetery located in Colleville, France, just above Omaha beach. I would 
like to commend the ABMC for the superb job it does in maintaining 
these overseas cemeteries.
  I want to commend the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Stokes, for 
his support of veterans programs, and I thank Mr. Lewis of California 
also for his help.
  Chairman Stokes and the ranking minority member, Mr. Lewis of 
California, have been very fair in their treatment of veterans in this 
bill. Although there are differences between the budget levels our 
committee recommended several months ago and the amounts provided by 
the bill, the bill provides increases above the President's recommended 
budget in three key areas.
  The veterans health care system is beginning to make changes 
necessary to make it a customer-driven organization. This bill provides 
$16.2 billion for medical care in 1995. This is $111 million more than 
requested by the administration. It provides stable funding support for 
a system that will provide treatment to almost 3 million veterans next 
year.
  The subcommittee also restored the administration's $41 million 
proposed cut in medical research. Although I believe that we could and 
should provide more funds to carry out this important work, the amounts 
provided by this bill will allow VA to fund about the same number of 
research projects next year that are being funded this fiscal year. The 
current level of 4,100 FTEE could be continued during fiscal year 1995 
under this bill.
  Finally, I want to mention the increase in funds included in the bill 
for the regional offices which process veterans' claims for benefits. 
There is a huge backlog of claims at many offices throughout the 
country, and the additional $10 million provided in the bill, along 
with implementation of the much-delayed modernization and management-
reform efforts by the VA, will help address this major problem.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for funding the 
Selective Service system.
  Again, I want to thank the subcommittee chairman and all members of 
the subcommittee and full committee for the work they have done on this 
measure as it relates to veterans.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], a member of the committee.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the VA-Housing 
appropriations bill. I feel that the committee has made improvements to 
the President's request, especially for veterans programs. 
Unfortunately, the current administration fumbled the ball on the needs 
of our veterans. Luckily, the committee has picked up the ball and that 
means a touchdown for the veterans. Nevertheless, I am still concerned 
about the administration's value of the veteran. While the Department 
of Veterans Affairs talks a good game, the veterans in the northern 
part of my State of Nevada are still waiting for improvements to a 
medical facility they were promised many years ago. It is time to stop 
delaying this project, changing plans midstream, and just get it done. 
I appreciate the help that the chairman, Mr. Stokes and ranking member 
Mr. Lewis have provided me on this issue and I will continue to work 
with them through conference of this bill. Veterans in Nevada feel talk 
is cheap, it is time for the administration and Congress to put our 
money where our mouths are.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] for 
his help and assistance to me.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and independent 
agencies appropriations bill and I commend the gentleman from Ohio and 
the committee for their efforts.
  I am pleased with the substance of the bill as it pertains to 
programs in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology. I am pleased that it is relatively free of the kind of 
legislative language that should be left to the proper authorizing 
committees--but that nevertheless appears all too often in 
appropriations bills. And I am pleased that there appears to be no 
substantial erosion in the efforts begun by the committee last year to 
keep inappropriate academic earmarks out of the appropriations bill.
  With respect to the substance of the bill, I want first to commend 
Mr. Stokes and the committee for their efforts to produce a bill that 
fully funds the space station while preserving a balanced civil space 
program that includes a viable science program. As many of my 
colleagues know, I withheld my support for the space station this year 
until I was convinced that we would continue to have such a balanced 
program. The committee has done a good job of meeting my concerns and I 
am now vigorously supporting the space station.
  I am also pleased that the committee has produced funding for the 
National Science Foundation that is broadly consistent with the 
investment goals of the administration and the NSF authorization bill.
  Although the committee has not specified a funding total for research 
and development at the Environmental Protection Agency, I am pleased 
that they have expressed their support for the research and development 
function at the EPA in report language. However, I am concerned that 
report language on priority setting at EPA with regard to statutory and 
court-ordered mandates could be read to indicate that research funding 
should be reduced. I want to emphasize that this interpretation would 
be very short-sighted on the part of the Agency and I hope we could 
clarify the meaning of this language in the conference report. Also, 
the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology looks forward to 
working with the Appropriations Committee in helping EPA improve its 
peer review process.

  Mr. Chairman, although I am pleased with the efforts of the committee 
to fund science, space, and technology investments under very tight 
budget conditions, I think it is important to recognize that the 
overall trend in such investments is disturbing. In 1995, Federal 
support of R&D will fall below 1 percent of national income for the 
first time since 1958. The President's objective of a 50-50 split 
between defense and civilian Federal R&D investments by 1998 is in 
jeopardy if the intention was to shift real resources from defense R&D 
to nondefense R&D rather than simply to cut defense R&D. And our major 
international competitors are devoting a larger share of their national 
income to overall R&D investments--public and private--than we are.
  These trends are not the fault of the Appropriations Committee, which 
is faced with increasingly tight budget caps and spending allocations. 
It is very difficult to make sound longer term investments in such a 
budget environment. This is certainly true for R&D investments, which, 
although critical to raising the Nation's productivity and standard of 
living, all too often are singled out for reduction or elimination by 
zealous deficit cutters who overlook their longer term payoffs in order 
to achieve short-term budget savings.
  This squeeze on R&D investments is aggravated by the practice of 
congressional earmarking. I wish I could say the report accompanying 
this bill is entirely free of earmarks. It is not. But I would commend 
Mr. Stokes for his efforts to keep academic earmarking under control at 
levels well below those prevailing when I and others on the Science 
Committee and in the House first began investigating this practice. And 
I would remind the various department heads that report language is not 
binding on their agencies and they are free to fund the programs they 
originally intended to fund. I am including a list of earmarks with 
this statement.
  Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the concerns I have expressed here, 
this is a good bill and I urge all Members to support it.

  ACADEMIC EARMARKS FISCAL YEAR 1995 VA/HUD HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS REPORT 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Agency and academic of                                       Dollar
          institution                  Project description        amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA:                                                                    
    Clark Atlanta Univ.........  Hazardous Substance Center....     3.5M
    Colorado Sch. of Mines.....  Natl High Altitude Heavy Duty      250K
                                  Engine Rsch. and Technology           
                                  Ctr.                                  
    Colorado State Univ........  Natl. Ctr. for Vehicle             150K
                                  Emissions Control and Safety          
                                  for emissions training                
                                  activities.                           
    Florida International Univ.  Florida Keys Marine Sanctuary.     155K
    Lamar Univ.................  Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance     2.5M
                                  Waste Ctr.                            
    Minority Health Professions  Hazardous substance                4.0M
     Schools Association\1\.      investigations.                       
    Penn State & West Virginia   National Mine Lands                450K
     Univ.                        Reclamation Center--acid mine         
                                  drainage from abandoned mines.        
    Renssleaer Polytechnic Inst  Fresh Water Institute.........     500K
    Saginaw Valley State Univ..  Earthvision activities........     1.2M
    S.W. Center for              Environmental issues affecting     1.5M
     Environmental Research\2\.   U.S.-Mexico border region.            
    Univ. of Arkansas-Little     Toxicological research........     300K
     Rock.                                                              
    Univ. of Colorado-Boulder..  Environmental Ed, Research and     225K
                                  Demonstration Center.                 
    Univ. of Detroit Mercy.....  Ctr. for Excellence in Polymer     600K
                                  Rsch, and Environmental Study.        
    Univ. of Minnesota-Duluth..  Study of the uptake of             165K
                                  environmental mercury by fish         
                                  populations.                          
    Univ. of Minnesota-St. Paul  Studies of potential                70K
                                  detrimental effects of the            
                                  European Ruffe, a non-                
                                  indigenous fish to Lake               
                                  Superior.                             
    U. of North Dakota.........  Nat. Ctr. for Excellence of        120K
                                  Air Toxic Metals.                     
    Univ. of Northern Iowa.....  Small Business Pollution           300K
                                  Prevention Center.                    
    West Virginia U............  Small Flows Clearinghouse.....   1.240M
    Wilkes Univ................  Susquehanna River wetlands         300K
                                  project.                              
NASA:                                                                   
    Ohio State Univ............  Super Computer Center.........     3.0M
        Total..................  ..............................    20.5M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Tuskegee Univ., Charles Drew Univ., FL A&M Univ., Morehouse Sch. of  
  Medicine, Xavier Univ. of Louisiana, Meharry Medical Col, and TX      
  Southern Univ.                                                        
\2\NM State Univ., AZ St. Univ., San Diego St. Univ., Univ. of TX at El 
  Paso, and Univ. of Utah.                                              

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. GOODLING.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I had planned to offer an amendment to the 
appropriation bill now under consideration which would have eliminated 
$120.4 million from the funding allocated to the Corporation for 
National and Community Service and would have held that corporation's 
funding at the fiscal year 1994 level. I would have offered it for two 
reasons.
  No. 1, to get the attention of the Members of Congress who have 
oversight responsibility and, No. 2, to get the attention of the 
administration. I believe I have gotten both without having to offer 
the amendment.
  I will offer that amendment at this time, but I will work actively to 
ensure that sufficient oversight of the National Service Program is 
conducted to guarantee that taxpayers' dollars devoted to this program 
are as wisely spent.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. Chairman, I remember Mr. Ziegler, who was responsible for setting 
up Head Start, saying that the big problem that he had was the fact 
that he tried to move too rapidly with the program. This is the same 
thing that I tell the committee all the time in relationship to WIC, 
even though I am a strong supporter. We have to make sure that we do 
not just pump a lot of money out there, if there is not the 
infrastructure or the quality personnel to carry out the kind of 
programs that we want to carry out. Otherwise we get a black eye in the 
Congress of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, when the National Service Trust Act was enacted last 
summer, the vision of the Corporation for National Community Service 
was that it was going to be a different kind of government actor. In 
trying to win over the support for the creation of a new and quite 
expensive Federal program, the White House assured many of us that 
increased funding would be sought only to the extent that the 
corporation proved its worth.
  In fact, when Bruce Babbitt, the Secretary of the Interior, testified 
before the Committee on Education and Labor prior to the passage of the 
National Service legislation, he indicated that the administration 
wanted, ``to see the program grow at the right pace, even if that is 
not the fastest''.
  Despite these assertions, the administration's budget request for the 
corporation asked for an increase of almost 65 percent. Although the 
Committee on Appropriations cut the request to increase in half, the 
$409.4 million allocated the corporation in the VA-HUD bill still 
represents an almost one-third hike in funding. I do not believe we 
have enough information about the efficiency of the corporation or the 
effectiveness of its program to justify such a large increase.
  The Corporation for National Community Service is a newly created 
Government entity that is still not fully formed. My understanding is 
that the board of directors for the corporation has not yet formally 
been appointed and the regulations determining how corporation grant 
programs will be administered were just issued in this spring.
  Although the short-term Summer of Safety projects are under way, the 
first full-scale National Service effort operated by the corporation 
will not happen until the fall. In fact, just last week the corporation 
announced the grantees for the service programs it will fund directly. 
Both the corporation and the State commission have put forth a mighty 
effort to ready themselves for full operation, but I think all parties 
would admit that the pace has been quite hectic.

  I simply feel we should gather some evidence about the effectiveness 
of the program before we vote on large increases. This is particularly 
true when many worthwhile programs that are already proven are 
experiencing sharp decreases in funding. I hate to bring up the whole 
issue of how expensive it is for the National Service Program to try to 
give educational opportunities when at the same time we are cutting 
programs like Pell grants, which we know are effective and work well.
  The question has been put, Mr. Chairman, why raise the lack of 
information about the effectiveness of the National Service Program in 
terms of increased funding, when the same can be said of many other 
Federal programs?
  First of all, I would be the first to admit the amount of oversight 
conducted by the Congress over Federal spending is insufficient. This 
program is very different.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to recognize our 
distinguished chairman of this subcommittee and the Committee on 
Appropriations, and say that I cannot say enough good, fair things 
about him. I think Kennedy defined courage as grace under pressure, and 
certainly our chairman is the epitome of that grace.
  Certainly the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], with his 
knowledge, experience, and bipartisanship, is also a real tribute to 
this bill.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] for allowing the Roemer-Zimmer amendment to be protected and 
come to the floor today.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] 
for not offering the amendment to cut further the National Service 
Program. That program has experienced a $120-million cut in this bill, 
and I do not think that we should cut further one of the crowning 
jewels of the achievements that we have had as a Congress in putting 
National Service together.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, on the space station, an amendment that I will 
offer with the distinguished and capable gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Zimmer] later on this afternoon, we will have plenty of debate on it. I 
try to call them like I see them, Mr. Chairman, and work together with 
the Republicans. I started to hear from some of the Republicans that 
there might not be deficit reduction in this amendment.
  Let me be very clear and very fair and try to explain to Members on 
both sides of the aisle, when they vote for the Roemer-Zimmer 
amendment, they are eliminating a project that will cost the taxpayers 
$71 billion. The National Taxpayers Union and Citizens Against 
Government Waste both support this amendment.
  There is no innuendo, no rumor, or no rhetoric that can confuse 
people. When we cut a program like the space station, there is deficit 
reduction potential and opportunity in that. There is no doubt that 
when we cut $71 billion, we do something for the deficit.
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward with a great deal of anticipation to 
this space station debate.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my 
colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska, Doug Bereuter.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R. 4624 
and thanks the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Stokes, 
and the distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Lewis, and all the 
members and staff of the subcommittee for their work in bringing this 
measure to the floor today.
  First, this Member is most pleased that this measure includes funding 
for the Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program, which this Member 
authored last year with the bipartisan help of my colleagues on the 
Banking Committee. The $3 million appropriation for this program will 
finance the costs for loan guarantees to leverage a much larger amount 
of loan dollars for this loan program aimed at Indian reservations. 
This is a fiscally conservative, progressive program which will bring 
new opportunity to native Americans living on Indian reservations at a 
very low cost to the Federal Government.
  Second, this Member is also pleased, Mr. Chairman, that H.R. 4624 
includes funding of $263 million for Indian housing new construction. 
The shortage of safe, decent, affordable housing in Indian country is a 
tragedy. While programs like the aforementioned Indian Housing Loan 
Guarantee Program will bring the private sector into the provision of 
housing on Indian reservations, there is still a great need for Federal 
assistance, and this Member is pleased that this measure matches last 
year's funding level for Indian housing new construction. Third, this 
Member is also pleased that the measure includes $500,000 for the 
National American Indian Housing Council. This funding will make 
training and technical assistance available to Indian housing 
authorities across the Nation.
  As a fourth and fifth note of appreciation, Mr. Chairman, this Member 
wants to express his support for the inclusion in this measure of $6 
million for rural water assistance activities and $70 million for 
public water system supervision grants. These are two very important 
programs for rural communities. The supervision grants directly fund 
State programs which implement the Safe Drinking Water Act. Without 
this funding, States would face another unfunded Federal mandate.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, this Member thanks the distinguished chairman of 
the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. 
Stokes, and the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. 
Lewis, for their efforts and assistance, not only for our large 
metropolitan areas but for Indian reservations and the Nation's smaller 
communities as well. Most of the appropriation items I have mentioned 
are very small, but they leverage much larger private sector dollars 
and benefits.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4624.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], a member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the fiscal year 1995 VA, 
HUD, and Independent Agencies appropriations bill. As a member of the 
subcommittee, I can attest to the quality of this legislation.
  Under the able leadership of the chairman and the ranking member, we 
have crafted a bill which is responsive to the broad constituencies it 
serves. In this tight budgetary climate, we have managed to make room 
for some of the President's important investment initiatives while 
still maintaining our commitment to proven programs. And in the 
toughest of years, Chairman Stokes has exhibited strong leadership in 
effecting compromise, and has conducted the business of the 
subcommittee with the utmost fairness.
  The subcommittee provided almost $1 billion over the President's 
request for HUD. By providing this increase we were able to address 
several issues of concern to Members on both sides of the aisle:
  We restored the President's proposed cut to the section 202 program 
for the elderly, a public-private partnership with proven results;
  We provided increases for the CDBG and Home Programs, two initiatives 
which give our communities flexibility to address local concerns;
  We restored funding for critical public housing programs, providing 
an operating subsidy level at 100 percent of the performance funding 
system; and
  We were able to provide a significant increase--close to $300 million 
above last year's level--to homeless assistance programs.
  It has truly been a pleasure to work with someone as committed and 
visionary as Secretary Henry Cisneros, and I believe this section of 
our bill is reflective of his efforts.

  Additionally, this bill provides $37.3 billion for programs and 
benefits for the Department of Veterans Affairs. This total is $618 
million, or 2 percent, more than we provided in fiscal year 1994. 
Nearly half of these funds, $16.2 billion, are appropriated for medical 
care.
  Undoubtedly many of you have been contacted by your constituents who 
are concerned about funds for VA medical and prosthetic research. I am 
pleased to tell you that the Appropriations VA-HUD Subcommittee has 
restored the funding cuts proposed by the administration in this area 
and has kept funded this research at a current level of $252 million. 
VA medical research is improving the lives of our Nation's veterans and 
we must continue the important work being done in this area.
  We have provided a total of $14 billion for the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration, and we have fully funded the President's 
request for $2.1 billion to continue the Space Station Program. No one 
in this body can rightfully claim that funding for space activities is 
taking critical funds from other agencies. In fact, NASA takes a 4-
percent cut from last year's funding levels. Within that austere 
budgetary constraint we have not only provided full funding for the 
space station but we have also fully funded the President's request for 
science, aeronautics, and technology programs. NASA is responding very 
impressively to the difficult task of cutting its programs under the 
able leadership of administrator Dan Goldin. The agency deserves this 
body's support for the funding levels recommended in the bill.
  Our committee has been as generous as we could to the Environmental 
Protection Agency and the National Science Foundation, given our budget 
outlay problems. Both of these agencies received approximately one-half 
of the requested increases above 1994 appropriations levels.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague from Ohio for his 
fine work on this bill and ask that it receive the support of the 
membership.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].
  (Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, yesterday I learned the hard lesson of how 
difficult it is to cut or even suggest cutting a social program here.
  Today for the sake of our country's future and to help ensure greater 
opportunity for our children and future generations, I hope the 
Congress exercises better judgment in regard to the space station.
  The space station is probably too--to coin a phrase 
``governmentalized''--and parts of it like any government-based program 
have been wasteful.
  But rarely do we have before us a better opportunity to create jobs, 
promote research and development, and create better opportunities for 
our future.
  Let me say that my support for the space station is based on that 
hope for the future.
  I know of no other project before this Congress that offers more 
promises for high-paying jobs in the private sector for now and the 
future.
  This chart shows that high-paying manufacturing jobs are on the 
decline while government and public sector jobs have passed by 
manufacturing private sector employment. What promise does that hold 
for the future?
  Even more frightening is the fact that part-time jobs are now growing 
faster than any other segment of employment in our economy. What hope 
does that hold for the future?
  These charts, show that over the last 5 years, that the largest area 
of increase in jobs in our economy are part-time, low-paying jobs. This 
chart shows that the number of manufacturing jobs created in the past 2 
years are now exceeded by government public sector jobs--what promise 
does that hold for the future.
  Manufacturing jobs, including those in our space industry, are higher 
paying jobs. We cannot expect people to live on low-paying, part-time 
jobs. We need projects like the space station to help provide higher 
paying jobs for the future.
  My colleagues, let me tell you what happens if we lose the space 
station:
  The United States loses competitive edge in the global market.
  Fifty-five thousand U.S. jobs lost by 1997 and real gross domestic 
product down $14 billion by the year 2000.
  Little, if any, significant deficit reduction.
  Studies demonstrate that for every $1 spent by NASA, $7 is returned 
to the U.S. economy.
  In 1987, for example: NASA's budget equalled $7.887 billion. This 
investment yielded: $17.8 billion total industry sales; $2.9 billion 
business profits; $5.6 billion government tax revenues; and 209,000 
private sector jobs.
  An investment in the space station is an investment in our economy.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Klein].
  (Mr. KLEIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the H.R. 4624, 
the fiscal year 1995 VA-HUD-Independent appropriations bill.
  Of special importance to me is the provision contained in this 
measure which would increase the current limit on single-family loans 
insured by the Federal Housing Administration in high-cost areas to 
$172,675 from the current level of $151,725.
  This provision is identical to an amendment I offered during the full 
Banking Committee markup of the Housing and Community Development Act 
reauthorization legislation which the full House is scheduled to 
consider now that it has been reported out.
  I want to thank Chairman Stokes and ranking member Jerry Lewis for 
agreeing to incorporate this provision into the bill we have under 
discussion today.
  In so doing, they have given middle-income working families in high 
cost areas like northern New Jersey the opportunity to purchase their 
first home by taking advantage of the lower down payment requirements 
of the FHA program.
  In areas like mine, where the average home costs $179,000, many young 
families have been frozen out of the housing market simply because they 
do not have enough cash on hand to meet the minimum down payment and 
closing costs associated with a conventional loan.
  Mr. Chairman, increasing the ceiling makes good sense. Home buyers in 
high cost areas can finally participate in the FHA loan program and, 
indeed, everyone will benefit because lower cost houses can benefit 
from a mortgage insurance fund that is more financially stable and 
stronger. Indeed, it will help the economy by spurring housing 
construction.
  Finally, this particular provision is revenue-positive. It will 
produce at a minimum $40 million more dollars for the Government.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
legislation and to support the increase in the FHA loan limit.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent].
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the chairman of the VA-HUD 
Subcommittee in a colloquy concerning the cleanup of dioxin at a 
Superfund site in Times Beach, MO.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I am familiar 
with the interest of the gentleman from Missouri in this issue and 
would be happy to engage him in a colloquy.
  Mr. TALENT. As the gentleman is probably aware, the EPA is moving 
forward with plans for incineration of the dioxin waste at the Times 
Beach Superfund site in the St. Louis suburbs. This is not a new issue 
to the residents of the area; in a non-binding referendum vote in 1990, 
the residents of St. Louis County overwhelmingly rejected EPA's 
proposed incineration project.
  There are alternatives to incineration, which EPA has examined in 
other sites around the country. Clearly, EPA is willing to consider 
alternatives to incineration. In several meetings with agency officials 
and in a May 9 letter to EPA Administrator Carol Browner, I asked EPA 
to consider alternatives to incineration at Times Beach. The answer I 
received 2 days ago was inadequate for this enormous problem.
  Mr. STOKES. It appears to me that the people of St. Louis and other 
areas should be afforded an opportunity to test alternative 
technologies in their communities.
  Mr. TALENT. I am well aware of the chairman's strong record of 
environmental protection and hard work to ensure that these areas are 
cleaned up as soon as possible. It is because of my faith in the 
chairman's dedication that I have decided not to offer an amendment to 
strike or restrict EPA's funding.
  Mr. STOKES. I thank the gentleman and understand his concerns. As the 
gentleman may know, there is a study underway to review alternative 
technologies and the incineration issue at the request of this 
subcommittee. I would be happy to have the General Accounting Office 
include the Times Beach site in its study.
  Mr. TALENT. I thank the chairman and appreciate his action on this 
issue. I would also appreciate if the chairman would include report 
language in the statement of the managers accompanying the conference 
report on this bill requesting that EPA carefully consider the findings 
and recommendations from the GAO/OTA study.
  Mr. STOKES. I would be happy to accommodate the gentleman's request 
by including report language to that effect.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee 
for his expeditious work on this issue and would also thank the staff 
for their fine work.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, today we will be deciding in this 
piece of legislation whether or not we will continue building the space 
station. This decision is not a reversible decision. If we decide that 
the space station will be part of our past or we will not continue our 
expenditures, we will not be recovering from this in any time period 
during the time that any of us are alive. We will be making the 
decision for the United States of America to retreat from space, to 
retreat from the frontier that stands before us.

                              {time}  1540

  I will be voting to support the space station. I will be doing so for 
a number of reasons. No. 1, I believe that the future of mankind lies 
in conquering frontiers, and especially in developing commercial 
applications for space, and the space station is our means of coming to 
that point where we can commercialize space.
  But more importantly, Mr. Chairman, perhaps for the people who are 
struggling to make ends meet now, for those of us in California who are 
trying to bring an economy that is so in such horrible shape under 
control and to bring prosperity to our people.
  We have a situation at the end of the cold war in California where 
people are being put out of work; the space station also serves as a 
transition out of the cold war into a time period when our economy will 
have adjusted for the fact that we had so much government spending and 
aerospace spending for all of these years. It will help us adjust and 
bring the American economy through, because America's economy is 
dependent on California, into a time when the aerospace industry can 
function in a competitive marketplace and be developing utensils, and 
different projects like the SSTO program, that will give us a chance to 
explore and utilize space for a profit.
  Turning around now and saying no to the space station will hurt our 
economy right now, but will also be a retreat for the future that we 
will never recover from.
  It is time to say yes to the space station.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds].
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a brief colloquy, 
if I may.
  I want to thank the committee for providing $250,000 for the 
Environmental Protection Agency to carry out a study of alternative 
revenue sources for water project funding. The State revolving fund 
program has been and will be important in helping communities finance 
the multimillion dollar treatment facilities required by the Clean 
Water and the Safe Drinking Water Acts, but, as the chairman is aware, 
it does not come close to meeting the need.
  For clarification, is it the intent of the committee the EPA look at 
alternative revenue sources for both wastewater treatment and drinking 
water treatment facilities.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUDDS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the distinguished chairman 
of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee that it is the intent of 
the committee for the study to include drinking water as well as 
wastewater project funding needs.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for the Members to know that 
while this bill is a sizable one, it includes a total of some $90 
billion in appropriations. The bill itself is a relatively tight 
measure. In veterans' funding, for example, the increase in this bill 
for the 1995 fiscal year is limited to 1.7 percent. In housing programs 
we will provide $26 billion; an increase of 7.4 percent. This is more 
than I might have advocated myself, but nonetheless represents a very 
serious effort on the part of the chairman to cut back requests for 
funding.
  EPA is increased by 5.6 percent. NSF is limited to 2.9 percent. 
NASA's funding, a total of $14 billion with approximately $2.1 billion 
going to station, has an actual decrease from last fiscal year of 3.6 
percent.
  This has been a very, very difficult appropriations year for the VA, 
HUD, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee.
  I would like to close my remarks by asking the Members to give their 
support to this legislation and express once again my appreciation to 
my chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], for his cooperation.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of most of the funding in 
the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies appropriations bill for HUD 
housing and community development programs, for the Environmental 
Protection Agency, for our important veterans programs, for basic 
science and research programs, and for other independent agencies. 
Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, I continue to oppose the NASA space station 
program which is generously maintained through this appropriation 
legislation, effectively ransoming other domestic interests here on 
spaceship Earth. I've noted the past administration and the Clinton 
administration support for an evolving space station program as one 
concept is found faulty or too costly another takes its place only to 
be found deficient in turn.
  As always, there are good reasons to support this overall HUD-VA 
measure. The bill before us today addresses many of the issues and 
proposals presented to the Congress by the able new Secretary at HUD, 
Henry Cisneros, that are in the various stages of being written into 
law. The HUD-VA appropriation measure is a significant undertaking and 
I respect the work the Appropriations Committee has shared with the 
legislative committees and the policies we are working on together. 
While I retain certain reservations regarding the overall discretion 
the bill appears to give the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development with regard to the key changes we are writing into reformed 
McKinney homeless assistance law, I am pleased at the level of funding 
commitment that this measure provides.
  I am hopeful that this discretion will help assure continued funding 
of the activities of the important Interagency Council for the 
Homeless, in the absence of a specific authorization. The Banking 
Committee is reauthorizing this valuable Council in order to ensure 
continued accountability and responsibility for better services for 
homeless persons from the array of national departments and agencies 
who have primary on-going responsibility to outreach to the homeless 
population.
  I am pleased that this bill maintained a separate FEMA Emergency Food 
and Shelter Program, whose work is exemplary in our local communities. 
They have done a good job and as such, what isn't broke, needs no 
repair.
  I am disappointed that this bill continues to cloud the issue of a 
required statutory earmark of funds for the Veterans' Community Based 
Organization grant program. Unfortunately, although report language 
references the issue, the text of the bill does not specifically 
appropriate $10 million in funds. This will continue the quagmire for 
this community based organization and oriented program and possibly 
result in little or no services for homeless veterans flowing through 
this program.
  I am pleased that the subcommittee and committee have restored 
funding for senior housing and public housing and that the bill 
continues to pay attention to community development and housing needs 
through the host of programs available, including the CDBG program, the 
HOME program, and others. Federally assisted housing, section 8 
assistance, and public housing are key to moving beyond the McKinney 
homeless programs to permanent housing for our citizens. We need the 
mix of programs to full compliment the varied needs of our communities 
and the people.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to note several areas in the Housing and 
Community Development Act where we are moving in different directions 
that is disjunct and some programs where we are on the same song sheet 
in concert.
  With regard to the vital FHA mortgage insurance program that enables 
so many Americans to become homeowners, we are fundamentally in the 
same place on the floor and ceiling loan limits--with slight 
differences in the paths we take to get to the same point--the base 
loan limits adjustments so much needed to make FHA fully relevant in 
the 1990's.
  I am also interested in the expansion of the drug elimination grants 
in public housing, today revamped as COMPAC, and must point out to my 
colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, that their conclusion in 
report language that the funds for this program should be 
disproportionately weighted to large public housing authorities was not 
approved in the bill being reported by the Legislative Committee. I 
hope we can continue to work together on this matter and live within 
the bounds of what is authorized in the end and the preferred positive 
policy.

  I must also comment on initiatives we are pursuing in committee and 
that I believe are important to support in appropriations. In 
particular I refer to the attempts to assist HUD and communities in 
providing equal opportunity and choice in housing. Facilitating 
mobility of section 8 housing to new areas and with less concentration 
of lower income people, and improving options for people is essential 
and a worthy objective of our national housing policies.
  I am unable to point out all the specifics concerning this proposed 
appropriation today, but suffice it to note that these programs of HUD, 
EPA, and VA respond to commitments to people and real needs. I strongly 
urge support for the amendment to cut funding for the space station and 
would hope we could redirect funds to deserving programs like the 
national community services programs.
  I thank Chairman Stokes and his staff for their work in crafting 
these spending priorities and am hopeful that we will, with this 
measure, continue to address human deficit through the many commitments 
to our communities and cities.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to commend Chairman Stokes for his 
outstanding work in producing a bill which covers so well such a 
diverse range of programs as housing, veterans issues, environmental 
and consumer protection, and science and technology policy--and for 
doing so under severe budget constraints. These decisions are never 
easy, particularly when they involve such critical needs.
  While this bill covers many important programs, I'd like to mention 
three of specific interest to the people of Colorado. All three involve 
testing or monitoring of exhaust emissions at high altitude, and all 
have been developed in conjunction with the Environmental Protection 
Agency [EPA] to address special problems caused by vehicles operating 
at such altitudes.
  Carbon monoxide is emitted in larger amounts and is even more of a 
health threat at higher altitudes than at sea level. Yet the 
performance of engines at high altitudes is not well understood.
  The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments authorized the National High-
Altitude, Heavy-Duty Research and Technology Assessment Center. This 
facility contains engine and vehicle testing systems for measuring 
emissions associated with gasoline, diesel, and alternative fuels. Data 
collected by the center indicates that emissions of carbon monoxide at 
higher altitudes is 50 to 70 percent greater than at low altitudes.
  The development of a data base, which will be used to modify heavy-
duty engines, is critical to addressing pollution peculiar to high 
altitudes. Cities all along the Rocky Mountains will benefit from this 
data and the committee has provided $250,000 for the center.
  The National Center for Vehicle Emissions Control and Safety [NVECS] 
at Colorado State University was established by the EPA in 1976 to 
study alternative fuels, and vehicle inspection and maintenance, and to 
test emissions reduction devices. It was designated a high-altitude 
research, testing, and training center by the 1990 Clean Air Act 
amendments. NVECS has contributed substantially to the EPA's Vehicle 
Maintenance Initiative which is training and retraining automotive 
technicians who are currently not qualified to inspect, diagnose, and 
repair today's vehicles. This bill designates $150,000 for the NVECS 
program.
  Finally, the bill provides $150,000 for high-altitude exhaust-
emissions compliance testing conducted by the Colorado Department of 
Health [CDH]. As a result of tests performed by CDH, in conjunction 
with EPA, 778,000 vehicles have been recalled since 1989 for repairs to 
assure compliance with Federal standards. CDH has the only facility 
officially designated by the EPA Administrator for high altitude in-use 
compliance testing.
  I thank the chairman and the subcommittee for their support of these 
valuable programs which will help address pollution problems particular 
to high-altitude States like Colorado.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill, H.R. 
4624, VA/HUD Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1995. What Members may not 
be aware of as we consider this legislation is the large amount of 
money which is earmarked for projects included in the Committee report 
which accompanied this legislation. I refer, Mr. Chairman to the funds 
for the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] for fiscal year 1995, in 
which a great number of projects are specifically delineated for 
funding without prior congressional hearings, debate, or authorization.
  Mr. Chairman, we all know that this is a year of limited budget 
resources. Every Federal agency, every department, every congressional 
committee is being forced to make very difficult decisions as they 
prioritize funding for different accounts. Many accounts within the EPA 
are funded at this year's level or below. These concerns are familiar 
to most Members, there has been a great deal of prior debate over 
issues like this on the floor.
  An issue that has not been debated enough is the effect that the 
earmarking of funds will have on the national needs which are attended 
to by Federal agencies. I know that most Members are aware of the many 
environmental issues that must compete for Federal funding. I refer to 
issues such as the need for cleaner water, and air, and more funding 
for important environmental priorities like Superfund--the clean up of 
polluted areas. What Members of Congress may not be aware of is that in 
almost every account that Congress funds for the EPA, several million 
dollars are earmarked for projects of local interest, projects which 
have not been authorized, and projects which have had absolutely no 
congressional debate.
  If we take for example, the Research, Prevention, and Program 
Activities Account in this bill, we will see that it has been funded at 
$90 million below the 1994 level. When we progress further in the 
report, we will see that there is over $42 million earmarked for 
specific projects--projects that have not been requested by the EPA and 
are not national priority. These projects are funded at the expense of 
higher priority items, and the funding for these projects will actually 
take away from some of the major environmental initiatives for today's 
Congress. In effect because $42 million is specifically earmarked in 
this account, it is actually $130 million which will not be available 
for EPA environmental initiatives.
  I am enclosing for the record a list of several examples of 
congressional earmarking for academic research which are in this bill. 
The studies funded in this list have not been specifically authorized 
and no hearings have been held to determine whether or not they merit 
funding in a time of such limited resources.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress cannot continue to spend money in such a 
careless fashion. As stewards of limited resources, we must watch with 
a careful eye to see that Federal moneys are spent efficiently and 
wisely. This starts with following the rules of congressional procedure 
which probhit appropriations without authorization. Until we begin to 
adhere to these standards wich produce fiscal responsibility, we will 
continue to see our national debt increases. We cannot afford to see 
needed Federal programs suffer because of congressional earmarks.
  As representatives of taxpayers, concerned about the future, we must 
have zero tolerance continue.

 ACADEMIC EARMARKS--FISCAL YEAR 1995 VA/HUD HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS REPORT 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Agency and academic of                                              
         institution                Project description         Amount  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA:                                                                    
    Clark Atlanta Univ.......  Hazardous Substance Center...  $3.5M     
    Colorado Sch of Mines....  Natl High Altitude Heavy Duty  250K      
                                Engine Rsch & Technology Ctr.           
    Colorado State Univ......  Natl Ctr for Vehicle           150K      
                                Emissions Control & Safety              
                                for emissions training                  
                                activities.                             
    Florida International      Florida Keys Marine Sanctuary  155K      
     Univ.                                                              
    Lamar Univ...............  Gulf Coast Hazardous           2.5M      
                                Substance Waste Ctr.                    
    Minority Health            Hazardous substance            4.0M      
     Professions Schools        investigations.                         
     Association\1\.                                                    
    Penn State & West          National Mine Lands            450K      
     Virginia Univ.             Reclamation Center-acid mine            
                                drainage from abandoned                 
                                mines.                                  
    Rensselaer Polytechnic     Fresh Water Institute........  500K      
     Inst.                                                              
    Saginaw Valley State Univ  Earthvision activities.......  1.2M      
    S.W. Center for            Environmental issues           1.5M      
     Environmental              affecting U.S.-Mexico border            
     Research\2\.               region.                                 
    Univ of Arkansas-Little    Toxicological research.......  300K      
     Rock.                                                              
    Univ of Colorado-Boulder.  Environmental Ed, Research &   225K      
                                Demonstration Center.                   
    Univ of Detroit Mercy....  Ctr for Excellence in Polymer  600K      
                                Rsch and Environmental Study.           
    Univ of Minnesota-Duluth.  Study of the uptake of         165K      
                                environmental mercury by                
                                fish populations.                       
    Univ of Minnesota-St Paul  Studies of potential           70K       
                                detrimental effects of the              
                                European Ruffe, a non-                  
                                indigenous fish to Lake                 
                                Superior.                               
    U of North Dakota........  Nat Ctr for Excellence on Air  120K      
                                Toxic Metals.                           
    Univ of Northern Iowa....  Small Business Pollution       300K      
                                Prevention Center.                      
    West Virginia U..........  Small Flows Clearinghouse....  1:240M    
    Wilkes Univ..............  Susquehanna River wetlands     300K      
                                project.                                
NASA:                                                                   
    Ohio State Univ..........  Super Computer Center........  3.0M      
      Total..................                                 20.5M.    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Tuskegee Univ, Charles Drew Univ, FL A&M Univ, Morehouse Sch of      
  Medicine, Xavier Univ of Louisiana, Meharry Medicial Col. and TX      
  Southern Univ.                                                        
\2\N M State Univ, AZ St Univ, San Diego St Univ, Univ of TX at El Paso,
  and Univ of Utah.                                                     

  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, as we take up the fiscal year 1995 VA-HUD 
Appropriations bill, I would like to congratulate Subcommittee Chairman 
Stokes and ranking member Jerry Lewis for their leadership on this 
important legislation. Their efforts to institute a strict level of 
criteria to fund VA-HUD projects signals their commitment to fiscal 
responsibility.
  I especially appreciate the consideration of Southern California's 
special waste water treatment needs with the inclusion of funding for 
the international treatment project in Tijuana. I know that residents 
of the Southern California region will reap tremendous benefits from 
this program.
  As a former member of the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology, I have closely followed the progress of the Space Station. 
I wish to commend Chairman Stokes and ranking member Lewis for crafting 
a bill that takes the Space Station, and thus America's space program 
forward and rise in opposition to the Zimmer/Roemer amendment which 
would eliminate funding for this vital program.
  The Space Station is the centerpiece of NASA. It focuses many 
divergent programs and projects on the single, unifying goal of 
expanding our knowledge about our universe and the earth. In a year in 
which we face so many domestic priorities competing for funding, it is 
important to underscore the importance of this project for our future 
standard of living.
  For example, the life sciences medical research conducted in space 
yields knowledge that improves our computer technology and increases 
our ability to manufacture drugs to cure illnesses on earth. The 
American space program has generated many other advances in American 
technology like weather satellites, lasers, CATScans, and Pacemakers.
  Furthermore, support for Space Station Alpha signals a commitment to 
the progress of one of the most successful sectors of our economy. In 
1992, when America's economic engine seemed stalled, the United States 
aerospace industry continued to drive forward, maintaining a $31 
billion dollar surplus and accounting for $44.5 billion worth of 
exports to more than 135 countries around the world.
  The Space Station employs many of the most highly skilled workers in 
the country--providing more than 70,000 jobs. As California continues 
to suffer the impact of defense downsizing, residents of my State 
realize the importance of Space Station Alpha as a vehicle for 
protecting one of California's precious resources--our highly skilled 
employee base.
  While, some may argue that cutting space station dollars from this 
bill is a move towards solving our budgetary crisis, I remind my 
colleagues that money cut from this vital program will not be allocated 
towards deficit reduction. Instead, NASA would be required to shift the 
space station money to lower priority programs within NASA's purview--a 
foolish move indeed. Furthermore, eliminating the space station program 
will serve only to remove the single unifying element for NASA's 
research and the nexus for experimentation and results.
  Thus, I urge my colleagues to defeat the Zimmer/Roemer amendment and 
retain funding for space station Alpha. The bottom line is that it is a 
fiscally responsible approach to funding a project that will provide 
generations of benefits to Americans.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, amendment No. 1 printed in House Report No. 
103-563 may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, may 
amend portions of the bill not yet read for amendment, shall be 
considered as read, shall be debated for 2 hours equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment, shall not 
be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for 
division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4624

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Departments of 
     Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for 
     sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, 
     corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

                    Veterans Benefits Administration

                       compensation and pensions

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the payment of compensation benefits to or on behalf of 
     veterans as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. 107, chapters 11, 
     13, 51, 53, 55, and 61); pension benefits to or on behalf of 
     veterans as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. chapters 15, 51, 53, 
     55, and 61; 92 Stat. 2508); and burial benefits, emergency 
     and other officers' retirement pay, adjusted-service credits 
     and certificates, payment of premiums due on commercial life 
     insurance policies guaranteed under the provisions of Article 
     IV of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, as 
     amended, and for other benefits as authorized by law (38 
     U.S.C. 107, 1312, 1977, and 2106, chapters 23, 51, 53, 55, 
     and 61; 50 U.S.C. App. 540-548; 43 Stat. 122, 123; 45 Stat. 
     735; 76 Stat. 1198), $17,626,892,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That not to exceed $25,750,000 of 
     the amount appropriated shall be reimbursed to ``General 
     operating expenses'' and ``Medical care'' for necessary 
     expenses in implementing those provisions authorized in the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Public Law 101-
     508, and in the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992, Public Law 
     102-568, the funding source for which is specifically 
     provided as the ``Compensation and pensions'' appropriation: 
     Provided further, That $6,000,000 of the amount appropriated 
     shall be transferred to ``Medical facilities revolving fund'' 
     to augment the funding of individual medical facilities for 
     nursing home care provided to pensioners as authorized by the 
     Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992, Public Law 102-568.

                         readjustment benefits

       For the payment of readjustment and rehabilitation benefits 
     to or on behalf of veterans as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. 
     chapters 21, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 39, 51, 53, 55, and 61), 
     $1,286,600,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That funds shall be available to pay any court order, court 
     award or any compromise settlement arising from litigation 
     involving the vocational training program authorized by 
     section 18 of Public Law 98-77, as amended.

                   veterans insurance and indemnities

       For military and naval insurance, national service life 
     insurance, servicemen's indemnities, service-disabled 
     veterans insurance, and veterans mortgage life insurance as 
     authorized by law (38 U.S.C. chapter 19; 70 Stat. 887; 72 
     Stat. 487), $24,760,000, to remain available until expended.

                 guaranty and indemnity program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, such sums as 
     may be necessary to carry out the purpose of the program, as 
     authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 37, as amended: Provided, 
     That such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, 
     shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct and guaranteed loan programs, $65,226,000, which may 
     be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``General operating expenses''.

                     loan guaranty program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, such sums as 
     may be necessary to carry out the purpose of the program, as 
     authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 37, as amended: Provided, 
     That such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, 
     shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct and guaranteed loan programs, $59,371,000, which may 
     be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``General operating expenses''.

                      direct loan program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, such sums as may be necessary 
     to carry out the purpose of the program, as authorized by 38 
     U.S.C. chapter 37, as amended: Provided, That such costs, 
     including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974: Provided further, That during 1995, within the 
     resources available, not to exceed $1,000,000 in gross 
     obligations for direct loans are authorized for specially 
     adapted housing loans (38 U.S.C. chapter 37).
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct loan program, $1,020,000, which may be transferred to 
     and merged with the appropriation for ``General operating 
     expenses''.

                  education loan fund program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, $1,061, as authorized by 38 
     U.S.C. 3698, as amended: Provided, That such costs, including 
     the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in 
     section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided 
     further, That these funds are available to subsidize gross 
     obligations for the principal amount of direct loans not to 
     exceed $4,034.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct loan program, $195,000, which may be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``General operating expenses''.

            vocational rehabilitation loans program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, $54,000, as authorized by 38 
     U.S.C. chapter 31, as amended: Provided, That such costs, 
     including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974: Provided further, That these funds are available to 
     subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount of 
     direct loans not to exceed $1,964,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct loan program, $767,000, which may be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``General operating expenses''.

          native american veteran housing loan program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan 
     program authorized by section 38, U.S.C. chapter 37, 
     subchapter V, as amended, $218,000, which may be transferred 
     to and merged with the appropriation for ``General operating 
     expenses''.

                     Veterans Health Administration

                              medical care

       For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of 
     hospitals, nursing homes, and domiciliary facilities; for 
     furnishing, as authorized by law, inpatient and outpatient 
     care and treatment to beneficiaries of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, including care and treatment in facilities 
     not under the jurisdiction of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs, and furnishing recreational facilities, supplies, 
     and equipment; funeral, burial, and other expenses incidental 
     thereto for beneficiaries receiving care in Department of 
     Veterans Affairs facilities; administrative expenses in 
     support of planning, design, project management, real 
     property acquisition and disposition, construction and 
     renovation of any facility under the jurisdiction or for the 
     use of the Department of Veterans Affairs; oversight, 
     engineering and architectural activities not charged to 
     project cost; repairing, altering, improving or providing 
     facilities in the several hospitals and homes under the 
     jurisdiction of the Department of Veterans Affairs, not 
     otherwise provided for, either by contract or by the hire of 
     temporary employees and purchase of materials; uniforms or 
     allowances therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-
     5902); aid to State homes as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. 
     1741); and not to exceed $8,000,000 to fund cost comparison 
     studies as referred to in 38 U.S.C. 8110(a)(5); 
     $16,232,756,000, plus reimbursements: Provided, That of the 
     funds made available under this heading, $771,000,000 is for 
     the equipment and land and structures object classifications 
     only, which amount shall not become available for obligation 
     until August 1, 1995, and shall remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 1996.

                    medical and prosthetic research

       For necessary expenses in carrying out programs of medical 
     and prosthetic research and development as authorized by law 
     (38 U.S.C. chapter 73), to remain available until September 
     30, 1996, $252,000,000, plus reimbursements.

                health professional scholarship program

       For payment of health professional scholarship program 
     grants, as authorized by law, to students who agree to a 
     service obligation with the Department of Veterans Affairs at 
     one of its medical facilities, $10,386,000.

      medical administration and miscellaneous operating expenses

       For necessary expenses in the administration of the medical 
     hospital, nursing home, domiciliary, construction, supply, 
     and research activities, as authorized by law; administrative 
     expenses in support of planning, design, project management, 
     architectural, engineering, real property acquisition and 
     disposition, construction and renovation of any facility 
     under the jurisdiction or for the use of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, including site acquisition; engineering and 
     architectural activites not charged to project cost; and 
     research and development in building construction technology; 
     $69,808,000, plus reimbursements.

               grants to the republic of the philippines

       For payment to the Republic of the Philippines of grants, 
     as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. 1732), for assisting in the 
     replacement and upgrading of equipment and in rehabilitating 
     the physical plant and facilities of the Veterans Memorial 
     Medical Center, $500,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 1996.

                   transitional housing loan program

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, $7,000, as authorized by 
     Public Law 102-54, section 8, which shall be transferred from 
     the ``General post fund'': Provided, That such costs, 
     including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974: Provided further, That these funds are available to 
     subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount of 
     direct loans not to exceed $70,000. In addition, for 
     administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan program, 
     $54,000, which shall be transferred from the ``General post 
     fund'', as authorized by Public Law 102-54, section 8.

                      Departmental Administration

                       general operating expenses

       For necessary operating expenses of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, not otherwise provided for, including 
     uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by law; not to 
     exceed $25,000 for official reception and representation 
     expenses; hire of passenger motor vehicles; and reimbursement 
     of the General Services Administration for security guard 
     services, and the Department of Defense for the cost of 
     overseas employee mail; $887,909,000, of which $25,500,000, 
     for the acquisition of automated data processing equipment 
     and services to support the modernization program in the 
     Veterans Benefits Administration, shall not become available 
     for obligation until September 1, 1995, and shall remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 1996.

                        national cemetery system

       For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of 
     the National Cemetery System not otherwise provided for, 
     including uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by 
     law; cemeterial expenses as authorized by law; purchase of 
     three passenger motor vehicles, for use in cemeterial 
     operations; and hire of passenger motor vehicles, 
     $72,663,000.

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, $32,219,000.

                      construction, major projects

       For constructing, altering, extending and improving any of 
     the facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs, or for any of the purposes 
     set forth in sections 316, 2404, 2406, 8102, 8103, 8106, 
     8108, 8109, 8110, and 8122 of title 38, United States Code, 
     including planning, architectural and engineering services, 
     maintenance or guarantee period services costs associated 
     with equipment guarantees provided under the project, 
     services of claims analysts, offsite utility and storm 
     drainage system construction costs, and site acquisition, 
     where the estimated cost of a project is $3,000,000 or more 
     or where funds for a project were made available in a 
     previous major project appropriation, $101,965,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That, except for advance 
     planning of projects funded through the advance planning fund 
     and the design of projects funded through the design fund, 
     none of these funds shall be used for any project which has 
     not been considered and approved by the Congress in the 
     budgetary process: Provided further, That funds provided in 
     this appropriation for fiscal year 1995, for each approved 
     project shall be obligated (1) by the awarding of a 
     construction documents contract by September 30, 1995, and 
     (2) by the awarding of a construction contract by September 
     30, 1996: Provided further, That the Secretary shall promptly 
     report in writing to the Comptroller General and to the 
     Committees on Appropriations any approved major construction 
     project in which obligations are not incurred within the time 
     limitations established above; and the Comptroller General 
     shall review the report in accordance with the procedures 
     established by section 1015 of the Impoundment Control Act of 
     1974 (title X of Public Law 93-344): Provided further, That 
     no funds from any other account except the ``Parking 
     revolving fund'', may be obligated for constructing, 
     altering, extending, or improving a project which was 
     approved in the budget process and funded in this account 
     until one year after substantial completion and beneficial 
     occupancy by the Department of Veterans Affairs of the 
     project or any part thereof with respect to that part only.

                      construction, minor projects

       For constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of 
     the facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs, including planning, 
     architectural and engineering services, maintenance or 
     guarantee period services costs associated with equipment 
     guarantees provided under the project, services of claims 
     analysts, offsite utility and storm drainage system 
     construction costs, and site acquisition, or for any of the 
     purposes set forth in sections 316, 2404, 2406, 8102, 8103, 
     8106, 8108, 8109, 8110, and 8122 of title 38, United States 
     Code, where the estimated cost of a project is less than 
     $3,000,000, $153,540,000, to remain available until expended, 
     along with unobligated balances of previous ``Construction, 
     minor projects'' appropriations which are hereby made 
     available for any project where the estimated cost is less 
     than $3,000,000: Provided, That funds in this account shall 
     be available for (1) repairs to any of the nonmedical 
     facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs which are necessary because of 
     loss or damage caused by any natural disaster or catastrophe, 
     and (2) temporary measures necessary to prevent or to 
     minimize further loss by such causes.

                         parking revolving fund

       For the parking revolving fund as authorized by law (38 
     U.S.C. 8109), $1,400,000, together with income from fees 
     collected, to remain available until expended. Resources of 
     this fund shall be available for all expenses authorized by 
     38 U.S.C. 8109 except operations and maintenance costs which 
     will be funded from ``Medical care''.

       grants for construction of state extended care facilities

       For grants to assist the several States to acquire or 
     construct State nursing home and domiciliary facilities and 
     to remodel, modify or alter existing hospital, nursing home 
     and domiciliary facilities in State homes, for furnishing 
     care to veterans as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. 8131-8137), 
     $37,397,000, to remain available until expended.

        grants for the construction of state veterans cemeteries

       For grants to aid States in establishing, expanding, or 
     improving State veteran cemeteries as authorized by law (38 
     U.S.C. 2408), $5,378,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 1997.

                       administrative provisions

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Any appropriation for 1995 for ``Compensation and 
     pensions'', ``Readjustment benefits'', and ``Veterans 
     insurance and indemnities'' may be transferred to any other 
     of the mentioned appropriations.
       Appropriations available to the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs for 1995 for salaries and expenses shall be available 
     for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
       No part of the appropriations in this Act for the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs (except the appropriations for 
     ``Construction, major projects'', ``Construction, minor 
     projects'' and the ``Parking revolving fund'') shall be 
     available for the purchase of any site for or toward the 
     construction of any new hospital or home.
       No part of the foregoing appropriations shall be available 
     for hospitalization or examination of any persons except 
     beneficiaries entitled under the laws bestowing such benefits 
     to veterans, unless reimbursement of cost is made to the 
     appropriation at such rates as may be fixed by the Secretary 
     of Veterans Affairs.
       Appropriations available to the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs for fiscal year 1995 for ``Compensation and 
     pensions'', ``Readjustment benefits'', and ``Veterans 
     insurance and indemnities'' shall be available for payment of 
     prior year accrued obligations required to be recorded by law 
     against the corresponding prior year accounts within the last 
     quarter of fiscal year 1994.
       Appropriations accounts available to the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 1995 shall be available to 
     pay prior year obligations of corresponding prior year 
     appropriations accounts resulting from title X of the 
     Competitive Equality Banking Act, Public Law 100-86, except 
     that if such obligations are from trust fund accounts they 
     shall be payable from ``Compensation and pensions''.
       Of the budgetary resources available to the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs during fiscal year 1995, $20,742,000 are 
     permanently canceled. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     allocate the amount of budgetary resources canceled among the 
     Department's accounts available for procurement and 
     procurement-related expenses. Amounts available for 
     procurement and procurement-related expenses in each such 
     account shall be reduced by the amount allocated to such 
     account. For the purposes of this section, the definition of 
     ``procurement'' includes all stages of the process of 
     acquiring property or services, beginning with the process of 
     determining a need for a product or service and ending with 
     contract completion and closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C. 
     403(2).

  Mr. STOKES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that title I through page 17, line 5, be considered as read, 
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order against title I of the 
bill?
  Are there any amendments to title I of the bill?
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the 
fiscal year 1995 VA, HUD, independent agencies appropriation bill. I do 
so in large part to the continued funding for the space station 
program.
  However, as the ranking Republican on the authorizing Subcommittee on 
Housing I want to take this opportunity to personally commend Chairman 
Obey and ranking member McDade as well as Chairman Stokes and ranking 
member Lewis of the VA-HUD Subcommittee for their efforts with respect 
to our Nation's housing programs.
  With respect to this bill, I appreciate the difficult job the members 
of the Appropriations Committee face in trying to provide a fair 
distribution of very limited funds.
  I want to commend the committee for rejecting the administration's 
budget requests for several programs including the HOME Program, 
section 202 Elderly Housing and the Public Housing Modernization.
  The increased funding levels for the HOME Program, the 202 elderly, 
the section 811 disabled program and the public housing programs 
included in this bill are consistent with the actual need for these 
housing programs.

  Finally, to Chairman Sse tokes and ranking member Lewis, I want to 
again thank you for taking the authorization committee's concerns into 
consideration with respect to the funding of unauthorized housing and 
community development initiatives.
  As my colleagues know, the Banking Committee just recently reported 
out the fiscal year 1995 authorization for HUD programs which we hope 
to have on the floor after the July recess. The Appropriations 
Committee should be commended for setting aside sufficient funds for 
the programs we will authorize.
  There are, however, three exceptions. The first is the $265 million 
increase in the HUD Pension Demonstration Program created last year. We 
have yet to receive any report on how the demonstration is proceeding 
and therefore the authorization committee was reluctant to increase the 
funding for that program much beyond the fiscal year 1994 level.
  The second, involves funding for the Homeless programs. Again, the 
funding for McKinney in this bill is about $200 million over the 
authorization level.
  Finally, the Appropriations Committee included an increase in both 
the FHA floor and high-cost area loan limits. While the authorization 
committee has recommended similar increases, this action does 
constitute authorizing on an appropriations bill and should not have 
been included in this legislation.
  The spirit of cooperation between authorizers and appropriators up to 
this point has been very much appreciated and I hope will continue into 
the future.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. MYERS of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise not on title I, but I have 
had for some time concern about the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency.
  Just when do they decide to help a community? I have had questions 
for quite some time, but it became very real last April 27 when West 
Lafayette, IN, experienced a tornado that killed 3 people; 74 trailers 
were totally destroyed; a factory, about one-third of which was 
destroyed; more than a dozen homes were destroyed; a church mission, a 
service station, a police barracks was partially destroyed, countless 
damage done.
  The Governor of Indiana applied for assistance under the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency and was turned down. We did not like that. 
Appeal was made, and again it was turned down on the basis there was no 
large enough loss. It did not involve enough people. The ability of the 
local community should have been sufficient to take care of this loss.
  Then about 2 weeks ago I read where the District of Columbia received 
help through FEMA for an ice storm back in March. Now, I was here 
during March. I do not recall any major losses, any loss of life 
because of the ice storm.
  My inquiry today is: Has this committee ever asked FEMA, is there any 
rule or regulation or a formula that they apply to losses like this?
  To the people of Indiana, my little community, those individuals, and 
I think there are 70-some families still homeless living in tents, 
living in temporary shelters without any help, yet here in the District 
of Columbia because of an ice storm, and to my knowledge, well, there 
are homeless here, probably not because of the ice storm. But there was 
the loss to those 70-some families, and more than that, but 70 are 
still homeless, is just as great to those individuals in Indiana as 
they are here in the District of Columbia. Yet the District was 
approved.
  Has the committee ever inquired if there is a formula or how FEMA 
decides to help someone or not? I know California had a big earthquake, 
and when we have had the other national disasters, it has helped. But 
how about smaller communities? Again, to the individuals out there it 
is just as great.
  Can anyone answer from the committee? Mr. Chairman, has there ever 
been inquiry? Does the committee understand when they apply? I know you 
and I have talked about it. I appreciate very much your willingness to 
help, and I am not blaming the committee, but I do wonder about FEMA.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Me. MYERS of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. STOKES. As the gentleman has stated in his remarks, you and I 
have discussed this matter, and per our discussion, I shared with you 
the fact that I had a very similar situation in the State of Ohio. I 
have had several of the Members of the House who have come to me and 
discussed very similar problems. Problems where their Governors have 
declared a disaster, and yet FEMA has not been able to recognize it as 
a disaster and have the President declare it a disaster.
  This situation creates a real hardship for these local communities. 
But even after review, we have found that there is very little that we 
can do under the circumstances.
  So the gentleman is not alone in facing the problem he has presented. 
There are many of us who have undergone a very same or a similar 
situation.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I have talked to colleagues who have had a 
similar experience. I wonder if they have ever explained what formula 
they use. Is there a formula? or is it just an administrative answer 
yes or no? How do they decide? Do we know how they make the decision? 
Is there a dollar figure? Is there a numbers figure about how many 
people have suffered losses?
  The ice storm here really rattled my cage again. I read about this 
ice storm, and I remember some ice hit here back in March, but, my 
goodness, nothing on the proportion of three people being killed in my 
district in Indiana and all this disaster, trailers just totally 
destroyed. It is fortunate only three people were killed. It happened 
about midnight.

                              {time}  1550

  But the loss to these individual families is just as great. I do not 
know of any family who had any losses here in the District.
  Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to yield to the chairman of the 
subcommittee if there is any answer to my question. Maybe there is not.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. STOKES. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding they do operate using certain 
criteria. I am unable to tell the gentleman precisely all the elements 
that are a part of this formula criteria. However, I do know that 
economics is a part of it, and that demographic data, threat to health 
and safety of the people, and several other factors enter into it. But 
I cannot, much beyond that, tell you exactly or precisely what makes up 
the criteria. Certainly the problem that he raises is one that is 
shared by many of us. Perhaps this is something we ought to inquire 
further into. I certainly am available to work with the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Myers] to engage in any further discussions he would like 
to have with the agency or any further appeals to be made to the agency 
officials.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I appreciate the gentleman making that offer. I 
appreciate it. I would be glad to work with him. I am not asking for 
special attention. It is too late to help my district in Indiana. But 
this would apply to the future.
  Again, these families had losses which were just as great as those 
that happened to others.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Myers of Indiana was allowed to proceed 
for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. The losses to these individual families is just 
as great because they are part of a small piece, a small pie, as they 
were in the larger California disaster. The losses to the individual 
families is just as great. Are we here to help just big communities or 
people who are really in need of help? Most of these trailers, most of 
them had no insurance whatsoever. Of course, that is not the way we 
should operate our homes, but we found a lot of these trailers had no 
insurance, no way of recovering from this, and a lot of them were 
senior citizens, unless they could get some kind of help.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana raises an important 
question. I frankly do not think there is a clear formula that is 
responsive in a direct way. But both the gentleman and I know that when 
an emergency occurs or a disaster occurs, a local community may request 
a disaster declaration by the Governor. The Governor will normally 
respond in a way that makes some evaluation, by what formula I do not 
know, but he makes some evaluation or declaration, and the President 
will consider that. The President on the other hand does not seem to 
have a dollar amount by which they judge it is a disaster that 
justifies a Federal declaration, but rather they try to determine 
whether the State or the locality has the funds themselves before they 
declare that a disaster. But there is no formula, as I understand it.
  In the meantime, the question asked is do all Americans get fair 
consideration in this process? I certainly hope that the answer is 
positive, that we should not just live with the hope but rather try to 
be more responsive as we go forward in our discussions in the months 
ahead.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Again, when the District got that ruling, I saw 
no evidence of that, so I have to raise questions.
  I note on page 67 of the report the committee urged FEMA to come 
forward with a study, and I hope that the study will include something 
like this so that we will all understand how they make these decisions. 
I hope and urge them to include the formula so we will all understand 
whether we are being treated fairly or not. In the meantime I have to 
say there is a cloud over this program as far as I am concerned.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I think the gentleman is raising a very 
important question, particularly as it affects districts like his own, 
which raise very serious problems. We sometimes wonder whether people 
know that small communities exist and most obviously urban centers get 
a lot of attention.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. The gentleman from California has it down pat, 
he seems to know how to do it. Of course, the gentleman also had big 
losses, too.
  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no amendments to title I, the clerk will 
read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                TITLE II

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                            Housing Programs


   homeownership and opportunity for people everywhere grants (hope 
                                grants)

       For homeownership and opportunity for people everywhere 
     (HOPE grants) program as authorized under title III of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437aaa et seq.) 
     and subtitles A, B, and C of title IV of the Cranston-
     Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (Public Law 101-
     625), $100,000,000, to remain available until expended, of 
     which up to one and one-half percent may be made available 
     for technical assistance to potential applicants, applicants 
     and recipients of assistance under this head as authorized 
     under subtitle E of title I of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1992.


                  home investment partnerships program

       For the HOME investment partnership program, as authorized 
     under title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 
     Housing Act (Public Law 101-625), as amended, $1,275,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.


               annual contributions for assisted housing

                    (including rescission of funds)

       For assistance under the United States Housing Act of 1937, 
     as amended (``the Act'' herein) (42 U.S.C. 1437), not 
     otherwise provided for, $11,473,019,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That of the total amount provided 
     under this head, $263,000,000 shall be for the development or 
     acquisition cost of public housing for Indian families, 
     including amounts for housing under the mutual help 
     homeownership opportunity program under section 202 of the 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1437bb); and $598,000,000 shall be for the 
     development or acquisition cost of public housing, of which 
     up to .67 per centum shall be available for technical 
     assistance and inspection of public housing agencies by the 
     Secretary: Provided further, That of the total amount 
     provided under this head, $3,600,000,000 shall be for 
     modernization of existing public housing projects pursuant to 
     section 14 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1437l), including up to .54 
     per centum for the inspection of modernization units and 
     provision of technical assistance by the Secretary and 
     contract expertise to assist in the oversight and 
     management of the public and Indian housing modernization 
     program, including an annual resident survey: Provided 
     further, That of the amounts provided under this head for 
     modernization of existing public housing projects, 
     $85,000,000 may be used for the Tenant Opportunity 
     Program: Provided further, That of the total amount 
     provided under this head, $2,643,000,000 shall be for 
     rental assistance under the section 8 existing housing 
     certificate program (42 U.S.C. 1437f) and the housing 
     voucher program under section 8(o) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1437f(o)): Provided further, That those portions of the 
     fees for the costs incurred in administering incremental 
     units assisted in the certificate and housing voucher 
     programs under sections 8(b), 8(o), and 8(e)(2) shall be 
     established or increased in accordance with the 
     authorization for such fees in section 8(q) of the Act: 
     Provided further, That of the total amount provided under 
     this head, $17,300,000 shall be available for fees for 
     coordinators under section 23(h)(1) for the family self-
     sufficiency program (42 U.S.C. 1437u): Provided further, 
     That of the total amount provided under this head, 
     $1,202,100,000 shall be for amendments to section 8 
     contracts other than contracts for projects developed 
     under section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959, as amended, 
     and $555,000,000 shall be for section 8 assistance for 
     property deposition, and $100,000,000 shall be for 
     assistance for State or local units of government, tenant 
     and nonprofit organizations to purchase projects where 
     owners have indicated an intention to prepay mortgages and 
     for assistance to be used as an incentive to prevent 
     prepayment or for vouchers to aid eligible tenants 
     adversely affected by mortgage prepayment, as authorized 
     in the Emergency Low-Income Housing Preservation Act of 
     1987, as amended: Provided further, That 50 per centum of 
     the amounts of budget authority, or in lieu thereof 50 per 
     centum of the cash amounts associated with such budget 
     authority, that are recaptured from projects described in 
     section 1012(a) of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless 
     Assistance Amendments Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-628, 102 
     Stat. 3224, 3268) shall be rescinded, or in the case of 
     cash, shall be remitted to the Treasury, and such amounts 
     of budget authority or cash recaptured and not rescinded 
     or remitted to the Treasury shall be used by State housing 
     finance agencies or local governments or local housing 
     agencies with projects approved by the Secretary of 
     Housing and Urban Development for which settlement 
     occurred after January 1, 1992, in accordance with such 
     section: Provided further, That of the total amount 
     provided under this head, $156,000,000 shall be for 
     housing opportunities for persons with AIDS under title 
     VIII, subtitle D of the Cranston-Gonzalez National 
     Affordable Housing Act; $150,000,000 shall be for the 
     lead-based paint hazard reduction program as authorized 
     under sections 1011 and 1053 of the Residential Lead-Based 
     Hazard Reduction Act of 1992; and $30,000,000 shall be for 
     service coordinators in public housing pursuant to section 
     9(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the United States Housing Act of 1937; 
     and $30,000,000 shall be for service coordinators in 
     project-based section 8 housing, pursuant to section 
     8(d)(2)(F)(1) of the Act, tenant-based section 8 housing, 
     pursuant to section 8(q) of the Act and, for service 
     coordinators in multifamily housing assisted under the 
     National Housing Act, pursuant to section 676 of the 
     Housing and Community Development Act of 1992: Provided 
     further, That of the total amount provided under this 
     head, $149,000,000 shall be for moving to opportunity.


               amendment offered by mr. smith of michigan

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan: Page 18, line 
     18, delete ``$598,000,000'' and insert ``$150,000,000''.
       Page 19, line 10, delete ``$2,643,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,822,653,400''.

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the question that this amendment 
addresses is whether we should go along with the President's and the 
administration's request for funding of new construction and major 
reconstruction of public housing and the Government telling these 
people what kind of a house they should be living in and what part of 
the city that should be built in, or we let those individuals decide 
what kind of a house they want to live in with income rental vouchers.
  My amendment would cut funding for new construction and major 
reconstruction of public housing by $448 million and would adopt the 
administration's request of $150 million. It would then increase 
funding for rental assistance, section 8 vouchers, by $180 million to 
serve the same number of households, 5,240 as reduced under the public 
housing program.
  My amendment would increase the number of section 8 vouchers funded 
under this bill from 69,000 to 74,000.
  As a result, in addition to serving the same number of households, 
there would be $268 million in savings for the Federal Government.
  It becomes a philosophical debate, partially: Should we provide 
vouchers to low income individuals so they can decide where to live and 
let market forces start working to fix up those old houses and build 
new houses, or should we continue the process of public housing in this 
country, allowing most of our Federal money to go to developers? I know 
the developers have a strong voice in saying we need more housing; but 
I would suggest with all humility to my colleagues that it is important 
that we use Federal money as cost effectively and as efficiently as we 
can and that we really target our assistance, aiming limited housing 
resources at the poor people in need of this help.
  Historically, the cost of building and maintaining public housing is 
twice as much as providing rental assistance. Under this bill, each 
public housing unit costs $85,500. We can serve the same number of low-
income families with section 8 vouchers for $34,300.
  So, No. 1, it is more cost efficient. No. 2, this is the 
recommendation of the administration. It brings it back to that level 
of $150 million for new housing construction.
  The Committee on Appropriations raised this requested level to almost 
four times this amount.
  Of the 4.6 million HUD-subsidized households, nearly 3 million are 
section 8 rental assistance subsidies. The number of public housing 
units number 1.4 million. It seems to me, in concluding, Mr. Chairman, 
that vouchers for housing provide the greatest freedom of choice for 
our low-income population. By working through the market process, 
vouchers are also the most efficient means of providing housing for the 
poor. Instead of tax dollars going to assist developers to produce 
housing which concentrates low-income families and therefore segregates 
them, vouchers allow recipients to choose any housing which they can 
afford in combination with their own resources. The market assures 
efficient use of resources in the sense that if a landlord does not 
maintain the dwelling or provide adequate service, the tenant can then 
take his or her voucher to another landlord and another building. It 
lets the market system work, it does not have Government saying that we 
are going to concentrate the poor, the low-income in one section, and 
segregate them and therefore deprive them of the chance, for 
encouragement, ideas and support necessary to succeed.
  The history of Government construction subsidies for developers in 
Government-owned housing in my State of Michigan has been checkered. 
The city of Detroit, in particular, has had a number of problems with 
its housing projects. Many of these problems could have been avoided if 
low-income tenants had the option of choosing among all existing low-
rental private housing.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong disagreement to the 
gentleman's amendment. If I understand the gentleman's amendment 
correctly, he takes $598 million out of the public housing program and 
he transfers $180 million over to the voucher program.

                              {time}  1600

  What we did in our bill was to provide for public housing at the 1994 
level. In doing so, we did disagree with the administration who wanted 
to cut this particular program. But we felt that as a result of the 
hearings we conducted and the testimony that was taken during the 
course of our hearings from the Department of HUD, there was a great 
need for public housing. We felt it was our responsibility to provide 
funds for public housing which, as all of us know, is for poor people 
and low-income people who are unable to obtain any other type of 
housing.
  Our Government does provide what is supposed to be decent housing for 
people in a decent environment in order to try and care for them 
because they are unable to care for themselves. But let me just point 
out a couple of things.
  The gentleman made the statement that vouchers are the most efficient 
means of providing housing for poor people. I do not know what the 
gentleman relies upon in making such a statement. I do not know of any 
basis for that. I do know that vouchers are only good for 5 years, and 
I do know that public housing is available almost forever.
  For instance, Mr. Chairman, in the city of Cleveland, public housing, 
which my brother and I grew up in, was built in 1938. That housing is 
still good housing in Cleveland and continues to provide an opportunity 
for poor people to have a place to live.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I think we made the right decision in terms of what 
appears in our bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STOKES. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman indicated that I 
took all of the money out of that construction. That is incorrect. I 
left $150 million in. That is the same amount that the administration, 
the President, recommended.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I stand corrected; the gentleman is 
correct. I said the gentleman took out $598 million; he took out $448 
million. So, I stand corrected in that respect.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STOKES. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I hope the House will stand 
by the appropriations subcommittee. As someone who has worked on 
housing for all of the time that I have been here, I think this is a 
terribly important issue.
  The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] says this is better for the 
poor people, to not build anything or to build very little and to give 
them vouchers. But I know of no organization representing tenants, or 
the poor or elderly people, that has come forward to the housing 
subcommittee and said, ``Change this.'' The overwhelming majority of 
housing groups have come, those representing tenants, and said to build 
them because, as the gentleman from Ohio has pointed out, we are 
talking here about temporary versus permanent housing in our hands, and 
let me add one other important issue.
  Many have asked us to be able to tear down existing public housing. 
People have said we have got this problem, we want to be able to tear 
down some of the existing public housing. The law requires that, if 
public housing is torn down, it be replaced, because otherwise we get a 
net diminution. If we take away the money that is in the bill of the 
subcommittee, we are going to make it very difficult for our 
communities to replace public housing that has become so deteriorated 
or abandoned that it is an eyesore because the law has, and nobody has 
been pushing for total change of that successfully, the law still 
requires some replacement. I say, ``You need what the gentleman from 
Ohio has done if you're going to have that replacement. This is the 
most flexible way to do housing.''
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, there are parts of the country where the 
vouchers do not work because the housing market is so tight that the 
poor people cannot find places to live, and, if we do not do some 
construction, this is all our elderly housing, housing for people with 
handicaps. It just does not work.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I would hope we would defeat the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, if public housing is destroyed 
by the tenants and it becomes dilapidated, I think it is a shame that 
we tear it down, rebuilt it, and go through the same exercise again. 
That is the law, as the gentleman said, but we ought to change that 
because it costs so much money.
  I remember when we had the White River project in Indianapolis. We 
had these high-rise buildings that cost tens of millions of dollars to 
build. They had elevators. It was public housing. It was going to solve 
the problem in Indianapolis. It was totally destroyed inside, and we 
ended up, after years of losing taxpayers' dollars, turning it over to 
private entrepreneur to redevelop that, using those structures, and 
selling it on the open market to individual purchasers.
  Mr. Chairman, public housing simply had been a disaster in many parts 
of the country, and this section 8 voucher program is a good 
constructive alternative to solving the problem, plus it saves the 
taxpayers $268 million. Instead of $448 million for this program, we 
put $180 million into the voucher program. These poor people can choose 
where they want to go live. They do not have to live in a ghetto in the 
middle of the city if they do not want to. They can take that voucher 
and go out and find a place where there is decent housing and live the 
kind of life that they want to.
  But what do we want to do? Keep creating these public housing 
projects in parts of the country where there is a terrible crime 
problem, and, when it becomes dilapidated, what do we do? We tear it 
down and rebuild it with taxpayers' dollars. What a waste of money, 
what a waste of money.
  This is a good amendment, it is a sound and reasonable amendment, and 
it is going to save the taxpayer $268 billion, and that is probably why 
it is going to fail.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman form Michigan.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
argues there is not enough vacant housing, but we already have the low-
income housing tax credit that is building over a hundred thousand 
homes every year. In addition, the section 811 program for the elderly 
and the handicapped will provide another 11,600 new homes. Other new 
construction funds include the assistance available under the home 
investment partnerships program, funded at just slightly over $1.2 
billion in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, my question to the gentleman is: If you were low income 
and had a choice of living where you wanted to or where the Government 
built this low-income housing in the deprived area, where would you 
want to go?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Smith] for the question, and there is no question. I say 
to the gentleman, If you look at many parts of this country, you'll see 
these families saying, ``My kids are being shot, there's a terrible 
crime problem, there is a drug warlord in this public housing project 
that's threatening my kids every day. I want to get out of here.'' The 
way this bill is written, they'll never get out of there, but, if we go 
to the voucher program, they can leave that project, go to someplace 
else, and it will save the Government $268 million in the process.
  Mr. Chairman, this makes sense. It is a good amendment. I urge my 
colleagues to pass it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] and the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] have argued that this is for the 
poor, to give them more choice. I would repeat, as a member of the 
Housing Subcommittee, that we have not had organizations representing 
low-income tenants, representing the poor, telling us to come and do 
this, and the reason is that they do want some choices, and choice is 
what they have in the current bill, and we will lose under this 
amendment because this amendment will reduce to a very, very low number 
the amount of new public housing construction. There was some confusion 
here. When the gentleman talks about the home program or about the low-
income tax credits, there are a range of incomes for which we provide 
housing assistance. Many of those go for mixed income developments. 
Many of them go for people of moderate income. This, as the gentleman 
from Ohio pointed out, goes to the poorest of the poor.
  Mr. Chairman, public housing is for the people who have nowhere else 
to go, and to say in many parts of this country, in the crowded housing 
markets of many metropolitan areas, that we can replace this with 
vouchers is a joke on them because I can tell my colleagues we know 
this is a fact:

  There are parts of the country where vouchers simply cannot be used 
by people. The housing market is such that these people are turned 
away. They do not want to deal with the government. They cannot do it 
in the private market, and they will not take these people.
  The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] says, ``If the public housing 
is bad, you're just going to replace the same thing.'' Of course not. 
That is caricature that no one thinks. What we are saying is that, 
because the society did build some public housing units unwisely in 
some cases, we do want to tear down parts of it, or all of it, but not 
reduplicate the mistakes.

                              {time}  1610

  We do better now with public housing. This argument that all public 
housing is a terrible thing, most of you know is not true. Elderly 
housing, for instance, and there are two types of elderly housing, 202 
elderly housing, that is a different program, and many of them cost 
more. There are people who are not wealthy enough as the elderly to 
live in some of the 202 housing. And the gentleman should understand 
that much of what you think of as public housing for the poorest of the 
poor elderly, will be cut from this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, still again, that is why you are 
exactly right. You are right on that point, and that is why we leave 
$150 million there, because there is need in some areas. This is what 
the President recommended.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, I wish we could make 
one rule: We should do it when the President is a Republican, you do it 
when the President is a Democrat. This extraordinarily temporary fealty 
to the President is so silly and it just wastes time. For Members on 
the other side, like the gentleman from Michigan, to make a sudden 
conversion to a Presidential loyalist and want anyone to believe that 
is part of this reason, really is not persuasive. I do not understand 
why anybody would do that.
  The point is, we will not be able to build the level of housing for 
older people that are looking for it. The gentleman is cutting it from 
$600 million to $150 million. Yes, the President proposed an unwise cut 
in this regard. But the housing that is needed for the poorest of the 
poor, our ability to replace housing, will not be there.
  Again, the argument that this is in favor of the poor, I think, is 
wrong. We need a mix. In some markets and in some situations, the 
voucher system works well. In other cases and for some people, you need 
construction.
  There are, for instance, a shortage of units in many cities for large 
families, for families with five, six, or seven children. One of the 
things we have to be able to do in public housing is to build those 
units. Tell people with five children that they have to do out on the 
private market with vouchers, and it may be impossible to do.
  We are still going to be doing a lot with vouchers. But if you accept 
the amendment and undo what the gentleman from Ohio has done, you will 
leave the poor worse off, with fewer options, and the society less able 
to respond.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield 
further, still, there has got to be some area of common agreement that 
when we build more housing we put more pressure on the inner city to 
further dilapidate it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time. That is 
simply nonsense. There is nothing in this law that says they can only 
build in the inner city. That is a product of the gentleman's own 
misconception. When someone says public housing, why do you 
automatically think inner city? I do not represent any major city.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I think I misspoke.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has now made 
it very clear why he is so mistaken. He equates public housing with the 
inner city. I do not have what we call an inner city in my district. I 
have 35 communities as large as 98,000 people, and public housing is an 
important resource for them.
  It simply is the core of the error to think that will all public 
housing is currently inner city, not that that is a terrible thing, and 
that is an indication of why the gentleman is wrong.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Frank] was expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Burton of Indiana and by unanimous consent, 
Mr. Frank of Massachusetts was allowed to proceed for 1 additional 
minute.)
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Burton].
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I just have one question.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I do not believe you will have just one, 
but I will take the one.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Does the gentleman believe that the poor 
people who live in public housing ought to have the right to choose 
where they want to live like anybody else?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I do, but I believe in many parts of this 
country you cannot give them an effective choice with a voucher, 
because the housing market is so constrained the market for large 
families is so constrained, the unwillingness of certain private 
landlords to deal with the Government is so low, that unless you have a 
mix of choices that includes some public housing and some vouchers, 
they will not have an effective choice. And anyone who thinks that a 
voucher gives a large poor family complete choice is mistaken. And for 
the elderly, they very often prefer to live in elderly-only buildings. 
For the elderly, many of them, given a choice, would not want a voucher 
in the private market. They would want a unit built only for the 
elderly, potentially with elderly services, and many elderly would 
prefer to go that way.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have had some experience with the voucher program, 
because Green Bay, WI was one of two sites selected a number of years 
ago as a pilot project for the voucher program. I have had a chance to 
meet with many of the people who have benefited from the vouchers 
program.
  I want you to know that people appreciate the voucher system, and we 
have had excellent experience with the voucher system.
  You see, what the voucher system does is treats people more like 
intelligent human beings. A voucher gives people an opportunity to pick 
the area where they want to live. They pick the community they want to 
live in. And it gives them a choice which they do not have when we have 
all government housing.
  Basically, what I have found over the years debating this issue is 
that it is really not whether the politicians want to help the people 
who do not have adequate housing or give them a better place to live, 
it is really a question of political philosophy. I see it as a question 
more of ideology rather than economics.
  If you believe the Government can best provide for housing and do a 
better job than the private sector, and so on, you say we have to have 
more and more government housing. But you know something? The taxpayers 
pay through the nose, because there is no housing as expensive as 
government housing. All of you know that, because all of you have had 
experience with government housing.
  Vouchers get away from the stigma. Unfortunately, there is a stigma 
attached to government housing. With vouchers you get away from that 
stigma. Plus people have more pride and keep up their house when they 
have a voucher system. The people feel they are renting a place, it is 
not given to them. They feel this is part of me, this is my home. This 
is my home. I know that because I visited many of the people when we 
were debating this issue in the voucher program some time ago.
  Now, you also give people, in my opinion, more options. I do not know 
what takes place in Chicago and some of these other areas, but I know 
the place we had it in Indiana and the other pilot project we had in 
Green Bay, WI, it worked out very well. The surveys done with the 
people that lived in these homes and housing dealing with vouchers show 
they were very happy with vouchers, and they asked us to continue the 
program.
  So from my experience and my background, this is a good amendment, 
because it gives people basically what people are looking for, and that 
is what we are trying to do with this legislation.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROTH. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The gentleman mentions the success of the voucher program in his 
city. I do not question the fact that such a program was a success. 
However, did they take money out of the public housing program in your 
city in order to do it? Because that is what this gentleman's amendment 
does. It takes money out of public housing and transfers it over to the 
voucher program for that purpose.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what the gentleman is 
doing is not taking away housing, because he is giving them a voucher, 
which is saving the taxpayers money plus giving the people a better 
place in which to live.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROTH. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is taking $448 million out of 
the public housing account, and he is transferring only $180 million 
over to the voucher program. At the same time, the gentleman is not 
doing anything about the fact that there are still people waiting in 
line who need public housing, who are being deprived of it, because of 
the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, and there isn't a 
Member in this House I have more respect for than the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Stokes]. But I must say this in rebuttal. Sure, he is only 
using $180 million, but he is doing with $180 million what others can 
do with $480 million. So he is saving the taxpayer money plus taking 
care of the people that need help. That sort of initiative should be 
praised rather than scoffed.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROTH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes one 
mistake though. He is doing that for a 5-year period only. The public 
housing that would be built will last 50 and 60 and 70 years. The 
gentleman's housing lasts only for a 5-year period versus permanent 
units.
  Mr. ROTH. My friend from Massachusetts, if you had a sense of humor, 
you would be dying laughing at yourself. Public housing lasts 50 years?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROTH. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, let us look at this budget for 
how much we provide existing public housing. Do we each know we provide 
additional funds for public housing units? We have 1.4 million public 
housing units in the inventory under HUD. This bill provides $2.5 
billion for operating subsidies. That's $1,800 per unit. This bill 
provides $3.6 billion for modernization. That's $2,500 per unit.
  Building more houses is not the solution. Saying we are going to 
build more public housing to give this money to developers and 
contractors is not the way to help people who need housing in this 
country.

                              {time}  1620

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This is a good 
appropriation bill with regards to the housing, urban development 
budget, and funding that the chairman brings to the House. The fact is, 
we do not get anything for nothing.
  What this Smith amendment purports to do is say we can house all the 
same people with a rental voucher for 5 years as we could if we 
constructed the units of housing. Naturally, the truth is, at the end 
of this day, at the end of the period for the vouchers, we end up with 
a bunch of rent receipts, as opposed to real public housing.
  Some of the gentlemen from the other side of the aisle suggested that 
public housing does not last for 5 years. I can point out numerous 
public housing projects in my own district of St. Paul, MN, that, in 
fact, are close to 50 years old, in very good shape because of the 
modernization funds that are in this bill and will help other housing 
authorities do the same thing, and working and dynamic public housing, 
meeting the needs today and in the future. Not all public housing has 
the problems that occur in a city or in some of the troubled projects 
that the gentleman has talked about.
  Housing, public housing is one of the most successful programs that 
we have in the Nation, that is a matter of fact.
  Of course, we can concentrate on the problems but we are missing the 
main point in terms of how this program works. The fact is that the 
General Accounting Office and others have done studies and analysis for 
the Congress on this particular purpose. And they found out and they 
demonstrated for the Congress that it gave us the most housing per 
dollar. The fact is, this public housing will last 30, 40, 50 years. 
Obviously, it has to be maintained and properly managed. If we have a 
poorly constructed or designed building, it will not last that long.
  The truth is, of course, that we do not need either public housing or 
voucher rather; we need both of these programs. Obviously a section 8 
voucher and the improved program that exist today, worked on by the 
various committees, does serve a very, very important function. It 
serves a need. Obviously, in various markets, there is not the vacancy 
rate that occurs in other markets. Some markets have a very large 
vacancy rate. Others have a very small one. Besides that, the type of 
public housing units we have may have two, three, four bedrooms in them 
in order to accommodate the size of the families that are experiencing 
difficulty for a short period of time. That has to be recognized. Most 
apartment buildings and other types of housing do not accommodate that 
type of family.
  They have rules dealing with children. They have rules dealing with a 
variety of other activities that obviously do not accommodate public 
housing residents.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out again, 
with regard to choice, because the gentleman has helped make this 
clear, certainly people who suggest that public housing only lasts 5 
years or does not last 5 years are so wrong and so inaccurate as to 
show that what we are talking about here is using caricatures that kind 
of just degrade the whole operation.
  In many cities in this country the private rental market is so 
expensive that this argument about choice is simply wrong. If we want 
to have any degree of social integration in those communities, in 
effect, we will have public housing because the rules for the voucher 
program, the rent levels which it holds to, rule out many many 
communities. I represent some. I know of others even in large cities, 
If we wanted to do this in Manhattan, if we want to do it in San 
Francisco, we simply will not be able to build at a rental market 
situation for rents that vouchers can meet. So having some mix, rather 
than mischaracterizing public housing as only for the inner city, as 
not even lasting 5 years, those kinds of degradations of public housing 
an the people who live there are what is behind this amendment. And 
they are wrong.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his contribution. 
The point is that public housing saves the taxpayers money. We have 
done studies on this. The GAO has done studies. It saves money. Is 
every individual project a success, no. But by and large, they are. 
That is why we have these projects remaining.
  Furthermore, as we eliminate or replace public housing, we are losing 
some of the units. It is necessary, therefore, to have a modest program 
of reconstruction to maintain an adequate level of public housing. We 
have in this country serious problems with regards to housing. At the 
request of the Speaker, I led a task force on which the gentleman from 
Massachusetts and others served dealing with hopelessness. It pointed 
out that 7 percent of the people in this country, sometime during their 
life, had been homeless.
  We have a serious problem with regards to adequate shelter in this 
Nation. Public housing plays a key role. The gentlemen are simply 
mistaken in trying to portray this section 8 voucher-program as a 
savings to the taxpayer. This is not a savings to the taxpayer at all. 
The public housing gives us the best for the buck in terms of housing 
and meeting the needs of people, Mr. Chairman. The amendment cuts over 
one-quarter of a billion dollars from public housing for the poor--that 
doesn't help, that hurts the people who have real need.
  I would urge the Members, therefore, to reject this amendment. I 
think it is ill-considered and ill-conceived.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me begin by asking that I be disassociated with the 
remarks of the previous speaker. I want to also take a moment to thank 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] for bringing this amendment to 
the floor.
  I have been involved in this issue of public housing and how to 
handle public housing since I first came here in 1985. I had the 
privilege of working for several years on this issue. It seemed like 
every summer, with Jack Kemp. And I think we made some progress. We 
have made some progress, but I am afraid there are some areas in which 
we have not made progress.
  The American people give us a privilege to be in this body. That 
privilege very often is the extraordinary privilege where we get to 
represent the extraordinary compassion of the American people for 
people among themselves who are less fortunate. One of those areas in 
which we get to represent that compassion is in the provision of 
housing for people of low income and economic hardship.
  I believe that it is our duty to represent that compassion with 
understanding. I think the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] is doing 
that today.
  I do not believe it is within our right, as Members of Congress 
representing the compassion of the American people, to link that 
compassion with power and dependency. No, ours should be a compassion 
that is linked with a devotion to freedom and with respect to the 
people for whom we offer this helping hand. If, in fact, we construct 
politics and policies of power and dependency, we will most certainly, 
in fact, develop and create in our community the pathologies of 
dependency and the pathologies of power.
  My colleagues, I am sad to report that despite the very many good 
public housing projects we can find scattered around this country, we 
have too many housing projects in America today that are marked by 
these pathologies. We all know the hard, cruel, mean conditions under 
which too many American citizens who deserve our respect and deserve 
our compassion end up living because, in fact, we have decided to serve 
power and we are willing to accept their dependency as the price for 
our power.
  Let us not make any mistake about it and let us not kid ourselves. 
The people with a vested interest in public housing are the public 
housing authorities who gain control over the lives of other people, 
the politicians that find people that are as easy to put into buses to 
drive to the polls as their children are to put into buses and drive to 
school. And just as those children are deprived of the freedom and the 
joy of walking through their neighborhood with their friends to a safe 
school on safe streets, those voters are deprived of the freedom and 
the joy of casting their own independent vote.
  No voter in America today should be compelled by a feeling that their 
vote must be cast as their only means to security for one or the other 
of a politician that has the gall to promise them security and not the 
devotion to duty to promise them liberty. That is what public housing 
gives us. That is a pathology we should stamp out.

                              {time}  1630

  Section 8 vouchers give people a sense of freedom, of independence, 
of self-sufficiency, of neighborhood.
  It gives little boys and little girls the right to play in their 
neighborhood, knowing they are safe to walk to school with school 
children, their friends, to walk down to the corner drug store, to be 
safe, to be in fact integrated with people of different income 
experiences, different races, different cultures, different 
experiences, and to not live with a stigma of living in the projects.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot tell the Members the pain that I have seen in 
the face of a little girl who said that her goal in life was to not 
have to be ashamed that she lived in the projects. Let us have the 
decency to give people the liberty that comes with section 8 vouchers. 
Can we be that decent in this body?
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 162, 
noes 269, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 307]

                               AYES--162

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--269

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Andrews (NJ)
     Chapman
     Dingell
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Machtley
     Reynolds
     Schumer
     Washington

                              {time}  1650

  Mr. MEEHAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. GRANDY and Mr. PAYNE of Virginia changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                             {time}   1653

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to this portion of title II?


               amendment offered by mr. smith of michigan

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan: Page 19, line 
     10, delete ``$2,643,000,000'' and insert ``$2,378,725,000''.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] 
will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, if it would help, I would like to call to the Members' 
attention that I do not intend to ask for a recorded rollcall vote on 
this amendment.
  I offer this amendment in order to question why we are appropriating 
funds for the Pension Fund Program at a level higher than authorized. 
It reminds me of the man that had gangrene in one leg, and he went to 
the doctor, the doctor said, ``We have got to cut it off,'' and after 
the surgery, the doctor said, ``I've got good news and bad news.'' He 
said, ``Well, give me the bad news first.'' He said, ``Well, we cut off 
the wrong leg.'' He said, ``My gosh, what is the good news?'' He said, 
``Well, the gangrene was not as bad as we thought, and I think we are 
going to be able to save the other leg.''
  Mr. Chairman, that applies to this amendment, because the Committee 
on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs will soon come out with an 
authorization for this Pension Fund Program less than this 
appropriation.
  I would like to ask the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Stokes] if he would consider a colloquy to answer some of my questions. 
I am concerned that the authorization for this program will be $150 
million while this appropriation is $414 million.
  Can you tell me why the committee made a decision to bring this up to 
$414 million when the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs 
is authorizing this at a level of $150 million?
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Ohio.
  Mr. STOKES. The gentleman is correct. That is what we did. But we did 
that because of the request to us, and we were simply responding to the 
President's request.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Well, my concern is that it is a 15-year 
program. It obligates the taxpayers of this country to spend additional 
funds over the next 15 years and it seems to me there is considerable 
risk involved. Has there been an evaluation of the soundness of this 
idea? When the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs 
authorizes it at $150 million and we jump this up to $414 million, it 
seems reasonable that we should be concerned. This is especially true 
at a time when the Government is jumping into a public debt load 
approaching $6.3 trillion within the next 5 years and we are looking at 
ways to cut money. It seems to me there needs to be overwhelming 
justification if we are going to appropriate at a greater level than 
what is authorized.
  Mr. STOKES. If the gentleman will yield further, I will try to answer 
the gentleman's question.
  First, the authorization bill assumes $150 million of the $2.7 
billion for section 8 rental assistance for the Pension Program.
  I would say to the gentleman that it is unknown at this time how this 
issue will come out in conference. The point is we are providing funds 
for the section 8 Rental Assistance Program, which is within the amount 
in the recommendation of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban 
Affairs.
  If an authorization bill is enacted that only provides $150 million 
for the Pension Fund Program, then that would be the amount of funds 
that would be available. But additional funds could be available for 
regular section 8 units.
  The gentleman's amendment only addresses one part of the section 8 
rental assistance recommendation. It does not address the point that 
additional funds are assumed in the authorization bill for regular 
incremental units.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Let me follow up with one more question. Has 
there been any evaluation of risk as we expand this demonstration 
pension fund money in relation to these housing developments? Has there 
been an evaluation of risk as we jump this money up to this level of 
$414 million?

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. STOKES. Will the gentleman yield? I think, as the gentleman 
knows, this program is just beginning. There is no way for us to have 
that type of data available at this time. We are reacting to the 
authorizing committee's actions here. At some point, I assume that type 
of data evaluation will be accumulated.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, allow me to conclude by saying I 
would hope that my colleagues would return the funding level of the 
Pension Program to $150 million, which, as I understand, is the 
authorized amount.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there further debate? If not, the question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Of the total amount provided under this head, 
     $1,158,000,000 shall be for capital advances, including 
     amendments to capital advance contracts, for housing for the 
     elderly, as authorized by section 202 of the Housing Act of 
     1959, as amended, and for project rental assistance, and 
     amendments to contracts for project rental assistance, for 
     supportive housing for the elderly under section 202(c)(2) of 
     the Housing Act of 1959: Provided, That $22,000,000 shall be 
     for service coordinators pursuant to section 202(q) of the 
     Housing Act of 1959 and subtitle E of title VI of the Housing 
     and Community Development Act of 1992, other than section 676 
     of such Act and section 8(d)(2)(F)(i) of the Act.
       Of the total amount provided under this head, $387,000,000 
     shall be for capital advances, including amendments to 
     capital advance contracts, for supportive housing for persons 
     with disabilities, as authorized by section 811 of the 
     Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act; and for 
     project rental assistance, and amendments to contracts for 
     project rental assistance, for supportive housing for persons 
     with disabilities as authorized by section 811 of the 
     Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act.

   assistance for the renewal of expiring section 8 subsidy contracts

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For assistance under the United States Housing Act of 1937 
     (42 U.S.C. 1437) not otherwise provided for, for use in 
     connection with expiring section 8 subsidy contracts, 
     $3,705,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That to the extent the amount in this appropriation is 
     insufficient to fund all expiring section 8 contracts, the 
     Secretary may transfer to and merge with this appropriation 
     such amounts from the ``Annual contributions for assisted 
     housing'' appropriation as the Secretary shall determine, and 
     amounts earmarked in the foregoing account may be reduced 
     accordingly, at the Secretary's discretion: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary may maintain consolidated accounting data 
     for funds disbursed at the public housing agency or Indian 
     housing authority or project level for subsidy assistance 
     regardless of the source of the disbursement so as to 
     minimize the administrative burden of multiple accounts.
       Further, for the foregoing purposes, $800,000,000, to 
     become available for obligation on October 1, 1995, and to 
     remain available for obligation until expended.

                       rental housing assistance

                              (rescission)

       The limitation otherwise applicable to the maximum payments 
     that may be required in any fiscal year by all contracts 
     entered into under section 236 of the National Housing Act 
     (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1) is reduced in fiscal year 1995 by not 
     more than $2,000,000 in uncommitted balances of 
     authorizations provided for this purpose in appropriations 
     Acts: Provided, That up to $66,000,000 of recaptured section 
     236 budget authority resulting from the prepayment of 
     mortgages subsidized under section 236 of the National 
     Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1) shall be rescinded in fiscal 
     year 1995.

                        homeownership assistance

                    (including rescission of funds)

       For payments under section 235(r) of the National Housing 
     Act, as amended (12 U.S.C. 1715z) for incentives to 
     mortgagors to refinance mortgages that are insured under such 
     section 235 and for closing and other costs in connection 
     with such refinancing, $6,875,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That up to $50,000,000 of recaptured 
     section 235 budget authority resulting from reducing the 
     interest rate on such refinanced mortgages shall be reused 
     for payments under this heading: Provided further, That up to 
     $184,000,000 of additional recaptured section 235 budget 
     authority from refinancing section 235 mortgages shall be 
     rescinded in fiscal year 1995.

                          congregate services

       For contracts with and payments to public housing agencies 
     and nonprofit corporations for congregate services programs, 
     $6,267,000, to remain available until September 30, 1996, in 
     accordance with the provisions of the Congregate Services Act 
     of 1978, as amended.

         payments for operation of low-income housing projects

       For payments to public housing agencies and Indian housing 
     authorities for operating subsidies for low-income housing 
     projects as authorized by section 9 of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1437g), 
     $2,900,000,000.

                   severely distressed public housing

       For the revitalization of severely distressed public 
     housing program, as authorized by section 24 of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1437), 
     $500,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which up 
     to one-half of one percent may be used for technical 
     assistance under this program, to be made available directly, 
     or indirectly under contracts or grants, as appropriate.

             drug elimination grants for low-income housing

       For grants to public housing agencies for use in 
     eliminating drug-related crime in public housing projects 
     authorized by 42 U.S.C. 11901-11908, and for drug information 
     clearinghouse services authorized by 42 U.S.C. 11921-11925, 
     $265,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $10,000,000 shall be for grants, technical assistance, 
     contracts and other assistance training, program assessment, 
     and execution for or on behalf of public housing agencies and 
     resident organizations (including the cost of necessary 
     travel for participants in such training) and of which 
     $1,500,000 shall be for grants for an after school 
     demonstration program in public housing projects, run by the 
     4H Clubs of America and co-sponsored by private sector firms.

           indian housing loan guarantee fund program account

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, $3,000,000, as authorized 
     by section 184 of the Housing and Community Development Act 
     of 1992 (106 Stat. 3739): Provided, That such costs, 
     including the costs of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, as amended: Provided further, That these funds are 
     available to subsidize total loan principal, any part of 
     which is to be guaranteed, not to exceed $22,388,000.

                           youthbuild program

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For youthbuild program activities authorized by subtitle D 
     of title IV of the Crantson-Gonzalez National Affordable 
     Housing Act, as amended, $50,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended. In addition, the unexpended balances from the 
     $28,000,000 made available for subtitle D of title IV of such 
     Act under the head ``Homeownership and opportunity for people 
     everywhere grants (HOPE Grants)'' in the Departments of 
     Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
     Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 shall be 
     transferred to and merged with this appropriation.

                     housing counseling assistance

       For contracts, grants, and other assistance, other than 
     loans, not otherwise provided for, for providing counseling 
     and advice to tenants and homeowners--both current and 
     prospective--with respect to property maintenance, financial 
     management, and such other matters as may be appropriate to 
     assist them in improving their housing conditions and meeting 
     the responsibilities of tenancy or homeownership, including 
     provisions for training and for support of voluntary agencies 
     and services as authorized by section 106 of the Housing and 
     Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, $50,000,000.

                         flexible subsidy fund

       For assistance to owners of eligible multifamily housing 
     projects insured, or formerly insured, and under the National 
     Housing Act, as amended, or which are otherwise eligible for 
     assistance under section 201(c) of the Housing and Community 
     Development Amendments of 1978, as amended (12 U.S.C. 1715z-
     1a), in the program of assistance for troubled multifamily 
     housing projects under the Housing and Community Development 
     Amendments of 1978, as amended, $50,000,000, and all 
     uncommitted balances of excess rental charges as of September 
     30, 1994, and any collections and other amounts in the fund 
     authorized under section 201(j) of the Housing and Community 
     Development Amendments of 1978, as amended, during fiscal 
     year 1995, to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     assistance to an owner of a multifamily housing project 
     assisted, but not insured, under the National Housing Act may 
     be made if the project owner and the mortgagee have provided 
     or agreed to provide assistance to the project in a manner as 
     determined by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

                     Federal Housing Administration

             fha--mutual mortgage insurance program account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       During fiscal year 1995, commitments to guarantee loans to 
     carry out the purposes of section 203(b) of the National 
     Housing Act, as amended, shall not exceed a loan principal of 
     $100,000,000,000.
       During fiscal year 1995, obligations to make direct loans 
     to carry out the purposes of section 204(g) of the National 
     Housing Act, as amended, shall not exceed $180,000,000: 
     Provided, That the foregoing amount shall be for loans to 
     nonprofit and governmental entities in connection with sales 
     of single family real properties owned by the Secretary and 
     formerly insured under section 203 of such Act.
       For administrative expenses necessary to carry out the 
     guaranteed and direct loan program, $308,846,000, to be 
     derived from the FHA-mutual mortgage insurance guaranteed 
     loans receipt account, of which not to exceed $302,056,000 
     shall be transferred to the appropriation for salaries and 
     expenses; and of which not to exceed $6,790,000 shall be 
     transferred to the appropriation for the Office of Inspector 
     General.

             fha--general and special risk program account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by sections 
     238 and 519 of the National Housing Act, as amended (12 
     U.S.C. 1715z-3(b) and 1735c(f)), $152,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 1996, of which up to 
     $132,903,000 is to be derived from the FHA--general and 
     special risk, negative subsidies receipt account: Provided, 
     That such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, 
     shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That these funds are 
     available to subsidize total loan principal any part of which 
     is to be guaranteed of not to exceed $20,885,072,000.
       Gross obligations for the principal amount of direct loans, 
     as authorized by sections 204(g), 207(l), 238(a), and 519(d) 
     of the National Housing Act, shall not exceed $220,000,000; 
     of which not to exceed $200,000,000 shall be for bridge 
     financing in connection with the sale of multifamily real 
     properties owned by the Secretary and formerly insured under 
     such Act; and of which not to exceed $20,000,000 shall be for 
     loans to nonprofit and governmental entities in connection 
     with the sale of single-family real properties owned by the 
     Secretary and formerly insured under such Act.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the guaranteed and direct loan programs, $197,470,000, of 
     which $193,299,000 shall be transferred to the appropriation 
     for salaries and expenses; and of which $4,171,000 shall be 
     transferred to the appropriation for the Office of Inspector 
     General.

                Government National Mortgage Association

guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account

                      (includes transfer of funds)

       During fiscal year 1995, new commitments to issue 
     guarantees to carry out the purposes of section 306 of the 
     National Housing Act, as amended (12 U.S.C. 1721(g)), shall 
     not exceed $142,000,000,000.
       For administrative expenses necessary to carry out the 
     guaranteed mortgage-backed securities program, $8,824,000, to 
     be derived from the GNMA--guarantees of mortgage-backed 
     securities guaranteed loan receipt account, of which not to 
     exceed $8,824,000 shall be transferred to the appropriation 
     for salaries and expenses.

                          Homeless Assistance

                       homeless assistance grants

       For the emergency shelter grants program (as authorized 
     under subtitle B of title IV of the Stewart B. McKinney 
     Homeless Assistance Act (Public Law 100-77), as amended); the 
     supportive housing program (as authorized under subtitle C of 
     title IV of such Act); the section 8 moderate rehabilitation 
     single room occupancy program (as authorized under the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937, as amended) to assist homeless 
     individuals pursuant to section 441 of the Stewart B. 
     McKinney Homeless Assistance Act; the shelter plus care 
     program (as authorized under substitle F of title IV of such 
     Act); and the innovative homeless initiatives demonstration 
     program (as authorized under section 2 of the HUD 
     Demonstration Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-120)), 
     $1,120,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                   Community Planning and Development

                      community development grants

       For grants to States and units of general local government 
     and for related expenses, not otherwise provided for, 
     necessary for carrying out a community development grants 
     program as authorized by title I of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5301), 
     $4,600,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 1997: 
     Provided, That $46,000,000 shall be available for grants to 
     Indian tribes pursuant to section 106(a)(1) of the Housing 
     and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
     5301), and $61,500,000 shall be available for ``special 
     purpose grants'' pursuant to section 107 of such Act: 
     Provided further, That not to exceed 20 per centum of any 
     grant made with funds appropriated herein (other than a grant 
     using funds under section 107(b)(3) of such Act or funds set 
     aside in the following provisos) shall be expended for 
     ``Planning and Management Development'' and 
     ``Administration'' as defined in regulations promulgated by 
     the Department of Housing and Urban Development: Provided 
     further, That $35,000,000 shall be made available from the 
     total amount provided to carry out an early childhood 
     development program under section 222 of the Housing and 
     Urban-Rural Recovery Act of 1983, as amended (12 U.S.C. 
     1701z-6 note), including services for families that are 
     homeless or at risk of becoming homeless: Provided further, 
     That $10,000,000 shall be made available from the total 
     amount provided to carry out a neighborhood development 
     program under section 123 of said Act (42 U.S.C. 5318 note).
       During fiscal year 1995, new commitments to issue 
     guarantees to carry out the purposes of section 108 of the 
     Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 5301), shall not exceed $2,054,000,000.

                    Policy Development and Research

                        research and technology

       For contracts, grants, and necessary expenses of programs 
     of research and studies relating to housing and urban 
     problems, not otherwise provided for, as authorized by title 
     V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970, as 
     amended (12 U.S.C. 1701z-1 et seq.), including carrying out 
     the functions of the Secretary under section 1(a)(1)(i) of 
     Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1968, $40,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 1996.

                   Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

                        fair housing activities

       For contracts, grants, and other assistance, not otherwise 
     provided for, as authorized by title VIII of the Civil Rights 
     Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 
     1988, and section 561 of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1987, as amended, $33,375,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 1996: Provided, That 
     $26,000,000 shall be available to carry out activities 
     pursuant to section 561 of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1987.

                     Management and Administration

                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary administrative and nonadministrative expenses 
     of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, not 
     otherwise provided for, including not to exceed $7,000 for 
     official reception and representation expenses, $962,173,000, 
     of which $495,355,000 shall be provided from the various 
     funds of the Federal Housing Administration, and $8,824,000 
     shall be provided from funds of the Government National 
     Mortgage Association.

                      office of inspector general

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, $47,388,000, of which $10,961,000 shall 
     be transferred from the various funds of the Federal Housing 
     Administration.

             Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight

                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer or funds)

       For carrying out the Federal Housing Enterprise Financial 
     Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, $15,451,000, to remain 
     available until expended, from the Federal Housing Enterprise 
     Oversight Fund: Provided, That such amounts shall be 
     collected by the Director as authorized by section 1316 (a) 
     and (b) of such Act, and deposited in the Fund under section 
     1316(f).

                       administrative provisions

       None of the funds provided under this title to the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development, which are 
     obligated to State or local governments or to housing finance 
     agencies or other public or quasi-public housing agencies, 
     shall be used to indemnify contractors or subcontractors of 
     the government or agency against costs associated with 
     judgments of infringement of intellectual property rights.
       Of the budgetary resources available to the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development during fiscal year 1995, 
     $3,538,000 are permanently canceled. The Secretary of Housing 
     and Urban Development shall allocate the amount of budgetary 
     resources canceled among the Department's accounts available 
     for procurement and procurement-related expenses. Amounts 
     available for procurement and procurement-related expenses in 
     each such account shall be reduced by the amount allocated to 
     such account. For the purpose of this paragraph, the 
     definition of ``procurement'' includes all stages of the 
     process of acquiring property or services, beginning with the 
     process of determining a need for a product or service and 
     ending with contract completion and closeout as specified in 
     41 U.S.C. 403 (2).
       Of the $150,000,000 earmarked in Public Law 102-139 for 
     special purpose grants (105 Stat. 736, 745), $1,000,000 made 
     available to the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency to 
     complete renovation and revitalization of the Saquoit Silk 
     Mills in Scranton into low-income elderly apartments shall 
     instead be made available for such low-income elderly 
     apartments on the site of the existing Lackawanna Junior 
     College in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania.
       Notwithstanding any provision of law or regulation 
     thereunder, the requirement that an amendment to an urban 
     development action grant agreement must be integrally related 
     to the approved project is hereby waived for project numbers 
     B87AA360540 and B87AA360521.
       None of the funds made available in this Act may be used in 
     violation of section 214 of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1980 or of any applicable Federal law or 
     regulation of the United States.
       Subparagraph (A) of the first sentence of section 203(b) 
     (2) of the National Housing Act is amended by striking clause 
     (ii) and all that follows through ``1992;'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof the following----
       ``(ii) 85 percent of the dollar amount limitation 
     determined under section 305(a)(2) of the Federal Home Loan 
     Mortgage Corporation Act for a residence of the applicable 
     size; except that the applicable dollar amount limitation in 
     effect for any area under this subparagraph (A) may not be 
     less than the greater of--
       ``(I) the dollar amount limitation in effect under this 
     section for the area on the date of enactment of the Housing 
     Choice and Community Investment Act of 1994; or
       ``(II) the applicable average area purchase price 
     determined under section 143(e)(2) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986, adjusted by the Secretary to reflect a single 
     amount using purchase prices for residences that have been 
     previously occupied, and for residences that have not been so 
     occupied, which amount shall be adjusted by the Secretary 
     annually on the basis of the Constant Quality Housing Price 
     Index;''.
       Notwithstanding subsection 306(g) (3) of the National 
     Housing Act, as amended, fees charged for the guaranty of, or 
     commitment to guaranty, multiclass securities backed by a 
     trust or pool of securities or notes guaranteed by the 
     Government National Mortgage Association prior to February 1, 
     1993, and other related fees, shall be charged in an amount 
     the Association deems appropriate.


             amendment offered by mr. barrett of wisconsin

  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
       The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin: Page 38, 
     after line 19, insert the following:
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no community 
     development grant provided in fiscal year 1994 or any 
     succeeding fiscal year under title I of the Housing and 
     Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) 
     may be used for any activity (including any infrastructure 
     improvement) that is intended, or likely, to facilitate the 
     relocation or expansion of any industrial or commercial 
     plant, facility, or operation, from one area to another area, 
     if the relocation or expansion will result in a loss of 
     employment in the area from which the relocation or expansion 
     occurs.

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that Mr. 
Kleckza and I propose would add an antipiracy provision to the 
Community Development Block Grant Program in the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development. It would prevent the use of community 
development grant funds from being used for any activity that is 
intended, or likely, to facilitate the relocation of jobs from one area 
to another area.
  Just days ago, we learned that almost a quarter of a million dollars 
in Federal funds will be used to help pay for a $23 million plant 
relocation that will cost jobs in the Milwaukee area. This is not an 
appropriate use of the CDBG Program, and is an incredible misuse of 
Federal funds. Unfortunately, under current law, this scenario could 
happen in any State.
  The CDBG Program is a good program that greatly assists our State and 
local governments in implementing effective community development 
plans. But these funds are supposed to be used to help communities and 
States promote community and economic development.
  CDBG funds should not be used simply to shift jobs from one State to 
another. This is robbing Peter to pay Paul.
  Our amendment is very similar to provisions in the Housing and 
Community Development Act of 1974 that prohibited the use of urban 
development action grants for projects intended to move jobs from one 
area to another area. It extends the same protections to CDBG funds and 
will prevent grants from being used to shift jobs from one part of the 
country to another area.

                              {time}  1710

  If the antipiracy language is adopted, Wisconsin taxpayers and other 
taxpayers across our country would no longer be forced to pick up the 
tab for transferring jobs from their State. Let us work to end this 
misuse of Federal dollars.
  The chairman of the HUD authorizing committee, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], has expressed his support for this amendment. The 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka] and I will be working with 
Chairman Gonzalez and hope to work with our colleagues to ensure that 
this language is enacted into law.
  Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order. The gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka] and I offer this amendment because it is good 
public policy. We will pursue other avenues to deal with the misguided 
use of CDBG funds.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, while we will unfortunately have to accede 
to this point of order, let me comment briefly on what the Barrett-
Kleczka amendment would have done. The amendment is an effort to right 
a serious wrong and to ensure that Federal CDBG funds are not used for 
piracy.
  The Briggs and Stratton Corp., of the Milwaukee area has recently 
announced that it will be moving 2,000 jobs out of Wisconsin in order 
to expand its operations into Missouri, with the help of a $209,000 
Community Development Block Grant. Therefore, the said irony is that 
Wisconsin taxpayers have unknowingly played a role in the loss of their 
own jobs.
  We all know the purpose of the Community Development Block Grant: to 
spur economic growth and improve life for low- and moderate-income 
residents of an area. There are many examples of the positive use of 
these funds in the Milwaukee area alone. In a typical year, examples 
include improvements to more than 4,000 housing units, job training or 
placement assistance to several hundred residents, and expansion or 
improvements to approximately 100 Milwaukee businesses.
  The Walkers Point Development Corp., was recently awarded a grant to 
aid in housing acquisition, rehabilitation, and disposition to first-
time homebuyers. The Milwaukee Christian Center was the recipient of a 
$500,000 Community Development Block Grant. The funds will be used to 
operate an owner-occupied rehabilitation program for low-income 
homeowners. Last year, the program was able to improve almost 50 units 
with CDBG funds. Journey House, a youth center in Milwaukee, was 
provided $85,000 for its programming for inner-city youth.
  So, you can see that the Community Development Block Grant Program is 
indeed a worthy, commendable program that assists our communities in 
providing much-needed neighborhood services and clearly betters the 
lives of many residents. That is why it is so outrageous to me that 
CDBG funds could be distorted to lure jobs from State to State. The 
program was meant to create jobs, not to snatch them.
  In fact, I have already been contacted by several constituents who 
will personally suffer due to this move. They are angry that Wisconsin 
taxpayer funds are being used to take jobs away from Wisconsin. I agree 
with my constituents that this is clearly not an appropriate use of 
this commendable program. The amendment we are offering today is a 
clear, honest attempt to right this wrong and to disallow future use of 
CDBG funds to lure companies.
  What should we tell those loyal employees who will clearly suffer as 
a result of Federal funds being spent in this manner? What about their 
families who will suffer?
  Mr. Chairman, we need to let our constituents know that we recognize 
the worthiness of the Community Development Block Grants benefitted by 
the program, not harmed by it.


                             point of order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] insist on his 
point of order?
  Mr. STOKES. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law. It constitutes 
legislation in an appropriations bill. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI. That rule states in pertinent part:
  ``No amendment to a general appropriation bill shall be in order if 
changing existing law.''
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment would modify the Housing and Community 
Development Act of 1974. I, therefore, Mr. Chairman, ask for a ruling 
from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett] concede 
the point of order?
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Beilenson). The gentleman from Wisconsin concedes 
the point of order, and the point of order is sustained.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               TITLE III

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                  American Battle Monuments Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expensies, not otherwise provided for, of the 
     American Battle Monuments Commission, including the 
     acquisition of land or interest in land in foreign countries; 
     purchases and repair of uniforms for caretakers of national 
     cemeteries and monuments outside of the United States and its 
     territories and possessions; rent of office and garage space 
     in foreign countries; purchase (one for replacement only) and 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles; and insurance of official 
     motor vehicles in foreign countries, when required by law of 
     such countries; $20,265,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That where station allowance has been 
     authorized by the Department of the Army for officers of the 
     Army serving the Army at certain foreign stations, the same 
     allowance shall be authorized for officers of the Armed 
     Forces assigned to the Commission while serving at the same 
     foreign stations, and this appropriation is hereby made 
     available for the payment of such allowance: Provided 
     further, That when traveling on business of the Commission, 
     officers of the Armed Forces serving as members or as 
     Secretary of the Commission may be reimbursed for expenses as 
     provided for civilian members of the Commission: Provided 
     further, That the Commission shall reimburse other Government 
     agencies, including the Armed Forces, for salary, pay, and 
     allowances of personnel assigned to it: Provided further, 
     That section 509 of the general provisions carried in title V 
     of this Act shall not apply to the funds provided under this 
     heading: Provided further, That not more than $125,000 of the 
     private contributions to the Korean War Memorial Fund may be 
     used for administrative support of the Korean War Veterans 
     Memorial Advisory Board including travel by members of the 
     board authorized by the Commission, travel allowances to 
     conform to those provided by Federal travel regulations.

             Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board


                         salaries and expenses

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-124, $1,730,000 are rescinded.

                   Consumer Product Safety Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Consumer Product Safety 
     Commission, including hire of passenger motor vehicles, 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for 
     individuals not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the 
     rate for GS-18, purchase of nominal awards to recognize non-
     Federal officials' contributions to Commission activities, 
     and not to exceed $500 for official reception and 
     representation expenses, $43,486,000.

             Corporation for National and Community Service


                national and community service programs

                           operating expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses for the Corporation for National and 
     Community Service in carrying out the programs, activities, 
     and initiatives under the National and Community Service Act 
     of 1990, as amended (Public Law 103-82) (hereinafter referred 
     to as ``the Act''), $490,388,000 to remain available until 
     September 30, 1996, except as provided hereafter: Provided, 
     That not more than $27,400,000 is available for 
     administrative expenses authorized under section 501(a)(4) of 
     the Act, of which not more than $13,700,000 shall be for 
     administrative expenses for State commissions pursuant to 
     section 126(a) of subtitle C of title I of the Act: Provided 
     further, That not more than $2,500 shall be for official 
     reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That 
     not more than $125,900,000, to remain available without 
     fiscal year limitation, shall be transferred to the National 
     Service Trust Fund for educational awards as authorized under 
     subtitle D of title I of the Act.


                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, $1,000,000.

                       Court of Veterans Appeals


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the operation of the United 
     States Court of Veterans Appeals as authorized by 38 U.S.C. 
     sections 7251-7292, $9,289,000, to be available without 
     regard to section 509 of this Act, of which not to exceed 
     $650,000, to remain available until September 30, 1996, shall 
     be available for the purpose of providing financial 
     assistance as described, and in accordance with the process 
     and reporting procedures set forth, under this head in Public 
     Law 102-229.

         Department of Defense--Civil Cemeterial Expenses, Army


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, as authorized by law, for 
     maintenance, operation, and improvement of Arlington National 
     Cemetery and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery, 
     including the purchase of two passenger motor vehicles for 
     replacement only, and not to exceed $1,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses; $12,017,000 to remain 
     available until expended.

                    Environmental Protection Agency


              research, prevention and program activities

       For research and development, prevention, abatement, 
     compliance and enforcement activities, including hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, hire, maintenance, and operation of 
     aircraft; purchase of reprints, library memberships in 
     societies or associations which issue publications to members 
     only or at a price to members lower than to subscribers who 
     are not members, construction, alteration, repair, 
     rehabilitation, and renovation of facilities, not to exceed 
     $75,000 per project; and not to exceed $9,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses; $1,600,300,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 1996: Provided, That not 
     more than $250,000,000 of these funds shall be available for 
     operating expenses, including not more than $55,000,000 for 
     procurement of laboratory equipment, supplies, and other 
     operating expenses in support of research and development: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under 
     this heading shall be available to the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration pursuant to section 118(h)(3) of 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended: Provided 
     further, That from funds appropriated under this heading, the 
     Administrator may make grants to federally recognized Indian 
     governments for the development of multimedia environmental 
     programs.


                     amendment offered by mr. upton

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amended offered by Mr. Upton: On page 43, line 10, after 
     ``1996'' insert: ``except that none of this amount shall be 
     available for a grant of $285,000 for a further study on 
     methane and ruminant productivity''.

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, at this point I ask unanimous consent that I 
be able to offer this same amendment after the debate and vote on the 
space station amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his amendment at this point.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                    program and research operations

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     personnel and related costs and for travel expenses, 
     including uniforms, or allowances therefor, as authorized by 
     5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; and for services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not to exceed the 
     per diem rate equivalent to the rate for GS-18; $935,000,000


                      office of inspector general

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, and for construction, alteration, 
     repair, rehabilitation, and renovation of facilities, not to 
     exceed $75,000 per project, $44,595,000, of which $15,384,000 
     shall be derived from the Hazardous Substance Superfund trust 
     fund and $669,000 shall be derived from the Leaking 
     Underground Storage Tank trust fund: Provided, That not more 
     than $41,150,000 of these funds shall be available for 
     administrative expenses.


                   facilities and nationwide support

       For construction, repair, improvement, extension, 
     alteration and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of 
     or for use by the Environmental Protection Agency, and for 
     nationwide support of facilities-related activities, 
     $174,700,000, to remain available until expended.


                     hazardous substance superfund

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (CERCLA), as amended, including sections 111(c)(3), 
     (c)(5), (c)(6), and (e)(4) (42 U.S.C. 9611), and for 
     construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and 
     renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project; 
     $1,425,000,000 to remain available until expended, consisting 
     of $1,185,000,000 as authorized by section 517(a) of the 
     Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), 
     as amended by Public Law 101-508, and $250,000,000 as a 
     payment from general revenues to the Hazardous Substance 
     Superfund as authorized by section 517(b) of SARA, as amended 
     by Public Law 101-508, plus sums recovered on behalf of the 
     Hazardous Substance Superfund in excess of $229,391,000 
     during fiscal year 1995: Provided, That funds appropriated 
     under this heading may be allocated to other Federal agencies 
     in accordance with section 111(a) of CERCLA: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding section 111(m) of CERCLA or any 
     other provision of law, not to exceed $69,000,000 of funds 
     appropriated under this heading shall be available to the 
     Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to carry out 
     activities described in sections 104(i), 111(c)(4), and 
     111(c)(14) of CERCLA and section 118(f) of the Superfund 
     Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds appropriated under this heading shall 
     be available for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 
     Registry to issue in excess of 40 toxicological profiles 
     pursuant to section 104(i) of CERCLA during fiscal year 1995: 
     Provided further, That no more than $308,000,000 of these 
     funds shall be available for administrative expenses of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds appropriated in this Act may be made available 
     for program management of Alternative Remedial Contracting 
     Strategy (ACS) contracts exceeding 11 percent of the total 
     cost of such contract.


              leaking underground storage tank trust fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out leaking underground 
     storage tank cleanup activities authorized by section 205 of 
     the Superfund Amendments and Rauthorization Act of 1986, and 
     for construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and 
     renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project, 
     $70,000,000 to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That no more than $8,150,000 shall be available for 
     administrative expenses.


                           oil spill response

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Environmental 
     Protection Agency's responsibilities under the Oil Pollution 
     Act of 1990, $20,000,000, to be derived from the Oil Spill 
     Liability trust fund, and to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That not more than $8,420,000 of these funds shall 
     be available for administrative expenses.


               water infrastructure/state revolving funds

       For necessary expenses for capitalization grants for State 
     revolving funds to support water infrastructure financing, 
     and to carry out the purposes of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act, as amended, the Water Quality Act of 1987, and 
     the Public Health Service Act, $2,732,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which $1,787,000,000 shall not 
     become available until December 31, 1995: Provided, That of 
     the amount which becomes available on October 1, 1994, 
     $22,500,000 shall be for making grants under section 
     104(b)(3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 
     amended; $100,000,000 shall be for making grants under 
     section 319 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 
     amended; $52,500,000 shall be for section 510 of the Water 
     Quality Act of 1987; and $70,000,000 shall be for making 
     grants under section 1443(a) of the Public Health Service 
     Act: Provided further, That the grant awarded from funds 
     appropriated under the paragraph with the heading 
     ``Construction grants'' in title III of the Departments of 
     Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
     Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1990 (103 Stat. 858) 
     for construction of a connector sewer line, consisting of a 
     main trunk line and 4 pump stations for the town of Honea 
     Path, South Carolina, to the wasterwater treatment facility 
     in the town of Ware Shoals, South Carolina, shall include 
     demolition of Chiquola Mill Lagoon, Clatworthy Lagoon, Corner 
     Creek Lagoon, and Still Branch Lagoon.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Stokes

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stokes: On Page 47, lines 17-18, 
     strike: ``December 31, 1994'' and insert in lieu thereof: 
     ``authorized by law''.
       On page 47, line 23, after the word ``amended'' add: ``, 
     and shall not become available until authorized by law''.

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will delete the language in 
the water infrastructure/State revolving funds account stating that the 
wastewater funding is delayed until December 31, 1994, and instead 
makes the availability of such funds subject to authorization.
  Further, Mr. Chairman, the amendment states that the nonpoint-source 
grants funding will not become available until those funds are 
authorized in consultation with the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Mineta] of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation. We have 
agreed to include language which would subject the availability of 
funds to authorizing legislation. We had included language in the bill 
and the report addressing this matter, but after further consultation, 
we have agreed to the modification proposed by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta].
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Stokes] in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the authorizing committee, let me 
commend the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee for his efforts 
to insure that the programs he is funding are fully authorized. Let me 
point out, however, that this is the end of June and we are still 
working on clean water reauthorization. The issues before us are 
complex, and, despite everyone's best intentions and efforts on the 
authorizing committee, we have not moved the bill. We all want a bill. 
The gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] wants a bill. The members of 
the committee supporting a bipartisan alternative to his bill want a 
bill. We all want to get it done as soon as possible. But to date, Mr. 
Chairman, we have not agreed on what the bill should look like. Given 
that fact, Mr. Chairman, there is a risk that reauthorization will not 
happen this year.
  I would like the distinguished chairman's assurance that, as this 
appropriations bill moves forward, he will reexamine what progress has 
been made on clean-water legislation and do what he can to try to 
ensure funds for States and local governments.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has my assurance that this 
issue will be carefully considered in conference, that we will take 
into account where the reauthorization process stands at that time, 
what the likelihood of reauthorization is, if it has not been 
accomplished at that time, as well as the needs of the available 
communities and States. Obviously I cannot today prejudge the outcome 
of the conference, but those are the factors that we would take into 
account.
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the 
contribution of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and his hard work 
in bringing this bill to the floor.

                              {time}  1720

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I 
think it is a good amendment, and it is in keeping with the fundamental 
principle that we should be authorizing appropriations before the funds 
are appropriated, and any appropriations should be subject to 
authorization.
  I certainly commend the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Stokes], the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, for the 
assurances which he has given us concerning his recognition of the 
importance of clean water funding to be continued.
  There are mandates levied upon our States and our localities well in 
excess of $100 billion. Therefore, for us not to continue this highly 
successful environmental program for clean water improvement would be 
very irresponsible.
  Now, there are some who have argued that this is a cynical ploy to 
put in place the argument that States and localities must back away 
from their interest in seeing us reform this program, their interest in 
seeing us reform the wetlands problems facing this country, their 
interest in seeing us reform the unfunded mandates and seeing us reform 
the various regulations, the onerous regulations imposed upon not only 
our States and localities, but private institutions and people as well.
  I reject the notion that that is the reason for this amendment. I 
reject the notion that this is simply a cynical ploy to tell the States 
and localities that the clean water bill will be a take-it-or-leave-it 
proposition. I believe, indeed, that everyone is proceeding in good 
faith, that everyone recognizes that we need legislation, that the 
Committee on Public Works and Transportation will have the opportunity 
to work its will on this legislation. Once we have worked our will on 
this legislation, that legislation will be brought to the floor, and we 
will have an open and fair debate.
  So, recognizing and believing that indeed there is no undercurrent, 
sub rosa effort here to simply use this amendment as a mechanism to 
force States and localities to be whipped into line to support 
legislation that they really would like to see reformed, believing, 
rather, that everybody is acting in good faith and we will indeed have 
the opportunity to work our will on clean water legislation, I strongly 
support this amendment offered by the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by Mr. Stokes.
  This bill would appropriate nearly $1.8 billion for wastewater 
treatment State revolving funds and $100 million for nonpoint pollution 
programs under the Clean Water Act.
  The problem is that neither of these programs is authorized, and 
under House rules they may not be appropriated unless they have been 
authorized.
  Now I fully understand the importance of these programs. In fact one 
of the main reasons I and many of my committee colleagues have been 
working so hard to get the Clean Water Act reauthorized in a form which 
can be enacted is that I not only want this spending authorized, I want 
it substantially increased.
  I would have been within my rights to insist that this spending not 
be protected under the rule and be knocked out on a point of order. 
That would have left us with no money at all for these programs. 
Because I recognize the importance of these programs, I did not do 
that. Instead, with Mr. Stokes and Mr. Obey, I worked out a compromise 
under which the funding would not be knocked out and the amendment now 
offered would make it subject to authorization. This compromise was 
designed to preserve the funding as the appropriations process moves 
forward and to avoid a confrontation over the issue.
  Anyone opposing this amendment is telling me and everybody else that 
we should not work out these compromises, we should just strike the 
funding outright and we should not reach any accommodations with 
anyone. It that's what you want, we can do business that way, but I 
would not recommend it.
  I would also add that the amendment being offered is designed to help 
us achieve reauthorization of the Clean Water Act, and many of you have 
reason to hope that that reauthorization is enacted. The most important 
reason in my view is that the burdens of cleaning our Nation's waters 
now fall only on the municipalities and industries which hold discharge 
permits. The future burden on those permit holders will continue to 
increase without a bill, because they are the only ones doing the 
cleanup. Under our reauthorization bill that burden would be spread 
more evenly and more efficiently, so that those who now hold permits 
would not have to bear the entire future burden. Anybody who now holds 
a discharge permit, or who discharges to somebody who does, needs a 
reauthorization bill and has good reason to support Mr. Stokes' 
amendment.
  And finally, to those who are concerned about fiscal responsibility 
and careful scrutiny of spending, the Stokes amendment stands for the 
proposition that before we spend money around here the spending ought 
to be fully reviewed by both the authorizing process and by the 
appropriations process. If we start giving a bye to a billion here and 
a billion there, letting spending just go through the appropriations 
review without going through the authorizing review, then what we are 
doing is allowing the taxpayer's money to be spent in a far more casual 
way, with far less scrutiny and far less accountability. That is not 
the way to protect the taxpayer's best interests.
  I therefore urge a ``yes'' vote on the Stokes amendment.
  [Mr. LEWIS of California addressed the Committee. His remarks will 
appear hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stokes 
amendment, and say what a refreshing change it is from last year.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is critical to the procedural integrity 
of this institution. Last year the Public Works Committee and the 
Appropriations Committee fought a long and contentious battle on the 
issue of appropriating unauthorized funds for transportation. This fall 
the authorization for the funding of the CWA runs out and to 
appropriate unauthorized funds would place us in the same awkward 
position we were in last year.
  Chairman Stokes, to his credit, has taken a critical step in 
preventing a battle over unauthorized funding and has crafted an 
amendment that makes the appropriation of CWA funding contingent on an 
authorization. As the ranking member of the Water Resources and 
Environment Subcommittee, I applaud Chairman Stokes' efforts. It is 
critical to preserving the authorizing committee's role in determining 
the most cost-effective way to direct our Nation's limited water 
infrastructure dollars.


                         fiscal responsibility

  In these fiscally tough times it simply makes no sense to appropriate 
nearly $2 billion without giving thorough consideration on how this 
money can best be used to meet our Nation's water quality needs. As 
over 2 years of hearings before our committee have shown, we can get 
significantly greater bang for our buck by putting resources into 
reducing nonpoint source pollution instead of continuing to ratchet 
down on municipalities and industry. Without a new authorization we 
will not be applying our water resources in the most effective way.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the Stokes amendment. It is a 
vote for fiscal responsibility and a vote to preserve the authorizing 
process.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                        administrative provision

       Of the budgetary resources available to the Environmental 
     Protection Agency during fiscal year 1995, $7,525,000 are 
     permanently canceled. The Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall allocate the amount of budgetary 
     resources canceled among the agency's accounts available for 
     procurement and procurement-related expenses. Amounts 
     available for procurement and procurement-related expenses in 
     each such account shall be reduced by the amount allocated to 
     such account. For the purposes of this paragraph, the 
     definition of ``procurement'' includes all stages of the 
     process of acquiring property or services, beginning with the 
     process of determining a need for a product or service and 
     ending with contract completion and closeout, as specified in 
     41 U.S.C. 403(2).

                   Executive Office of the President


                office of science and technology policy

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Science and 
     Technology Policy, in carrying out the purposes of the 
     National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and 
     Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6601 and 6671), hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, not to exceed $2,500 for official reception and 
     representation expenses, and rental of conference rooms in 
     the District of Columbia, $4,981,000: Provided, That the 
     Office of Science and Technology Policy shall reimburse other 
     agencies for not less than one-half of the personnel 
     compensation costs of individuals detailed to it.


  council on environmental quality and office of environmental quality

       For necessary expenses to continue functions assigned to 
     the Council on Environmental Quality and Office of 
     Environmental Quality pursuant to the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969, the Environmental Quality Improvement Act 
     of 1970, and Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, $997,000.

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency


                            disaster relief

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the functions of the 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), $320,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


            disaster assistance direct loan program account

       For the cost of direct loans, $2,418,000, as authorized by 
     section 319, and $1,980,000, as authorized by section 417 of 
     the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.): Provided, That such 
     costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be 
     as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974: Provided further, That these funds are available to 
     subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount of 
     direct loans not to exceed $175,000,000 under section 319 and 
     not to exceed $3,000,000 under section 417 of the Stafford 
     Act: Provided further, That any unused portion of the direct 
     loan limitation and subsidy shall be available until 
     expended.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct loan program, $145,000.


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, 
     including hire and purchase of motor vehicles (31 U.S.C. 
     1343); uniforms, or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     but at rates for individuals not to exceed the per diem rate 
     equivalent to the rate for GS-18; expenses of attendance of 
     cooperating officials and individuals at meetings concerned 
     with the work of emergency preparedness; transportation in 
     connection with the continuity of Government programs to the 
     same extent and in the same manner as permitted the Secretary 
     of a Military Department under 10 U.S.C. 2632; and not to 
     exceed $2,500 for official reception and representation 
     expenses; $165,000,000.


                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, $4,400,000.


              emergency management planning and assistance

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, to 
     carry out activities under the National Flood Insurance Act 
     of 1968, as amended, and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 
     1973, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 
     1977, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the Federal Fire 
     Prevention and Control Act of 1974, as amended (15 U.S.C. 
     2201 et seq.), the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as 
     amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2251 et seq.), the Defense 
     Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et 
     seq.), section 107 and 303 of the National Security Act of 
     1947, as amended (50 U.S.C. 404-405), and Reorganization 
     Plan No. 3 of 1978, $220,345,000.


                   emergency food and shelter program

       There is hereby appropriated $130,000,000 to the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency to carry out an emergency food 
     and shelter program pursuant to title III of Public Law 100-
     77, as amended: Provided, That total administrative costs 
     shall not exceed three and one-half per centum of the total 
     appropriation.


                     national flood insurance fund

                          (transfers of funds)

       Of the funds available from the National Flood Insurance 
     Fund for activities under the National Flood Insurance Act of 
     1968, and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 
     $14,913,000 shall be transferred as needed to the ``Salaries 
     and expenses'' appropriation for administrative costs of the 
     insurance and flood plain management programs and $49,229,000 
     shall be transferred as needed to the ``Emergency management 
     planning and assistance'' appropriation for flood plain 
     management activities, including $4,720,000 for expenses 
     under section 1362 of the National Flood Insurance act of 
     1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4103, 4127), which amount shall 
     be available until September 30, 1996. In fiscal year 1995, 
     no funds in excess of (1) $32,000,000 for operating expenses, 
     (2) $253,641,000 for agents' commissions and taxes, and (3) 
     $12,000,000 for interest on Treasury borrowings shall be 
     available from the National Flood Insurance Fund without 
     prior notice to the Committees on Appropriations.


                       administrative provisions

       The Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     shall promulgate through rulemaking a methodology for 
     assessment and collection of fees to be assessed and 
     collected in fiscal year 1995 applicable to persons subject 
     to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's radiological 
     emergency preparedness regulations. The aggregate charges 
     assessed pursuant to this section during fiscal year 1995 
     shall approximate, but not be less than, 100 per centum of 
     the amounts anticipated by the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency to be obligated for its radiological emergency 
     preparedness program for such fiscal year. The methodology 
     for assessment and collection of fees shall be fair and 
     equitable, and shall reflect the full amount of costs of 
     providing radiological emergency planning, preparedness, 
     response and associated services. Such fees will be assessed 
     in a manner that reflects the use of agency resources for 
     classes of regulated persons and the administrative costs of 
     collecting such fees. Fees received pursuant to this section 
     shall be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as 
     offsetting receipts. Assessment and collection of such fees 
     are only authorized during fiscal year 1995.
       Of the budgetary resources available to the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency during fiscal year 1995, 
     $1,441,000 are permanently canceled. The Director of the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency shall allocate the amount 
     of budgetary resources canceled among the Agency's accounts 
     available for procurement and procurement-related expenses. 
     Amounts available for procurement and procurement-related 
     expenses in each such account shall be reduced by the amount 
     allocate to such account. For the purposes of this paragraph, 
     the definition of ``procurement'' includes all stages of the 
     process of acquiring property or services, beginning with the 
     process of determining a need for a product or service and 
     ending with contract completion and closeout, as specified in 
     41 U.S.C. 403(2).

                    General Services Administration


                      consumer information center

       For necessary expenses of the Consumer Information Center, 
     including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $2,008,000, 
     to be deposited into the Consumer Information Center Fund: 
     Provided, That the appropriations, revenues and collections 
     deposited into the fund shall be available for necessary 
     expenses of Consumer Information Center activities in the 
     aggregate amount of $7,500,000. Administrative expenses of 
     the Consumer Information Center in fiscal year 1995 shall not 
     exceed $2,454,000. Appropriations, revenues, and collections 
     accruing to this fund during fiscal year 1995 in excess of 
     $7,500,000 shall remain in the fund and shall not be 
     available for expenditure except as authorized in 
     appropriations Acts.

                Department of Health and Human Services


                       office of consumer affairs

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Consumer Affairs, 
     including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $2,166,000: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     that Office may solicit, accept and deposit to this account, 
     during fiscal year 1995, gifts for the purpose of defraying 
     its costs of printing, publishing, and distributing consumer 
     information and educational materials; may expend up to 
     $1,100,000 of those gifts for those purposes, in addition to 
     amounts otherwise appropriated; and the balance shall remain 
     available for expenditure for such purposes to the extent 
     authorized in subsequent appropriations Acts: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds provided under this heading 
     may be made available for any other activities within the 
     Department of Health and Human Services.

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration


                           human space flight

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the 
     conduct and support of human space flight research and 
     development activities, including research; development; 
     operations; services; maintenance; construction of facilities 
     including repair, rehabilitation, and modification of real 
     and personal property, and acquisition or condemnation of 
     real property, as authorized by law; space flight, spacecraft 
     control and communications activities including operations, 
     production, and services; and purchase, lease, charter, 
     maintenance, and operation of mission and administrative 
     aircraft; $5,592,900,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 1996.


                    amendment offered by mr. hefley

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, and ask unanimous 
consent that it be considered out of order, notwithstanding that the 
paragraph has not been read.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hefley: On page 57, line 4, delete 
     the following, ``$5,901,200,000,'' and insert 
     ``$5,889,200,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Colorado?
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I do so to 
inquire if we could have an agreement to have a limit on debate time.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I think a time 
limit would be appropriate. What would the gentleman have in mind?
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest 20 minutes, to be divided 
equally between the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] and myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Hefley] with regard to taking up this amendment out of 
order?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the proposed time limit, 20 
minutes, to be divided 10 minutes on each side, on this amendment and 
any amendments thereto?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] will 
be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us is intended to limit spending 
for the Consortium for International Earth Science Network in Saginaw, 
MI, to $6 million. Offering this amendment has become almost a 
tradition with me. The reasons for offering it have not changed.
  Five years ago this project, like so many others, simply appeared in 
the NASA budget. Over the past few years, this body has okayed nearly 
$100 million on a facility of questionable merit, and this year we 
apparently intend to spend $18 million more. That is $12 million more 
than NASA requested before the Committee on Appropriations began its 
deliberations.

                              {time}  1730

  Let me repeat that. NASA requested $6 million, the figure that I am 
saying we should move back to. In the bill we are offering to give them 
$1 million more than they requested.
  I know the Michigan delegation is going to answer these remarks by 
saying that CIESIN is necessary to process the information NASA will 
receive from mission to Planet Earth. But last year, its defenders said 
CIESIN was meant to accomplish an exciting new mission.
  Get what the exciting new mission is, Mr. Chairman. The exciting new 
mission was to study the impacts of environmental change on society. In 
its report last year the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 
said CIESIN needed to refocus its mission from local economic 
development and university support to international data collection. 
This year it is being presented as one of eight distributive archives 
centers for the Earth observing system, the only one specializing in 
socioeconomic data.
  What will it be next year? Mission control? Who knows what it will 
be. Let me read from a report by NASA's own inspector general office on 
CIESIN.

       Initially, CIESIN conducted research in the field of earth 
     sciences in support of NASA's EOS program. However, it has 
     evolved into an organization specializing in the acquisition 
     and distribution of human dimensions data. As such, CIESIN's 
     primary focus is outside of NASA's earth science expertise, 
     thereby affecting NASA's ability to provide adequate 
     oversight and focus. CIESIN has also received funding through 
     NASA to construct a $7 million facility that may not be 
     needed, especially considering the questionable basis being 
     used to justify the construction.

  That is not something that I said. This comes from the inspector 
general's report, Mr. Chairman. I charge that the only purpose CIESIN 
has is to pump Federal dollars into Saginaw, MI. If we need a center to 
interpret environmental data from satellites or study interactions 
between society and the environment or to do any of the other missions 
CIESIN supporters have dreamed up for it over the years, I am sure 
there are existing laboratories and universities that can do the work 
more cheaply and efficiently than this thing can be done. I am sorry 
that the only way I can make this point is to cut $12 million from the 
science, aeronautics, and technology account. I would like to take that 
money and put it back into that account in some more productive way, 
but I cannot do that. The thrust of most of the debates on NASA has 
been that we are asking the space agency to do too much, that they do 
not have any money. In a perfect world, we could simply amend this bill 
to ban funding for CIESIN and let NASA use the money for more sensible 
purposes. Instead, cutting money is the only way I can make my point.
  No one should be under any illusion that CIESIN is an integral part 
of NASA's mission. This is one manifestation of an insidious game. 
Somebody's pet scheme gets planted in appropriations not just at NASA 
but at a lot of other agencies, particularly the energy department. The 
agency attempts to humor Congress by working around the request, but it 
grows and grows in seemingly reasonable limiting increments.
  Eventually it begins to erode the agency's ability to do the job that 
it was meant to do. A million here, a million there, pretty soon we are 
talking about a lot of money. And CIESIN is talking about a lot of 
money. CIESIN should not have been funded in the first place, and it 
does not belong in this budget. If Members care about restraining 
government spending, if they believe in the space program or even if we 
still harbor the faintest belief that government can do something 
right, then Members will vote for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment to 
decrease funding for CIESIN, the Consortium for International Earth 
Science Information Network from $18 million down to $6 million.
  The committee has included $18 million for CIESIN in 1995, which is 
approximately the 1994 funding level.
  Mr. Chairman, for a number of years there has been some disagreement 
about the funding level for CIESIN, but there is absolutely no 
disagreement about its need. As others who are familiar with the 
Mission to Planet Earth Program have said, ``if we did not have a 
CIESIN, we would have to invent one.''
  During the 1995 budget hearings, I inquired as to NASA's position 
regarding CIESIN. Dr. Kennel, the associate administrator for Mission 
to Planet Earth stated, and I want to quote him:

       Now, for the record, I think it is important to state that 
     we are very happy with the objectives of CIESIN, and we 
     believe they play an important role in global change 
     research.

  The overall goal of CIESIN is to increase our understanding of the 
human dimensions of global change by providing a framework for the 
integration of social and natural science data for research. This 
program will facilitate the access to and use of Mission to Planet 
Earth data for earth science research and public policymaking.
  Mr. Chairman, over the next few years this Nation will spend billions 
of dollars to collect data to improve our understanding of the 
processes in the atmosphere, oceans, and on land surfaces and the 
interactions between these components. This effort would generate and 
unbelievable amount of data. To be of any real value, this data must 
remain available in a readable and usable form and must be disseminated 
to researchers across the United States and around the world. That is 
what CIESIN is set up to accomplish.
  I would urge the Members to support the CIESIN effort at the current 
level of $18 million and to defeat the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Barcia].
  Mr. BARCIA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado. It is a 
misrepresentation of what CIESIN needs, and would be a blow to 
appropriately using the billions of dollars worth of environmental data 
that is stored throughout the Federal Government.
  It is true that CIESIN received an appropriation of $5 million last 
year. It is also true that this House on three occasions voted to 
sustain CIESIN with an authorization and an appropriation of $18 
million.
  The situation last year was that when one added the $5 million 
appropriated in the conference agreement to the $13 million in fiscal 
1993 funds that carried over to fiscal 1994, CIESIN was able to operate 
at an $18 million level in fiscal 1994.
  The amount provided by the appropriations committee is a continuation 
of the current level of effort for this worthwhile program. I have 
talked with NASA Administrator Dan Goldin, and he has told me that the 
administration has no objection to the $18 million for CIESIN. I have 
talked with Vice President Gore, and he has told me that the 
administration understands CIESIN's mission and is supportive of it.
  Mr. Chairman, CIESIN wants to provide one-stop access to 
environmental science data bases. It makes it technically possible for 
scientists, educators, policymakers, and the public to search diverse 
data bases, and for the first time permits the integration of physical 
science data with social science data including economic, health, and 
ecological data. CIESIN works with NASA, the Department of Defense, 
EPA, the Department of Agriculture, the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy, the Department of State, the Agency for 
International Development, and the list goes on.
  CIESIN has 24 points of correlation with the stated goals of the 
administration on environmental policy and data management. Forty-four 
U.S.-based and international data holding institutions have agreed to 
unify their catalogs and share data on the CIESIN network worldwide, 
including the United Nations, the World Bank, and the World Health 
Organization. CIESIN has competitive applications pending with the OAS, 
the United Nations, the World Bank, the Soros Foundation, and several 
other Federal agencies.
  CIESIN is good science, it is necessary science, it is cost-conscious 
science, and it is cost-effective science. Please oppose the Hefley 
amendment.

                              {time}  1740

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
to respond to the comments that have been made.
  For several years, Mr. Chairman, I have tried to cut out CIESIN 
altogether. The reason I have is when we first went to NASA and we said 
``What is CIESIN?'' and they said ``We do not know.'' I said, ``Why is 
it in the budget?'' They said, ``We do not know why it is in the 
budget.''
  The gentleman who just spoke, his predecessor put it in the budget; 
Mr. Traxler, I believe, put it in the budget. That is why it is in the 
budget.
  What is it supposed to do? They told us, 2 or 3 years ago when they 
started this, they told us one thing it was supposed to do. Last year 
it was something else it was supposed to do. Now it is a third thing it 
is supposed to do.
  Always people get up and talk about it being such a vital, important 
part of the overall NASA program. Yet NASA says, ``We do not know what 
it is. We do not know why it is. We do not know why it is here.''
  As I understood it, there was a deal struck last year to provide 
CIESIN with $6 million a year over the coming years. Somehow that deal 
has broken down, because we are talking not $6 million, not twice that, 
not $12 million, but three times that. We are talking $18 million.
  How much money, now that NASA has been reminded that there is a 
CIESIN and it is part of their budget, how much does NASA think they 
ought to have for it? NASA thinks they ought to have $6 million, not 
$18, not $12 million. NASA thinks they ought to have $6 million for it.
  The gentleman mentioned that there was no disagreement regarding the 
need. There is tremendous disagreement regarding the need. This is not 
a unique organization, where this information flows only here. There 
are eight centers where this kind of information flows.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not have to have this one. Let me read, if I 
might, from the NASA Inspector General's report on evaluation of 
CIESIN. Its headline is: ``CIESIN Funding Could Be Reduced.''
  It said, ``The consortium had not spent'', and Mr. Chairman, I would 
like to emphasize this, ``The consortium had not spent its entire 
fiscal year 1992 appropriations, and a substantial amount of 1993 
operating funds, as of September 30, 1993. This occurred because NASA 
held up fiscal year 1993 funds until CIESIN had submitted an 
acceptable, revised budget proposal. At current spending levels, the 
unexpended funds could allow CIESIN to operate through the majority of 
fiscal year 1994. Therefore, NASA can significantly reduce,'' get this, 
the Inspector General, not Joel Hefley, not someone who just likes to 
cut the budget, but NASA's Inspector General says, ``Therefore, NASA 
can significantly reduce or eliminate CIESIN's fiscal year 1994 
funding,'' because they have not spent all the money. There is still 
money there in the bank, drawing interest. We have not spent all the 
money.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining, and how much time the gentleman from Colorado has remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] has 4 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] the chairman of the Committee on 
Science, Space, and Technology.
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, first may I compliment the 
author of this amendment for his continuing scrutiny of earmarks and 
unnecessary programs in the budget. I had the same feelings about this 
program initially several years ago, and as Members may recall, I 
strenuously resisted its continuation in the form that it existed.
  I have, however, working with both NASA and the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Barcia], who now represents this district in which CIESIN 
exists, been seeking very diligently to bring this program into line 
with the overall goals of NASA and with the proper procedures of the 
House.
  Mr. Chairman, I would feel very badly, after we have worked so hard 
to have this program authorized, have it requested by the 
administration, have it examined by the GAO, and having found it to be 
now in accordance with the best standards that we have, I would feel 
very badly if the House would not turn on this project and say, ``We 
are going to cut it out of the budget.'' I think that would be wrong.
  I am going to continue to focus on earmarks, I am going to preach the 
gospel that we can work to authorize these programs, and we can make 
them better and stronger, and I hope my colleagues on both sides will 
agree with me that we can do that. If so, I think we can bring a much 
more orderly process to the House, protect good programs, and continue 
to support the kind of processes that are good for legislation.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of California. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from 
Michigan.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the remarks of the gentleman 
from California, and would like to make this point. As a supporter of a 
number of the things NASA does, we need to have a downlink in this 
country to decipher the information collected. Without something like 
CIESIN we lose the capability and it is worthless, the stuff that it 
would otherwise be sending back.
  This facility does in fact decipher that data. It allows our 
scientists to figure out what is going on and what we can do, and 
because of that, I would urge my colleagues to vote no on this 
amendment.
  Mr. BROWN of California. The gentleman's comments are very well 
taken. The management of CIESIN now is in the hands of the best 
professionals that can be found. I have discussed the program with 
them. I know it is an evolving program, Mr. Chairman, but it will fit a 
very important need.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 second to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Camp], who is not supportive of my amendment. The 
gentleman is from Michigan and I think he ought to have a right to have 
his say.
  (Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado 
[Mr. Hefley] for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the actions of the House are at times hard to 
understand. Yesterday in an almost unanimous vote we supported 
legislation allowing the continuation of the information superhighway. 
Today we are faced with an amendment that can only be seen as a detour.
  CIESIN, which is funded by NASA, a research institution, provides 
this country with the research advantage that other countries can only 
dream of attaining. It is a computer network filled with critical 
information for individuals, businesses, and educational institutions.
  I have joined my friend, the gentleman from Colorado, on this floor 
to fight against government waste. CIESIN has maintained its operating 
costs.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] is entitled 
to close.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has been more 
than helpful, and I appreciate that, regardless of his position.
  While I do support the statement of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Upton], I think the way the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] has 
handled himself is highly professional and very helpful to the process.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
very much. I appreciate that, particularly coming from a dear friend 
such as the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
  Another dear friend, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton] just 
made a statement that I think we ought to deal with. That is, if we 
lose this, the data that is coming down is worthless.
  Mr. Chairman, let me point out again that we have at least eight 
other centers that collect this data. This is not the only one. They do 
not have a unique capacity that no place else has.
  In fact, we cannot find any reason through NASA as to why this 
exists, except that a powerful member of the Committee on 
Appropriations wanted it in his district. That is all we can find. If 
we talk to some of the NASA people privately, they will not come in 
here and say that to us, but they will tell us, though, that that is 
the case.
  Mr. Chairman, let me point out a second thing, and then I will close, 
because we do not want to prolong this too long.
  The second thing is, Mr. Chairman, I am not trying to cut out the 
budget for CIESIN. What I am doing is asking us to exercise a little 
fiscal restraint, and to cut out the amount of money that NASA did not 
request.

                              {time}  1750

  Let us give NASA every penny they requested, but let us cut out the 
$12 million they did not request.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time, for the 
purpose of closing debate, to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia].
  Mr. BARCIA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to comment 
briefly with regard to the remarks of the gentleman from Colorado 
regarding the Inspector General's report. It is true that NASA did, in 
fact, evaluate the effectiveness of CIESIN and there was an interim 
report which I think the gentleman made reference to on the floor this 
evening relative to what were perceived deficiencies in the 
administration at CIESIN.
  I do want to tell the gentleman that the final version of the 
inspector general's report gave what is in my opinion a glowing 
recommendation to the program and the necessity. I will concede the 
point that perhaps CIESIN is fulfilling a role that is even broader 
than perhaps NASA's mission. This is the actual final document that the 
inspector general published and all of the concerns have been answered 
by CIESIN. They did publish this reply to the NASA audit report. I 
would be happy to share that with the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Hefley]. I know certainly the gentleman from Colorado is well 
intentioned and concerned about the expenditures. I am absolutely 
confident that the work that CIESIN is doing is critical to the overall 
mission of NASA and several other Federal agencies.
  It is my hope that the gentleman's amendment will be turned down, and 
I pledge my cooperation in working with the gentleman to answer any 
unresolved questions that may have been raised by the inspector 
general's interim report as well as any other concerns the gentleman 
has.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARCIA of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in 
support of the gentleman's statement. NASA's position regarding CIESIN 
funding has been talked about earlier in this debate. I must say that 
since that time, NASA has had reason to readjust their thinking about 
CIESIN and that should be noted in the Record as well.
  Mr. BARCIA of Michigan. I thank the gentleman. Dr. Goldin has been 
very supportive in recent discussions of CIESIN and I am hopeful that 
the climate with NASA will be much better in the future.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 169, 
noes 264, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 308]

                               AYES--169

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCurdy
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Paxon
     Penny
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Synar
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--264

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Camp
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Mann
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bartlett
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Machtley
     Reynolds
     Schumer
     Washington

                              {time}  1814

  Messrs. BILBRAY, DINGELL, EWING, MFUME, and RAVENEL changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. SCHENK and Messrs. PENNY, BARRETT of Wisconsin, SMITH of New 
Jersey, and DEUTSCH changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, no one comes to Congress without working very hard to 
get here. There are an endless variety of reasons behind all of that 
hard work, but I would venture to guess that a common thread is our 
desire to contribute a little something toward influencing the future. 
We each want to help build something toward tomorrow better than what 
we see today.
  The nature of those contributions takes different forms depending on 
our priorities or our district's needs. Some of us seek to build a 
strong economic foundation; some to help the unfortunate; some to build 
infrastructure; some to promote and defend national interests; some to 
educate, and some to protect. But all of us think about the future 
because as President Teddy Roosevelt once said:

       * * * policy rests upon the fundamental law that neither 
     man nor nation can prosper unless, in dealing with the 
     present, thought is steadily taken for the future.

  Today's decision is about the future. Today's decision is about doing 
something that will be remembered as a step into humankind's destiny. 
Today's decision is about contributing to the never-ending quest of 
human exploration. Today's decision is about looking beyond our present 
problems and building something toward tomorrow.
  The space station, like all the other vehicles that have carried us 
toward the future, is surrounded by controversy. Its easy to dispute, 
even mock, the unknown, Because what we will learn by going to the 
frontier is more about imagination and hope that it is about hard, cold 
fact, the potential of space station often defies description; and that 
is a problem in legislative debate.
  But history, rather than science, is instructive. The easy argument 
against exploration always has been not here, not now because there are 
too many other needs which must be met first with limited resources. 
Invariably, throughout history, that easy argument has been wrong. Men 
and women who have bought the easy argument have become defenders of 
the status quo and their dreams have been lost. Nations which have 
bought the easy argument have lost their sense of destiny and declined 
in both power and prestige.
  Between now and the year 2002, we will spend something less than two-
tenths of 1 percent of our projected national outlays to build, orbit, 
and man a spece station. In the same period, we will spend almost nine 
times more on food stamps. We will spend at least 12 percent of total 
national outlays, or more than 70 times what we spend on space station, 
paying interest on the national debt. Massive commitment to debt and 
welfare without small investments in exploration and imagination is not 
the foundation on which great nations are built or sustained.

  Still, putting men and women in space to live and work takes real 
money. We owe the American people no less than an assurance that the 
money will be well-spent. I believe those assurances are really 
apparent.
  We will do completely unique scientific work aboard space station 
that holds the promise of new discoveries. The payoff could be 
enormous.
  We will develop new technologies in order to build the space station 
which will allow us to build world-class products here on earth. The 
payoffs will be immediate and real.
  We will forge a partnership with the Russians which will build mutual 
trust and respect. The payoff is a promise of peace.
  We will cooperate in an international venture which may prove a model 
for other scientific endeavors. The payoff will be a triumph of 
American leadership.
  Are the payoffs worth the price? For some here, the answer is 
obviously no. But they would have us give up a lot.
  When you abandon space station, you stop 30 years of progress in 
human spaceflight.
  When you abandon space station, you leave the space shuttle as a 
magnificent flying machine without its original mission.
  When you abandon space station, you kill off the last major science 
project being done with international partners and jeopardize any 
future cooperative efforts.
  When you abandon space station, you abandon American leadership in 
the arena of the future and leave the potential of space to others.
  When you abandon space station, the dream is no longer alive.
  ``Without vision, the people perish.'' So states Biblical wisdom. 
Where is the vision in spending vastly more for debt service than we 
spend for dreams?
  If you came to Congress to, in some small way, touch the future, here 
is your chance. Somewhere out there, on the endless frontier, is the 
destiny of humankind. We can step toward that destiny, or we can step 
back, away from it. I hope most of us choose to step forward. For as 
T.S. Eliot tells us in ``Little Gidding,'' in exploration is 
fulfillment. He wrote:

     We shall not cease from exploration
     And the end of all our exploring
     Will be to arrive where we started
     And know the place for the first time.

  Your support for space station will allow Americans to know a new and 
unique frontier for the first time. And in knowing that frontier, 
America will define the future.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this 
amendment and want to express my strong support for the space station. 
As cochair of the space caucus and the representative of a district 
which includes NASA's Langley Research Center, I have spent a great 
deal of time involved in the activities of the U.S. space program, and 
I believe that the space station project is essential to the future of 
our Nation.
  Some would argue that the future of our Nation is here on Earth 
rather than in space. However, technology developed through the U.S. 
space program already benefits us in many ways and the space station 
will enable us to develop new and more advanced technologies that will 
help make life here on Earth better and safer. This spinoff technology 
is employed regularly in computers and communications, health and 
medicine, the environment, home and recreation, and public safety. For 
example, some rescue services are better able to monitor the exact 
location of their units and greatly reduce response time. Firefighters 
now have lighter and more efficient breathing apparatus. And, spinoff 
technology is used to enhance scanning devices used in hospitals and 
airports. There are thousands of examples of spinoff technology from 
which we reap daily benefits. Money spent on the space station is 
indeed an important investment in our future here on Earth.
  Now let me turn to those who have dubbed the space station as a 
wasteful program that only will add to the deficit. I am extremely 
concerned about the deficit and believe it is essential for the 
Federal Government to practice fiscal responsibility to stop spending 
from spiraling out of control. I would like to point out that this 
amendment will not cut any spending from the fiscal year 1995 NASA 
budget--it simply will reapportion funds and bar the use of any NASA 
funds in this bill for the space station program. This is not a deficit 
reduction amendment.

  In addition, the space station program recently has undergone a 
significant redesign effort that has produced a more streamlined and 
more efficient project that is operating within reduced budgetary 
constraints and on schedule. The reorganized project also includes the 
participation of the Russians, who bring with them 20 years of space 
station technology. While not depending on Russian technology, the 
program will reap the benefits of enhanced efficiency and scientific 
payoff.
  The international space station is a project that will enable the 
United States to maintain its position as a world leader in technology. 
It also will serve as an important foreign policy initiative, bringing 
together countries across the globe to share in the costs and add 
experience and technology to the effort. Abandoning the space station 
will hurt the national economy and the economies of 39 States and the 
District of Columbia, which will gain revenue from the project. In 
addition, it would endanger the jobs of roughly 70,000 U.S. workers 
employed in space station-related activities.
  Again, I express my strong opposition to this amendment. It does not 
reduce the deficit. it endangers the United States ability to compete 
in the world economy and high-tech arena. And it would send a signal 
that the United States is not committed to openness and cooperation in 
its foreign policy efforts.

                              {time}  1820


                   amendment offered by mr. traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my 
amendment, which would appear at page 75, be allowed to be offered out 
of order to expedite the matters this evening.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman wish to offer his amendment at this 
time?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: Page 75, strike lines 
     14 through 19 and insert the following:
       Sec. 518. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and 
     Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products 
     purchased with funds made available in this Act should be 
     American-made.
       (b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance 
     to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using 
     funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal 
     agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to 
     such entity a notice describing the statement made in 
     subsection (a) by the Congress.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this is a Buy-American amendment that 
has been on all the appropriations bills.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I have discussed this Buy-American 
amendment with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. We would accept 
his amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge an aye vote, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    amendment offered by mr. roemer

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order by House 
Resolution 465.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Roemer:
       Page 56, line 16, strike ``$5,592,900,000'' insert 
     ``$4,653,200,000''.
       Page 57, line 4, strike ``$5,901,200,000'' and insert 
     ``$6,727,587,000''.
       Page 57, line 25, strike ``$2,549,587,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,662,900,000''.
       Page 60, after line 12, insert the following:
       None of the funds made available in this Act to the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration may be used for 
     the space station program.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Roemer] will be recognized for 1 hour, and a Member opposed will be 
recognized for 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to 
control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we will debate for the next 2 hours one of the most 
serious topics that a people can debate, our future, what we decide to 
invest in as a Congress and as a people, and there will be tough 
choices, tough choices about what we come here to vote on. What we 
decide is important.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] just gave a beautiful 
speech quoting Isaiah from the Bible, without vision the people will 
perish, but with bad vision, with bad science, with bad investments, 
the people will perish.
  I offer this amendment, Mr. Chairman, with the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer], and our amendment is different 
from last year's amendment. Last year our amendment cut the $2.1 
billion from NASA to eliminate the space station and put the money 
immediately toward deficit reduction. This year we cut the $2.1 billion 
from the space station, thereby eliminating the space station, and put 
the money for this year only, 1 year, $2.1 billion, back into the NASA 
account.
  Now that, Mr. Chairman, is significant deficit reduction. That, Mr. 
Chairman, according to the Citizens Against Government Waste, writing 
their letter to us and to Congress, they say,

       We strongly support and urge every Member to vote for the 
     Roemer-Zimmer amendment to kill the Space Station. The 
     Roemer-Zimmer amendment will save more than $60 billion in 
     the outyears and may be the best vote for deficit reduction 
     you will cast this year.

  So, Mr. Chairman, we have significant deficit reduction in this 
amendment. I am not sure that we will have a more significant or 
serious effort to reduce the deficit than we have put together tonight 
and put before our colleagues. But I think it is important to talk a 
little bit about the space station itself, Mr. Chairman, and why we are 
opposed to it.
  We will hear very, very grandiose claims of what the space station 
can do, and if it was the space station that was designed in 1984 by 
Mr. Reagan as President, I would vote for that space station. That 
space station was going to cost $8 billion. That space station was 
going to finished in 1994. That space station was going to achieve 
eight scientific objectives. It was going to have a telescope on it to 
help us understand the solar system. It was going to have a telescope 
pointed toward Earth to help us understand environmental problems. It 
was going to be a stepping stone to exploring Mars and other planets. 
It was going to help us repair problems in space like the Hubble.
  Now sadly, Mr. Chairman, that great idea that President Reagan had in 
1984 has already cost us $12 billion. We are not going to be done with 
it in 1994 because we have not even turned the first screw on putting 
it together, and now projections are for the year 2002. The science has 
gone from eight missions to one-and-a-half, and the total cost, Mr. 
Chairman, has escalated from $8 billion to $71 billion.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, if we had that original design and those 
scientific objectives, I would say this is worth the while and worth 
the risk. But today, Mr. Chairman, with the huge budget deficit, with 
us cutting $490 million out of our income for Head Start, with the 
other various choices that this committee has made, like a $120 cut in 
national service, we cannot afford this space station at this time.
  I think most of the people watching this debate on TV ask, as they 
might ask before they invest in the stock market or buy something at 
the grocery store, what is the track record of this space station, and 
what is the future prospect of this space station? How would I want my 
Congressman or Congresswoman to vote on this?

  Mr. Chairman, I have just told my colleagues the track record. It is 
abysmal.
  What about the future?
  There is an article that appeared this week in the front page of the 
New York Times by William Broad that said that there is a one-in-five 
chance that this space station will be hit by debris.

                              {time}  1830

  Now, I am not very good with statistics. I readily admit that. A one-
in-five chance. What does that mean? How does that relate to our other 
space programs? How does that relate to riding on an airplane?
  Riding on an airplane, there is a one-in-two-million chance that 
something bad will happen. For the shuttle, there is a 1 in 78 chance. 
For the space station, 1 in 5. That is a 20-percent chance, with $71 
billion.
  Now, Mr. Golden has admitted that that is a problem. He says he will 
spend money to shield it. That shield will weigh down the space station 
and make it more expensive than the $71 billion. I do not think we can 
risk $71 billion for a 20-percent chance.
  What has changed this year from last year when we had this debate? 
Last year when we debated this, we had an one-vote margin. What things 
have changed which may add or detract from votes for or against this 
space station?
  First of all, we now have a Russian design, and we are sending NASA 
dollars, $400-million precious NASA dollars, to the former Soviet Union 
to subsidize their space program.
  What else has changed? Because we are going to hear a lot about 
international partnerships. This Canadians are now saying you are going 
to subsidize the Russian program, we are going to cut back our 
commitment to the space station by $700 million. So whereas the 
international partners are cutting back, we are blindly moving forward.
  What else has changed about cost? Because the administrator, Mr. 
Golden, who I greatly respect and admire for the job he is trying to do 
at NASA, has said they are trying to save and shave costs on this 
program.
  He says $2 billion. And in a just published report by GAO, they say 
this about those projected $2-billion savings:

       When all space station related elements are considered, 
     current estimates would indicate that much of the savings 
     NASA attributes to expanded Russian participation will not be 
     achieved. Furthermore, if only part of NASA's estimated $2 
     billion savings is attributable to the Russian participation, 
     it is possible that expanded Russian involvement could result 
     in little or no net savings.

  Much of those $2 billion in savings Mr. Golden projects will come in 
the form of $1.6 billion. He projects that because the space station 
will be completed 14 to 15 months earlier, from the year 2003 to 2002. 
We have not completed it with a U.S. effort in 10 years, yet now we are 
going to expedite completing this, with the complexities of doing 
engineering and technology with another country? We are going to 
expedite this by 15 months and save $1.6 billion?
  That is baloney, Mr. Chairman. There is no savings from that 
expedited schedule.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying this budgetary 
environment is very different from last year. We in the House are $527 
million in this budget below the 1994 level. The Senate is $310 million 
below that, $800 million. Senator Mikulski is saying even if we can try 
to save Cassini or AXAF, she has said to the administrator, make your 
choice. Start cutting other programs if you keep the space station.
  So, Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford this poorly designed and 
pedestrian space station. If it had the vision, if it had the 
accomplishment, if it had the science of President Reagan's 1984 
venture, then we might consider that. But given the reality of the 
budget, given the problems with the science, given the GAO report, I 
urge my colleagues to cast a tough vote and cut, finally, this space 
station.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield one-half of my time to the ranking 
minority member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and ask 
unanimous consent the gentleman be allowed to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] will be recognized 
for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] to terminate the space station--but 
keep those funds in NASA. I will keep my remarks brief so as to permit 
others to also speak in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill we have before us today includes 
$2,120,900,000 in fiscal year 1995 for the International Space Station 
Alpha proposed by the President.
  Mr. Chairman, I support my President and intend to vote for this 
redesigned space station.
  Let me speak for a moment regarding our cooperation with Russia. I 
think we will benefit from working with a nation with so much 
experience in long-duration space travel. Further, the Russians have a 
track record of honoring international agreements even through the most 
difficult of economic and political times. The President believes that 
this cooperative venture with Russia is important for foreign policy 
reasons. I support the President in his efforts to help stabilize the 
potential for technology migration.
  There is concern that the space station will take funds away from 
other worthwhile science projects. I would remind the Members that the 
committee has provided the full budget request of $2.1 billion for 
space station--and we have done it without cutting back on space 
science, aeronautical research, or mission to planet Earth activities. 
In fact, the committee did not recommend any reduction in the science, 
aeronautics, and technology account which funds these activities.
  The reductions to NASA's requests are in the human space flight 
account which funds space station and space shuttle activities and the 
mission support account which primarily funds NASA employees and 
facilities.
  Earlier this year, the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology were seriously examining 
whether to support the space station program. After intense 
examination, both members now support the space station program.
  I urge members to vote against the amendment to terminate the space 
station.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, a year ago this body came within a single vote of 
canceling the space station project, a project that has been grounded 
on the drawing board for 10 long and expensive years.
  In 1993, we had an American space station with participation by 
several international partners. This year we have a space station that 
relies heavily on Russia to get it off the ground.
  Although NASA has announced plans to buy the Russian control module, 
we will be dependent on Russian rockets to provide the fuel to keep the 
station aloft. Russia's Government is, as we all know, unstable. A 
friendly regime may not last past the elections scheduled for early 
1996, much less through construction of the station and operating it 
for 10 years through the year 2012.
  It is also unclear whether Russia's shaky economy and industrial base 
will allow it to live up to its commitments.
  In recent years, Congress has been faced by enormous budgetary 
constraints, and so we have agonized over every single dollar that we 
have committed to foreign aid for anyone, anywhere. But the State 
Department has admitted in testimony to our committee, the Committee on 
Science, Space, and Technology, that there are absolutely no safeguards 
in place to assure that the money that we send Russia to pay for this 
program will not be siphoned off by corrupt bureaucrats or to support 
the Russian military establishment.

                              {time}  1840

  We are getting very little for this investment in terms of domestic 
improvement in the nation of Russia.
  Mr. Chairman, I wrote the section of the Freedom Support Act that 
made it easier for us to import space hardware and technology from the 
former Soviet Union. I commend the idea of joining with the Russians in 
any worthwhile project that will help secure democracy and free markets 
in that country. But touting this repackaged space station as the 
vehicle for that effort demeans this noble objective.
  Just within the past week there have been a number of very 
disquieting news reports about new risks that we are encountering 
because of Russia's involvement with the space station project.
  The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] referred to the article in 
the New York Times on Monday explaining that we have doubled the risk 
of collision with orbital debris by our new orbital inclination that is 
required in order to do this project together with the Russians.
  Instead of a 1 in 10 chance of a major collision, we have a 1 in 5 
chance of a major collision. That is very serious. It is a new risk. It 
has intruded into the project because of the Russian involvement.

  This week's edition of Aviation Week and Space Technology has an 
article about the difficulty in building the new lightweight fuel tank 
for more than $400 million that is going to be required to be added to 
the shuttle in order for us to get the full payload up into the new 
orbit. There are some major difficulties which will result in delays or 
unreliability or expanded costs or all of those things.
  There is another article in the same issue headlined ``Russian 
Management Worries Station Team.'' There are going to be very major 
difficulties in working with Russian bureaucrats in getting this 
project completed. And finally, in this week's Space News, there is an 
article that is headlined, ``New Plan Poses Higher Risks For Station.'' 
In order to build the joint space station with available funds, we are 
cutting back on spare parts, on testing, on all the things that we need 
to assure the reliability of this program, increasing the risk to 
humans as well as to machinery, increasing the cost and, in all 
likelihood, stretching out the completion date.
  Mr. Chairman, the United States has poured $11.4 billion into this 
orbiting boondoggle. We have nothing to show for all that expense 
except a few pieces of hardware and a decimated space program. As 
originally conceived, the space station was a marvelous creation that 
would cost $8 billion and would preform a remarkable array of 
functions.
  It would be a staging base to launch deep space missions. It would be 
our doorway into space. It would be a factory in space where products 
could be manufactured with greater precision and quality. It would be 
an observatory not just for the stars but also for the Earth, so it 
would combine the functions now performed by the Hubble Telescope and 
other observatories with those planned for the multibillion-dollar 
Earth Observing System. It was designed to be a transportation node, a 
loading dock, and a spacecraft servicing center. The station was to be 
a facility where spacecraft would be assembled. Fuel and supplies for 
use in future mission would be stored in it.
  Finally, its eighth function was as a research facility for life 
sciences and microgravity. That was the original conception. That was 
the dream. Now here is the reality.
  The total cost has escalated from $8 billion to more than $70 
billion, and the crew size has been cut from eight to six. It will no 
longer be a staging base. The manufacturing facility is gone. The 
space-based observatory is gone. The transportation node is gone. The 
servicing facility is gone. The assembly facility is gone. The storage 
facility is gone. All that is left is that eighth function, the 
research laboratory, doing work that is interesting but not worth $70 
billion.
  Mr. Chairman, the life sciences research that is part of the residual 
function of the space station is intended to prepare us for long-
duration space missions. But NASA currently has absolutely no plans to 
send humans back to the Moon and beyond to Mars or even beyond Earth 
orbit. These programs were canceled in order to pay for the space 
station. And microgravity research can more easily be done at less cost 
on the space shuttle or on smaller, less expensive spacecraft than it 
can on the space station. In fact, our leading scientists in this field 
tell us that it is a mistake to try to do microgravity research on the 
same platform where you are doing life sciences research, because the 
presence of astronauts knocking around will interfere with the 
experiments being done in the microgravity module.

  Mr. Chairman, it is time for this Congress to do what it should have 
done years ago, cut our losses and the losses of our international 
partners and put an end to this budgetary black hole in space.
  NASA has tried relentlessly to salvage this project in the face of 
growing political and scientific opposition. In doing so, it has choked 
off a host of more cost-effective research efforts and other space 
programs. NASA is being forced to scale back the shuttle program. It is 
canceling shuttle missions and considering mothballing an orbiter. The 
satellite surveying Venus will be turned off while in perfect working 
order in order to save money because NASA cannot afford to keep 
operating it.
  Even with modest inflation, NASA will face a 20-percent cut in 
science spending over the next 4 years. That means NASA will have to 
cancel or scale back even more programs than it has to date.
  A recent study by the Congressional Budget Office verifies what I 
have been arguing for years, that the space station has become an 
enormous parasite, consuming resources from every other NASA program in 
order to feed its evergrowing hunger for funds. As a result, some of 
the space station's most devoted proponents are reluctantly coming to 
the conclusion that in this era of shrinking discretionary budgets, the 
only way we can save the space program is by killing the space station.
  Mr. Chairman, if the administration's intent is truly to promote 
democracy and free markets in Russia and close relations with that 
nation, there are surely better ways to achieve that, both in space and 
on Earth. We have already sunk more than $11 billion into a space 
station that now would achieve only one-eighth of its original mission 
at more than eight times its original cost.
  To commit even a dollar more, much less billions more, to a project 
whose success hinges on an unstable and unpredictable foreign 
government is sheer folly.
  I urge this Congress to do what it came so close to doing last year, 
kill this space station and salvage our space program.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen].
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the space 
station.
  Mr. Chairman, 10 years from now there is no doubt that we will be 
using new items invented because of the space station.
  When we discuss NASA, and especially the space station, we are 
usually so focused on the future that we sometimes forget the past, and 
what it can teach us about the benefits of continuing our investment in 
the space program. We all remember the major events of the past 30 
years, like Neil Armstrong's ``Giant Leap for Mankind'' in 1969, but 
some of the greatest, long-term benefits from the space program can be 
found outside of NASA, in the businesses and industries that have grown 
up around the technologies developed for the space program.
  The need for light-weight materials for space launch technology led 
to the development of a composite materials industry. Medical break-
throughs, like CAT scans, MRI scanning, programmable pacemakers, lasers 
for surgical procedures, implantable insulin pumps for diabetics, 
vision diagnostic equipment, and fiberoptics technology have saved 
thousands of lives and improved the lives of perhaps millions of 
patients throughout the world. And that's just a partial list of such 
inventions that have grown out of the space program. How do you put a 
price tag on that sort of benefit, Mr. Chairman?
  We could spend literally hours here on the floor describing the 
benefits of our past investment in space research. I have no doubt that 
20 or 30 years from now our successors in this body will be able to do 
the same, discussing the benefits and inventions and spin-offs that 
will by then have come out of the space station program and our ongoing 
exploration in space.
  Let us vote today to make sure that will happen. Vote to support the 
space station appropriations.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton].
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the space 
station and in opposition to the pending amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strongest support for 
International Space Station Alpha. I'd just like to stress three 
specifics.

                              {time}  1850

  First, we hear arguments that the scientific capability of station is 
not worth the investment. Let me share just one example. And its not 
just a possibility it's a new development that will be a concrete 
result of station's unique capability in microgravity research. 
Researchers at NASA's Johnson Space Center have developed a device 
called the rotating wall vessel. They have flown it on shuttle and 
experienced enormous success in using the vessel in a microgravity 
environment to grow cancer cells outside the body.
  Prior to the use of the rotating wall vessel, breast tumors had never 
been cultured successfully outside the body. Fifty thousand women will 
die of breast cancer this year and another 182,000 will be diagnosed 
with it. The ability to watch cancer cells grow and change gives 
scientists insight into their genetic material. It's not a huge leap 
from understanding cancer cells in that form to improving the survival 
rate for these cancers. The key to progress in this unique microgravity 
research vessel, however, is the ability to expose these cells to 
microgravity over an extended period of time. This is just one more 
concrete reason to support station.
  Second, I want Members to dismiss outright the argument that full 
funding of station is responsible for reductions in the costs 
associated with the shuttle.
  Nothing in the current International Space Station Alpha has caused a 
reduction. Funding for shuttle operations and upgrades has been 
declining in real terms at about 3 percent per year since 1990. That 
reflects two things--an insistence by this subcommittee that NASA 
eliminate questionable overhead in the program and a willingness by the 
agency to demonstrate that it can be more cost efficient.
  Opponents can not have it both ways. They would suggest that we kill 
station because it can not be managed within costs. Then, when a major 
space program like shuttle has a concrete record of reductions over a 
period of years, they would slyly imply that it is not cost efficiency 
or legislative oversight but rather reflects station putting a squeeze 
on the shuttle budget.
  In anticipation of this argument, I asked the Associate Administrator 
for Space Flight--Jeremiah Pearson--to comment in writing.
  I ask unanimous consent to include his letter to the subcommittee of 
June 27, at this point in the Record. I'll read only one sentence from 
it.

       The FY 95 appropriations mark is adequate to operate the 
     space shuttle safely and productively and keep the program on 
     schedule to support NASA's science objectives.

  Lastly, next year when we have this debate an American astronaut will 
have flown in space for 3 months on a Russian station. He will arrive 
on the Russian Soyuz vehicle and return on the shuttle after it has 
docked with the Soviet station. Our astronaut will be in space for 90 
days--breaking the previous American record of 84 days on skylab. That 
is a most concrete result and we will have it with your help when we 
debate this bill next year. Even 2 years ago, this Member would not 
have imagined we could be in this position. With your help it will be a 
reality. Please join me in supporting this bill and in defeating the 
Roemer amendment.
                                          National Aeronautics and


                                         Space Administration,

                                    Washington, DC, June 27, 1994.
     Hon. Jerry Lewis,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Lewis: I am writing to thank you for your support 
     of NASA's FY 1995 budget request. Specifically, the 
     Subcommittee on VA-HUD-Independent Agencies has allocated a 
     mark of $5.6 billion for the Human Space Flight program. This 
     FY 1995 appropriations mark is adequate to operate the Space 
     Shuttle safely and productively and keep the program on 
     schedule to support NASA's science objectives.
       Thank you for your continued support of this critical 
     program. I look forward to working with you to ensure full 
     funding for the Space Station and NASA's other important 
     programs.
       Please let me know if you need any further information.
           Sincerely,
                                           Jeremiah W. Pearson III
                         Associate Administrator for Space Flight.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute and 30 seconds 
to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny], who has 
devoted his career to real deficit reduction.
  (Mr. PENNY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to bring this discussion back down to Earth. We 
have heard from previous speakers a long list of the virtues of the 
space station project, but frankly, most of the promised opportunities 
I think could be handled through research programs here on the ground.
  This year alone, Mr. Chairman, in a very tight budget, we have 
allocated in this spending bill $2.1 billion for the space station. I 
know that the chairman of this committee and the chairman of the 
authorizing committee have expressed concern throughout the years about 
the potential of this project crowding out other important research 
items.
  Mr. Chairman, $2.1 billion this year is perhaps manageable in their 
view, but things will not get better. The budget caps are going to be 
even more austere as each year goes by, and if we can barely handle 
$2.1 billion this year, we certainly cannot handle continued 
appropriations of this level in the years to come. Undoubtedly, the 
space station will crowd other important research items as time goes 
by.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to speak to the question of deficit 
reduction, because some of my friends on the Democratic side of the 
aisle have suggested that they are not happy that we are cutting this 
program, and allowing the money to stay in the NASA budget. They want 
to see this money, or at least part of this appropriation cut, go 
toward deficit reduction.
  If we take the space station out, if we have the courage to cancel 
this big ticket science program we then free up the money for the long 
term. Some dollars may stay within NASA research, some may be 
reallocated to other domestic needs, and some certainly could go toward 
deficit reduction. I urge a yes vote on the Roemer-Zimmer amendment.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall], chairman of the Subcommittee on Space 
of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
  (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lewis] and others have covered the medical aspect. I rise in opposition 
to the amendment, and ask that the Members vote no.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment to kill 
the space station program. We have been down this road many, many times 
in the last few years. It is time for the opposition to accept the fact 
that the House thinks that the space station is good for America and 
good for the American taxpayer. We need to stop debating the space 
station and get on with building it.
  My position on the space station is no secret. I strongly support the 
station and believe that it will deliver important long term benefits 
to the Nation. Many of my colleagues will be describing those benefits 
in detail, so I would like to mention just one--but one that is very 
close to my heart.
  It is clear that the space station has enormous potential to advance 
our understanding of a number of terrestrial medical conditions--
including dreaded diseases like cancer and diabetes. The advances made 
possible by the ability to do medical research in space will inevitably 
lead to breakthroughs that will benefit all of our citizens: young and 
old, female and male, and our veterans.
  Why do I feel so positive about the contributions that the space 
station can make to the Nation's medical research program? As chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Space, I have asked some of America's leading 
researchers to testify on what they think, and their testimony has been 
remarkable.
  Listen to what Dr. Michael Debakey, the famed heart surgeon had to 
say:

       Better health care for our citizens is not at odds with a 
     space station. As a physician, teacher, and explorer, I must 
     emphasize that our space program and space station are not 
     frivolous, because they may provide keys to solving some of 
     the most vexing problems that affect our people.

or to Dr. Charles Lemaistre, president of the M.D. Anderson Cancer 
Center and former president of the American Cancer Society:

       In [the space] environment where we have a unique approach 
     to weightlessness, toward purifying many of the agents that 
     are already effective here on Earth, toward removing the 
     toxicity of many of the cancer chemotherapeutic agents, there 
     is opportunity there. It is that opportunity we all want to 
     see made possible to biomedical research by the creation of 
     space station Freedom.

  I would like to share with you a recently approved resolution of the 
American Medical Association's House of Delegates:

       The AMA supports the continuation of the NASA and other 
     programs for conducting medical research and other research 
     and other research with potential health care benefits on 
     manned space flights including the continued development and 
     subsequent operation of the international space station.

  It is not just the American Medical Association and the distinguished 
physicians whose testimony I quoted that see the value of research 
conducted in space. Eight of the Institutes of the National Institutes 
of Health see enough potential benefit from NASA's research activities 
in space to justify entering into agreements for cooperative research 
and to undertake a joint NIH-NASA shuttle research flight in 1997. That 
shuttle flight will be just the first step in a vigorous research 
program that will ultimately be carried out on the space station.
  I have another reason for my confidence. Looking back over the last 
35 years of the space program, it is clear that the civil space 
program, in meeting its immense engineering and scientific challenges, 
has consistently delivered technologies and research that have directly 
improved the medical care of our citizens. In fact, just last month 
NASA and the Multiple Sclerosis Association signed an agreement to 
collaborate on using NASA space suit technology to help ease the 
suffering of MS patients. Medical telemetry systems, materials for hip 
replacements, medication systems--the list of beneficial spinoffs goes 
on and on, and will continue as long as we have a robust space program.
  As well intentioned as the amendment may be, it threatens to choke 
off the space program just as we are starting to realize exciting 
research benefits. The space station is an important investment in our 
future, and I urge my colleagues to support the station and defeat the 
amendment.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], a member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
Congressman Roehmer's amendment to terminate funding for the space 
station program. While I trust that the gentleman intends to help the 
space program with this amendment, I cannot stress how painfully 
misdirected his efforts are.
  Do not be fooled by the Roehmer amendment. A vote for the amendment 
is not a deficit reduction vote--your vote would shift funding to other 
spending programs within NASA.
  A vote for the Roemer amendment is not a vote to help NASA--the space 
station is critical to our civil space program. And NASA's friends are 
working with the agency to help them carefully scope their priorities 
to match the treacherous fiscal climate we face.
  This is a vote in support of preserving our industrial base--and 
related jobs--right here in America;
  Yes, Mr. Chairman, a vote in support of preserving our industrial 
base--and our technology advantages.
  Mr. Chairman, when Members think about their vote on space station, 
sometimes they think only of mission control in Houston, the launch 
sites in Florida, or they have visions of the space shuttle landing at 
Edwards Air Force Base in California--but what they do not consider is 
that many of the materials for the space program are made by basic 
industry in the Mid-Atlantic and Midwestern States.
  Over the last several weeks, I have heard from union workers in both 
the ferrous and nonferrous industries. These workers are engaged in 
metal fabrication and other manufacturing processes which make the 
space program possible. They make specialty steels and futuristic 
aluminum alloys that go into everything from satellites, shuttles, to 
the space station.
  At a future point in consideration of this bill, I would like to 
submit, for the record, a very persuasive letter from the United 
Steelworkers of America, urging my continued support for the space 
station--on behalf of basic industry America. They urge me to encourage 
all members of the steel caucus to help the industry by supporting the 
space station program.
  It should be simple for you to support NASA--it is deserving of our 
vote of confidence. Under the able leadership of Administrator Dan 
Goldin, NASA has sharpened the technical reliability and capability of 
the space station program to unprecedented levels over the last year. 
Accordingly, the scientific merit for continuing the program is 
stronger now than ever--and they have achieved this within the cost 
caps set for the program.
  The Clinton administration has incorporated the space station program 
as a critical piece of our United States and Russian foreign policy. 
Space station is a perfect model of post cold war international 
cooperation with Russia, as well as with our other important 
international partners--from Europe, Canada, and Japan.
  And, we are not spending dollars in space, we are spending them on 
jobs right here in America.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat the Roemer amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letter I referenced, as 
follows:

                                   United Steelworkers of America,


                            District 23, Local Union No. 1190,

                                   Steubenville, OH, June 6, 1994.
     Hon. Alan Mollohan,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representive Mollohan: I'm writing as a member of a 
     national workforce coalition. The member unions in the 
     coalition are fighting to preserve the industrial base in 
     this country. I'm writing today to get your help to fund the 
     space station because steel and aluminum workers have an 
     interest in this program. Our industries supply the specialty 
     steel and aluminum alloy metals used in the space program. 
     It's important for members of the Steel Caucus to know how 
     important the space station and shuttle programs are to the 
     tri-state region. Right now, the ferrous and non-ferrous 
     metal industries that employ steelworkers throughout the 
     Midwest contribute to aerospace products. If commercial space 
     programs like the space station are continued. We have a 
     chance to reinvigorate the steel and aluminum industries in 
     the country.
       People don't realize that the space program relies on the 
     basic industries for materials. These materials aren't made 
     in California and Texas where everybody thinks the space 
     program is. They're made in the Midwest. Our brother 
     steelworkers at Reynold's Aluminum in Illinois make the 
     aluminum skins for the new lightweight shuttle tank that's 
     assembled by our UAW brothers all the way down in Louisiana. 
     So we're all connected.
       If the space station is not given full funding, the 
     cutbacks will go all the way through our members here in the 
     Midwest. If the program continues and is expanded, steel and 
     aluminum companies in the Midwest will make the investments 
     needed for space exploration. This would give our members the 
     opportunity to become more involved in the new technologies 
     that will produce the new jobs. We think this message ought 
     to be given to all the members in your Steel Caucus.
       You have always been a champion of the steel and aluminum 
     workers in the tri-state region. We understand that you have 
     been a strong supporter of the space station. We want you to 
     know that the workers in your region are counting on you. 
     When you return from the Memorial Day recess and your 
     subcommittee takes up funding for the space station, we hope 
     you will take the lead in getting other members of the Steel 
     Caucus to understand the importance of this program to the 
     basic industries.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Joseph Smarrella,
                                                        Treasurer.

  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, as I rise today in strong support of the 
Roemer-Zimmer amendment to terminate funding for the space station, I 
cannot repress the sinking feeling that another $2.1 billion has been 
wasted on this program since the last time the House had this debate. 
The space station has been given a new name for fiscal year 1995. It is 
now the International space station Alpha [ISSA]. But new name or not, 
the plain fact is, the space station's scientific mission has continued 
to shrink while its cost has continued to escalate exponentially.
  The space station's new name has successfully added a foreign aid 
component to the highly questionable arguments for funding of this 
scientifically dubious project. Quite simply, the poor state of the 
Russian economy and the Yeltzin government's tenuous grip on power make 
Russia an unreliable partner in a multiyear, multi-billion-dollar 
venture. Canada has realized this fact and voted to reduce its 
financial commitment to the space station. We should see the 
handwriting on the wall and cancel it now.
  One year ago, I was very optimistic the U.S. House of Representatives 
was going to come to its senses and terminate this prime example of 
Government waste. Today the House must not delay--take a major step 
toward fiscal responsibility by adopting the Roemer-Zimmer amendment.
  My constituents in New Jersey's Fifth District continue to demand 
that Congress make tough budget choices and cut spending before raising 
taxes. Continued funding of over-budget and problem-plagued 
boondoggles, like the space station, only serve to keep voter 
discontent with Congress at historically high levels. If the House 
fails to adopt the Roemer-Zimmer amendment, another $2.1 billion of 
hard-earned taxpayers' money will be wasted on the space station in 
1995.
  Despite arguments to the contrary, the space station is siphoning 
funds from other basic science programs, cancer research, environmental 
protection, housing needs, emergency food and shelter programs, 
veterans programs, and--most of all--deficit reduction. We need the 
space station's $2.1 billion here on Earth.
  The space station program is so fundamentally flawed that when 
President Clinton selected a new scaled-back design for the space 
station last year, the chosen design satisfied only one of the eight 
original design objectives. This was admirably documented by our 
colleague from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer]. I do not believe Russian 
cooperation will improve this situation. Moreover, NASA currently 
estimates the latest space station design will cost American taxpayers 
between $40 and $71 billion to complete and operate over 10 years. But 
with NASA's poor track record on cost overruns, it is doubtful that 
NASA has any idea how much it will cost American taxpayers to maintain 
and operate the space station.
  Taxpayers have already spent $11.4 billion on the space station since 
1984, with few tangible results. Each time NASA redesigns the space 
station its utility diminishes, its cost escalates, and it directs 
desperately needed funding away from other scientifically valid 
programs. The space station has always been of dubious scientific 
worth, and the scientific benefit to be derived from the current space 
station design is even more illusive.
  All the lofty arguments aside, the space station is a luxury ``pork 
project'' the United States cannot afford when the Federal Government 
has accumulated a national debt of approximately $5 trillion.
  It seems ironic that proponents of the space station argue it is a 
gift for future generations when, in reality, the space station's 
greatest gift to future generations is its contribution to our Nation's 
enormous Federal debt.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to use their common sense and vote 
for fiscal responsibility by supporting the Roemer-Zimmer amendment to 
terminate the space station. In a time of real budgetary restraint, 
this is money that could be used much more beneficially for cancer 
research, veterans health care, women's health research, the Home 
Investment Partnership Program, or environmental protection and 
cleanup.
  Mr. Chairman, let us stop this taxpayer ripoff right now, before more 
Federal dollars are wasted. Vote ``yes'' on the Roemer-Zimmer 
amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time. I compliment the chairman of the subcommittee and my ranking 
member for the work they have done on this.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the international space 
station and in strong opposition to the short-sighted and ill-conceived 
amendment offered by the gentlemen from Indiana and New Jersey.
  You will find no one more committed than myself to deficit reduction, 
cost effectiveness, the prudent use of taxpayer dollars and outright 
stinginess in Federal spending.
  Let me make this very clear: This is not an amendment for deficit 
reduction. Read the amendment. Make no mistake, this amendment will 
kill the space station but not one dime will go for deficit reduction. 
The amendment leaves enough money in human space flight for shutdown 
costs and reallocates the balance back into NASA, for the most part 
into the Science, Aeronautics, and Technology section of the NASA 
appropriation from which no cuts were taken during the committee's 
consideration.
  The authors of this amendment claim that the space station is eating 
away at NASA's science budget. I don't know who is giving them their 
numbers, but the Appropriations Committee fully funded the President's 
request for Science, Aeronautics, and Technology at an increase of $113 
million over fiscal year 1994.
  Although this amendment does not allocate any savings for deficit 
reduction, I want my colleagues to know clearly that NASA has done its 
part for deficit reduction. In last year's request, NASA reduced its 5 
year budget plan by 18 percent. This year, NASA reduced it again by 
another 12 percent.
  The funding level for NASA in this bill is $526 million under fiscal 
year 1994. All other agencies in this VA/HUD bill are receiving 
increases over last year.
  Mr. Chairman, this space station has been redesigned, the management 
has been streamlined and Russia, our former cold war enemy, has joined 
the program as a full international partner. And I have to say I am 
particularly pleased with the dramatic streamlining of the management 
structure. Lines of authority and accountability are direct and simple. 
Excessive bureaucratic layers have been eliminated.
  The assertion that station has lost its primary scientific mission 
and has turned into simply a foreign policy program is absurd. While 
the new station will cost $5 billion or 23 percent less than space 
station Freedom, this space station has 85 percent more pressurized 
volume, 50 percent larger crew, and double the power of the previous 
design. All the science objectives ever envisioned for our space 
station are fully achievable with this space station.
  Moreover, NASA has responded well to the concerns that a Russian 
pull-out could jeopardize the program and has modified the plans; the 
Russians have been removed from the critical path. The United States 
will provide guidance, navigation, control, and reboost capability, an 
independent environmental control and life support system, and 
accelerated power capability. The international space station will not 
be dependent upon Russia's contribution but will benefit greatly from 
Russia's expansive experience in space.
  I ask my colleagues not to fool themselves--without the space station 
there is no shuttle program and without that, there is no NASA. I 
submit to my colleagues that the space station is a program we cannot 
afford not to fund.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people support this critical program and I 
believe that today, as it has for the past several years, the space 
station will receive the support of the majority of my colleagues.
  I said this last year and I will say it again--let this be the end. I 
implore my colleagues, look at the progress, study the design, follow 
the budget--and where problems arise, by all means, let's fix them. But 
let's not return any more to this same place. If this amendment fails, 
I urge space station opponents to accept the will of this country and 
let us move forward on this monumental project.

                              {time}  1910

  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Washington.
  (Ms. DUNN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, as a strong supporter of the space station, I 
rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Fiscal responsibility is no joke, and getting the most for the 
taxpayer's hard-earned dollars is one of the main missions of Congress. 
Voting against the space station will not reduce the deficit. Those 
moneys designated for the station will simply be devoured by other 
programs within VA-HUD and other agencies. You save nothing, and risk 
losing our preeminence in space and technology.
  The international space station is better managed, has more lab 
space, more power, more crew area, and will use at least 75 percent of 
the Freedom station. If this is not cheaper, faster, and better, I 
don't know what is.
  When it came to budget prioritizing within the Agency, NASA tightened 
its belt and made the tough cuts. NASA is committed to cut 3,000 civil 
service staff from current levels by the end of this decade, and the 
overall NASA budget is below 1994 budget levels.
  Ladies and gentleman, here is a Government agency that has cut its 
budget 30 percent in 2 years. As one of my favorite Presidents use to 
say, ``not bad--not bad at all.''
  It has become apparent to many that this isn't the same space station 
program we saw last year. Even the vest oversight committee that turned 
its back on the station a year ago has done a 180-degree turn in 
support of the new station program.
  We have gone from four NASA centers and four prime contractors to a 
single center in Houston and one prime contractor.
  Now, the prime contractor for the station is the Boeing Co., and even 
if they weren't in my own back yard, I'd give them high marks for the 
job they have done to help reign in the costs of the station.
  Our space station continues the largest scientific cooperative 
program in history. We are drawing on the scientific expertise from 13 
nations in this joint venture and we are proving that former 
adversaries can join forces behind peaceful initiatives that will help 
build mutual trust and support shared goals.
  One of the defining reasons for my support for the station is that we 
will be able to conduct research on the station that cannot be done on 
Earth. In the microgravity environment of space we will study new and 
exciting approaches to diagnosing and treating ovarian and breast 
cancer tumors. Truly, we have had the best of both worlds--biomedical 
research on Earth and in space, working hand-in-hand to help eradicate 
the terrible disease of breast cancer that strikes one out of eight 
women in America.
  As we weigh the future of America's space leadership, and the future 
of our international partnerships, I urge my colleagues to support the 
space station, and vote against this amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Torres] who serves very ably on the subcommittee.
  (Mr. TORRES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, last year we came to a crossroads on the 
space station.
  We chose to fund a reengineered, fiscally responsible, and 
scientifically focused international space station. Our international 
partners--Canada, France, Japan and Russia--have already committed $3 
billion to completing the space station.
  We cannot turn back.
  The space station is our Nation's most important scientific 
initiative that will lead the global community into the 21st century. 
It is a laboratory to engage in new scientific endeavours for the 
benefit of future generations. It is a unifying force that will bring 
the world's economic and military superpowers together in pursuit of 
scientific discovery.
  To turn back now would severely and irreversibly damage the progress 
we are achieving in these areas.
  We cannot turn back.
  We are also talking about engaging our best scientists, computer 
programmers, and engineers to keep our Nation's lead in the space.
  We have over 13,000 direct jobs committed to the space station and 
over 55,000 when supplies and other indirect jobs are included.
  In my home State of California, over 4,000 individuals work directly 
on the space station--and the number soars to 17,000 jobs when 
subcontractors and indirect jobs are included. These are the kind of 
jobs we want to keep--highly skilled and well paid.
  A Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates study has shown that 
eliminating the entire space station would only improve the Federal 
budget by $260 million after accounting for lower tax receipts and new 
transfer costs from higher unemployment. This does not take into 
account the numerous critical technologies that NASA develops and the 
technology spinoffs that benefit from NASA's research.
  Mr. Chairman, I have spent many hours listening to testimony in the 
VA-HUD subcommittee, visiting with NASA scientists, and reviewing 
NASA's reorganization. The space station team has pushed the envelope 
in terms of fiscal constraint and scientific integrity. We must not 
allow the promise of discovery to be exchanged for short-term political 
gain.
  My colleagues are sorely misguided in their attempts to eliminate the 
space station. They are naive to think that taking a sledgehammer to 
science and thousands and thousands of highly skilled jobs, will 
somehow benefit our economy, the Federal budget, and our children.
  I commend the work of NASA scientists and management and their 
commitment to a sound space station. They deserve the full support of 
this Congress.
  We cannot turn back, I say to my friends.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose efforts to kill the 
space station and kill our Nation's commitment to science.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown].
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Roemer-
Zimmer amendment to terminate the space station.
  I would rather that this cut go directly toward deficit reduction, 
but the fact is today we have an opportunity to kill a $75 billion 
project.
  Over and over in this Chamber we hear people talk about cutting 
spending. We hear those same people defend project after project in our 
districts, the super collider which we had to vote against 3 times 
before we actually killed it last year, farm subsidies, defense 
projects, now the space station.
  I did not come to my decision to oppose the space station lightly. It 
will cost jobs in my State in northeast Ohio, but we simply cannot 
afford it.
  I believe that the United States should be in space. But right now 
the return a manned space station offers on our investment just is not 
enough. Americans can continue to be leaders in technology by advancing 
the work we have already begun in unmanned satellites. The space 
station may be good science, but we simply cannot afford it.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to respond to one of the comments 
made by my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], who said, as I 
recall, not one dime will go to deficit reduction if this amendment is 
passed, because it is an amendment that reallocates money to other 
programs within NASA.
  Last year the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and I proposed a 
straight cutting amendment, and at that time the gentleman from Texas 
had this to say about that amendment, ``If you are voting for this 
amendment as deficit reduction, make no mistake about it, not a dime of 
the $2.1 billion will go to deficit reduction. That money will go to 
other programs. We all know it. Those of us who have been here for 
years understand it, and there is no doubt that that is what will 
happen.''
  So, Mr. Chairman, we took the gentleman from Texas at his word. We 
proposed an amendment this year that was different from the last one, 
and now he is criticizing us for not proposing the kind of amendment 
that he attacked a year ago.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ZIMMER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. I just simply would point out that I was right. This year 
you are being honest. Last year you were not.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, 10 years ago when we began funding the 
space station, we were promised that it would cost only $8 billion, and 
be finished by 1994. Well, it is 1994, we have spent $11 billion, and 
we have zilch. We have no modules in space. We have no flight-ready 
hardware. And we are being told that the total cost of the space 
station will exceed $70 billion, more than 8 times the original 
estimate.
  Nor does it consider that our tenuous agreement with the Russians may 
actually cost us rather than save us money.
  Now we are told that even if we spend all of this money, the space 
station has a 20-percent chance of being smashed to pieces by space 
debris. Can we really afford to play Russian roulette?
  Many space station advocates are claiming proposed benefits for 
women's health research. Let us take a look at what the $70 billion 
space station really amounts to: 235 times what the National Institutes 
of Health and the Department of Defense will spend next year for breast 
cancer research; 1,300 times what the National Institutes of Health and 
the Department of Defense will spend next year for cervical cancer 
research; 1,870 times what the NIH and DOD will spend next year for 
ovarian cancer research; 8,850 times what the NIH and DOD will spend 
next year for uterine cancer research.
  Dr. David Rosenthal, speaking for the American Cancer Society has 
said, ``Statements have been made and published to the effect that 
vital cancer research would be done in space, and that is cited as a 
reason for supporting space station funding. We cannot find valid 
scientific justification for these claims.''
  We all believe in women's health research. It is very important. But 
if we want to increase funding for it, why should we spend billions of 
dollars for one laboratory in space when we could use this money to 
fund hundreds or thousands of laboratories here on Earth? That is bad 
science and bad judgment.
  The space station's cost is out of this world, and we should mothball 
it.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Andrews].
  (Mr. ANDREWS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment and in support of the space station.
  Mr. Chairman, once again we are faced with a vote not just on our 
commitment to the space station but on our commitment to the future. 
The potential scientific, educational, and economic benefits of the 
station are well documented. However this year there is an important 
new factor that makes the space station an even better investment in 
the future.
  Thirty-five years ago competition from the Soviet Union's Sputnik 
provided a major impetus to build our Nation's space program. Today, 
our conflict is not against a rival power, but rather against our own 
limitations. Competition with the Soviet Union has turned into 
cooperation with Russia, a cooperation that brings together the best 
and brightest minds in an endeavor that will greatly expand the 
boundaries of human achievement.
  As our relationship with Russia continues to evolve in this post-
cold-war world, the space station provides a catalyst for building 
mutual trust and cooperation. Today, this partnership is more important 
than ever. Finding solutions to world problems such as regional 
instability, arms technology proliferation, and environmental 
degradation require that we work in close concert with both friends and 
former adversaries.
  In addition to these global considerations, Russian participation in 
the space station will make a substantial and immediate contribution to 
the project itself. One such payoff will come from the U.S. Shuttle-Mir 
missions, which will give us extremely valuable on-orbit experience. It 
is impossible to understate the importance of this type of experience--
it is exactly what made the Hubble Telescope repair mission such an 
astounding success.
  Russian involvement in the space station has already resulted in a 
more robust and capable station. The new station has more electrical 
power and pressurized volume than the previous designs, allowing for 
both a larger crew and a wider range of experiments. Working with the 
Russians is going to save us both money in developing this station and 
time in deploying it. Russian long-term experience in space and the 
addition of their own network of communications, control, and launch 
centers will add to the station's margin of safety.
  The cold-war competition between the Soviet Union and the United 
States helped launch our exploration of space. Today the contest has 
changed, but our goals of scientific advancement and human progress are 
stronger than ever. We must now act here in this Chamber to seize this 
historic opportunity and join with the Russians and our international 
partners in an endeavor in space that holds great promise for life on 
Earth.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings].
  (Mr. HASTINGS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Bevill], the distinguished chairman of the Energy and 
Water Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. BEVILL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1920

  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the VA-
HUD appropriations bill and I am especially pleased with the funding 
level for NASA and the International Space Station. As you know, the 
space station is the largest cooperative science program in the world. 
It has become a premier international undertaking with the 
participation of the United States, Canada, Japan, the European Space 
Agency and Russia.
  NASA has made great strides in the past year to streamline the Space 
Station Program and the changes have been extremely positive.
  The partnership with the Russians, who have worked in space longer 
than anybody else, will bring a new dimension to this program. We 
welcome this opportunity to work with the Russians on this program, to 
gain their insight and expertise in this multi-country effort.
  Our cooperation on this project could have a far-reaching impact in 
terms of better international relations. We certainly need to support 
the International Space Station.
  As you know, this program has made excellent progress. More and more 
of the actual flight hardware is being completed, despite what you may 
have heard from the critics of this program.
  The estimated cost of the space station has been reduced and we 
anticipate getting more bang for the buck. Certainly, we expect that 
greater scientific capability will be generated through this project.
  The space station is important to the future of high technology in 
this country. It will help us advance into the 21st century and keep us 
on the cutting edge in our scientific endeavors.
  I am also very pleased to note that this bill contains full funding 
for the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility [AXAF] Program. This is 
the top priority NASA mission for astrophysics and a program of great 
importance to the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL.
  AXAF is an x-ray observatory which will probe fundamental questions 
about the origin and fate of our universe.
  This is a very well-managed program which was recently restructured 
to reduce costs substantially while maintaining scientific integrity.
  It is well on its way toward its scheduled launch date in 1998 and is 
an outstanding example of NASA's commitment to maximizing return for 
the taxpayers' investment.
  I want to commend my good friend and colleague, Chairman Louis Stokes 
for his outstanding work on this bill. I appreciate his commitment to 
the space station. He has kept this program alive without sacrificing 
any important science program.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill, including the funding for 
the space station and the AXAF program.
  Mr. Chairman, the full Appropriations Committee supported this bill 
unanimously. Everybody who has spoken here has not served 1 day on that 
committee, has not heard one bit of testimony. I think we ought to 
support Chairman Louis Stokes, who has done a great job with this 
committee. He is one of the best chairmen of this Congress and the 
committee is one of the best committees in Congress under his 
leadership.
  We need to support this committee. They are people who know what they 
are doing.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my leader 
in the House, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel].
  (Mr. MICHEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MICHEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the new space station and in 
opposition to the Roemer amendment.
  Thirty years ago, a television series based on the premise that space 
was the final frontier became an international phenomena.
  In fact, ``Star Trek'' was such a hit it spawned another successful 
television series that just recently completed its mission, ``Star 
Trek: The Next Generation.''
  I like to think of this new redesigned effort as ``Space Station: the 
Next Generation.''
  This next generation of space station is cheaper, more powerful and 
bigger than the original design.
  Because of effective and efficient management techniques, the new 
space station will cost $5 billion less than the old design, while 
accommodating 2 more scientists on the crew.
  And because of strong international cooperation, the new space 
station will benefit from the expertise of the Russian Space Agency to 
help meeting the goals of the program.
  Mr. Chairman, I have long supported the space program and space 
station Freedom in all its redesigns.
  Looking at my distinguished friend from California [Mr. Brown] and I, 
roughly in the same age bracket, in the early days of the program we 
supported this from the very beginning. I am rather troubled by the 
fact that the younger Members of this House take the view that, what we 
heard in those days, ``We can't afford to explore the outer frontier,'' 
if we had taken that attitude 30 years ago, where would we be today in 
this world? I cannot understand it, quite frankly. As the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] eloquently pointed out earlier 
in the evening, the reasons for my support are that we cannot reap the 
fruits of the future without planting the seeds of invention.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot expect a better tomorrow without investing in 
our future today. And we cannot move forward by standing still.
  Supporting the Roemer amendment is worse than standing still. It is 
taking a giant step backward as we face the end of the 20th century.
  Supporting ``Space Station: The Next Generation'' means taking a bold 
step forward to solve the problems of today with the technology of 
tomorrow.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the space station and 
opposing the Roemer amendment. Vote no on the Roemer amendment.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Nadler], a Member of the freshman class.
  Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe in human space flight, and I believe that 
eventually we should and will make a commitment to go back to the moon, 
to occupy it, to utilize its resources for the benefit of humanity.
  As part of such a commitment, we would need a space station. But in 
the absence of that commitment, it is quite clearly far in the future, 
a space station has to be justified in terms of the scientific research 
that can be done on it and not in any other place.
  All the scientific research that I have seen advanced to justify the 
space station could be done in other places and in other manners except 
for investigations of the long-term physiological effects of space 
flight on human beings. And that research need not be done until we 
make that commitment to reoccupy the moon.
  In the meantime we would be much, much better not building the space 
station, which has no valid scientific justification, no necessity, and 
use the money for our needs here at home for the people who live on 
this planet.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  When I was growing up, if scientists had said that the U.S. was going 
to build a permanent space station, people would have said, ``Sure, 
when pigs fly.'' But when I look at this project, I think that is just 
about right because the pork is really flying.
  The bottom line is that we cannot afford the $70.8 billion needed to 
build and launch the space station. Under the budget resolution we 
passed May 5, the debt will climb to $6.3 trillion in 5 years. This 
year, we will pay $298 billion in interest on the debt. That is nearly 
$10,000 a second in interest on the national debt. Under these 
conditions, we cannot have everything we want. We have to cut spending.
  Space station supporters stress its scientific benefits. Undoubtedly, 
the space station would facilitate some scientific research. But is 
that worth $70 billion that we do not have? The space station steals 
money away from the other science programs in the Federal budget. Since 
1984, NASA has had to cancel, delay, or shrink many of the other 
scientific projects in the budget to preserve the downsized space 
station. Yet, much of the proposed space station research could be 
performed for less money on Earth, on the space shuttle, or on unmanned 
spacecraft.
  Finally, we have to decide what the Government should be doing. 
Congress has plenty to do right here on Earth. We need to control 
crime, reform welfare, and improve our schools. We need to protect 
private property and provide for the Nation's defense. And of course, 
we need to get Federal spending under control. But, instead, of fixing 
these problems, Congress finds itself lost in space.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont, [Mr. Sanders].
  (Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening, not to attack the 
space station, but to speak about priorities, to speak about hungry 
children in America, elderly citizens unable to afford their 
prescription drugs, veterans sleeping out on the streets, underfunded 
school systems and overtaxed working people.
  Mr. Chairman, we are asked today to continue a project which will 
cost over $70 billion. How do I go home to Vermont and tell the elderly 
people of my State that there are Members of Congress who want to cut 
their Medicare, cut their Medicaid, cut their Social Security because 
of the deficit, but somehow there are tens of billions of dollars 
available to build the space station?
  Mr. Chairman, how do I go home to Vermont and tell the veterans of my 
State who put their lives on the line in Korea, in Vietnam, in the 
Persian Gulf, that there are Members of Congress who want to cut back 
on veterans programs, who want to cut back on the quality of care they 
receive in the VA hospitals because of the deficit, but somehow there 
are tens of billions of dollars available to build the space station?
  Mr. Chairman, it is an absolute national disgrace that the United 
States today has the highest rate of childhood poverty in the 
industrialized world. Twenty-two percent of our kids live in poverty. 
Five million children go hungry. How in God's name can we continue to 
let American children go hungry because of the deficit, but at the same 
time we have tens of billions of dollars to fund the space station?
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that the day will come when I will be able to 
vote for the space station because in many ways it is a good and useful 
program. But that day is not today, Mr. Chairman. Let us get our 
priorities straight. Let us ease the pain and suffering being 
experienced by tens of millions of Americans today before we put our 
money into outer space. Let us feed the hungry, let us shelter the 
homeless, let us tend to the sick, and let us tend to the weak and 
vulnerable, and, when we do all of that, when we are living well on the 
planet Earth, everyone together, proud, united, then let us go to outer 
space.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Bacchus].
  Mr. BACCHUS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from 
Ohio, ``Thank you for your friendship and support, Mr. Stokes.''
  Mr. Chairman, 25 year ago Neil Armstrong took one small step for man, 
one giant leap for mankind. That was a giant leap forward. I say to my 
colleagues, ``Don't take a giant leap backward tonight by killing the 
space station.''
  This vote tonight, Mr. Chairman, offers a stark choice of our Nation 
celebrating the 25th anniversary of our landing on the Moon. Will we 
take the first real steps to a permanent human presence in space, and 
do it together with other nations, including Russia, the very nation 
against which we raced to the Moon? Or will we abandon leadership in 
space to other nations eager to take it away from us?
  I was looking through the New York Times a few weeks ago when I saw 
this headline that reminded me of a vote we cast a year ago this 
summer. The headline says: Panel Urges U.S. to Join Europe's Collider 
Project. We killed the superconducting super collider. That was a 
mistake. I think many people who voted to kill it a year ago realize 
now it was a mistake. Do we want to see a headline this time next year 
that says: Panel Urges U.S. to Join a Japanese or a Russian Space 
Station?
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think so.
  Once the Soviet military-industrial complex built rockets pointed at 
us. Today the Russians work with us. If my colleagues think cooperation 
in space is too risky and too expensive, think how much riskier and how 
much more expensive it will be if superpower confrontation were to be 
renewed here on Earth.
  Vote against this amendment. Support, save, and build the space 
station.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner].
  (Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment in support of space station Alpha. Much has been said 
expressing concern about the Russian participation in the International 
Space Station, and that concern will be well founded if Russia were in 
the critical path that the space station could not fly without Russia 
and if Russia should get out of the space station because of political 
and economic changes there and the rest of the world would be literally 
left up in space. But Russia is no longer in the critical path in the 
International Space Station.
  Last week President Clinton himself sent a letter to me which says in 
part:
  However, in keeping with the concerns raised by you and other Members 
of the House and Senate, I want to assure you that the United States 
will maintain in-line autonomous U.S. flight and life support 
capability during all phases of the space station assembly.
  That takes Russia out of the critical path, and that is a statement 
of administration policy which is binding upon NASA.
  Now this House has sent a lot of money over to Russia in the Freedom 
Support Act, and most of that has gone into the Russian central bank, 
and, quite frankly, disappeared. What we are getting here is concrete 
Russian hardware and technology. We are getting back something for our 
money, and the Russians have been much better than the United States at 
long-term space flight as well as in heavy lift capability.
  Second, Mr. Chairman, this Congress has a challenge. Many of the 
redesigns and cost overruns, previous designs of the space station, 
were ordered right here in the Congress of the United States. NASA 
Administrator Golden has said that, if we maintain the $2.1 billion 
appropriation, this space station will be completed on time and on 
budget. The danger is cutting the $2.1 billion to something less than 
that which will mean a stretch-out and a guaranteed cost overrun.
  My support for the station is conditioned upon the conference coming 
back at $2.1 billion so we do not fall into the trap that we put 
ourselves into several times in the past.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not the same amendment that 
was voted upon last year in both the authorization and appropriation 
bills. This amendment does not cut the deficit by a dime. It 
reallocates the $2.1 billion to pet scientific programs of the authors 
of the amendment.

  Mr. Chairman, I am a deficit hawk, and I rank No. 1 in the National 
Taxpayers Union roll call on who is a pinchpenny here in the Congress 
of the United States.
  This is a different amendment. It spends the $2.1 billion elsewhere. 
It does not reduce the budget deficit.
  Let us stick with the space station rather than the pork of the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Zimmer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to say that 
the rating of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] may be 
in jeopardy after this next vote. Certainly Citizens Against Government 
Waste, in fact, score this, and this may be the best vote for deficit 
reduction the gentleman could cast this year. I say to the gentleman, 
``Certainly you cannot argue that, if you cancel 55, to 60, to $70 
billion, whatever the cost of this space station is which is going up 
every day, and that is no longer in the budget, that is deficit 
reduction in anybody's vocabulary or dictionary.''
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, the history of the space 
station best resembles the play ``Waiting for Godot''. When the space 
station was first proposed in 1984 during the Reagan administration, 
its supporters predicted that the project would cost a total of $8 
billion and would be operational by 1994. Nineteen ninety-four has 
arrived, and yet we are still paying, and we are still waiting. In 
fact, the project remains in the planning stages, having already cost 
the taxpayers $11 billion, with no end in sight, and we are still 
waiting. NASA now estimates that the total cost of construction and 
operation for 10 years will be more than $70 billion. If this program 
is allowed to continue, this debate will be repeated for the next 10 
years, and $70 billion will be wasted.
  Space Station Alpha, as it is now known, also brings to mind a giant 
black hole orbiting the Earth, sucking in taxpayers; funds and 
siphoning in money from the rest of the space programs. In fact, Mr. 
Chairman, a vast majority of the objectives of the space station can be 
accomplished through existing technology.
  I would love the United States to build and operate a successful 
space station, but, Mr. Chairman, we must be realistic, we must know 
the limits of our resources, and we must cut this wasteful program.
  Let us not wait any longer.

                              {time}  1940

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Brooks].
  (Mr. BROOKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of International Space Station 
Alpha, which is home-based at the Johnson Space Center in my 
congressional district, and in strong opposition to the Roemer 
amendment. Space Station Alpha is an integral part of NASA's epic 
journey into space and vital to the United States' best interest. 
Eliminating the space station will do nothing but relegate NASA to a 
minor role in the exploration of space and force the United States to 
suffer the consequences of not being the most technologically advanced 
country in the world.
  While insuring the United States leadership role in the 21st century 
will be the ultimate benefit from Space Station Alpha, the practical 
benefits that we'll recognize today, here on Earth, are reason enough 
to support the space station. Anytime we can generate a $7 increase in 
economic activity for every dollar spent, we've made a wise investment. 
Anytime we can walk into a hospital emergency room and see a person's 
life being saved because of the devices developed through manned space 
exploration, we've made a wiser investment. Anytime we can enter into a 
peaceful, cooperative effort with a former adversary, we've made an 
ever wiser investment. Anytime we can stir the imagination of our 
Nation's youth and encourage them to study the areas of math, science, 
and engineering, we've made still a wiser investment.
  On the other hand, when we cut the heart and soul out of our most 
forward-looking and risk-taking organization, how wise of an investment 
have we made? The Roemer amendment purposes to do just that, to 
eliminate the space station while maintaining NASA's current funding 
level. This isn't an issue of fiscal responsibility, or seeing to our 
more immediate needs, it is simply an issue of whether we, the United 
States, intend to march boldly into the 21st century or hesitantly 
crawl backwards.
  For America to lead, we must have the courage to take chances and 
continue to challenge our collective abilities. History has shown that 
nations who refuse to meet the challenges of their day, nations that 
are averse to taking risks, nations that yearn for the status quo are 
nations in decline. We demand more in this country. We demand that our 
country meet the challenges of our day head on, mindful that we take 
these risks for the sake of our children and our grandchildren, because 
if we don't, they will be the ones who will ultimately suffer from our 
lack of courage and foresight.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and 
encourage them to demonstrate the fortitude that is necessary for this 
Nation to continue its greatness.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to associate myself 
with the very fine statement of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks].
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
  (Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong 
opposition to the Roemer amendment. I want to urge Members to consider 
the ramifications for our manufacturing base--and good jobs--of 
building a space station which must last 10 to 30 years in space with 
little repair or maintenance.
  Our first concrete advancement in manufacturing produced by space 
station research is what is called rapid prototyping techniques which 
has reduced the time required to produce parts for the space station by 
integrating design and manufacturing in a truly revolutionary way.
  Using rapid prototyping it is now possible to make metal castings of 
unique parts directly from the design without drawings or special 
tooling. What does this mean to our manufacturers? It means a 24-week 
process can now be accomplished in 2.4 weeks. This is a major 
advancement that will have a huge impact on the productivity and 
competitiveness of all U.S. manufacturers, allowing them to reduce 
costs and make ideas into reality faster.
  Second, space station hardware requirements have forced manufacturers 
to invent new material joining techniques that allow them to weld 
aluminum and titanium to fabricate small, complex heat exchangers 
consistently and with outstanding reliability. Both the new joining and 
welding processes and the miniaturization of heat exchangers have 
applications throughout manufacturing and will enable us to upgrade, 
miniaturize, and in other ways improve our products.
  Last, manufacturing processes have been developed to apply and bond 
coatings to space hardware surfaces that inhibit the growth of 
microbiological organisms in space. These same techniques, applied to 
Earth hardware, can improve our indoor and outdoor air and water 
quality.
  The fundamental question as Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson puts it, is 
simple: Do we want the kind of spending that is one time only, that 
will provide jobs for 10 months or 18 months, or do we want to spend 
money where it is going to reap benefits twentyfold, and even 
hundredfold, as space research had already shown it will do? The 
International Space Station is precisely where we should be 
prioritizing our spending.
  I urge Members to consider the beneficial impacts building Space 
Station Freedom will have upon U.S. leadership in manufacturing and 
product design and I urge you to vote down this amendment.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad].
  (Mr. RAMSTAD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, every single year since I was elected to 
Congress we have had this same debate: Should we blindly continue to 
funnel money into the space station or should we finally face up to 
fiscal reality?
  This year, I urge my colleagues to closely and carefully consider the 
arguments presented by my colleagues from New Jersey and Indiana.
  If you do, you will see that it makes no sense to keep pouring 
billions of dollars year after year into a dubious science project we 
simply cannot afford.
  So far, we have already spent over $11 billion with no space hardware 
to show for it. What we do have, however, is a $4 trillion debt.
  The American people are demanding that Congress stop spending money 
we don't have. But somehow, President Clinton has decided there is 
another $70 billion in the budget for this risky venture with the 
Russians.
  But this $70 billion is only what NASA projects the new International 
Space Station Alpha will cost.
  As we all know, NASA is notoriously poor at estimating future costs--
so much so that its projects habitually run 77 percent over budget.
   Mr. Chairman, it is time to bring space station supporters down to 
Earth where the air is not so thin and remind them that we have a $4.4 
trillion national debt.
  It is time to place fiscal responsibility ahead of space-based pork. 
It is time to pass the Zimmer-Roemer amendment.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, much has been said about the foreign policy 
implications of this space station. I now yield 3 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], chairman of the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
  (Mr. HAMILTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Indiana for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Roemer Amendment to 
delete funding for the space station project.


                          i. domestic reasons

  I oppose the space station project primarily for domestic and fiscal 
reasons:
  First, funding of the space station project will have an adverse 
impact on other worthy scientific and space programs in the NASA 
budget.
  Second, it is not fiscally responsible to move ahead with the space 
station at this time. To accommodate the space station, other important 
accounts in this appropriations bill--and future appropriations bills--
must be cut;
  Third, the cost of the space station program continues to rise. The 
station has been redesigned at least five times. It has suffered from 
delays and significant cost overruns. Cost projections run as high as 
$75 billion; and
  Fourth, the scientific community is divided on the need for this 
space station. Many experts state that the space station cannot achieve 
the basic research requirements for which it is intended. The 
scientific merits are not persuasive.


                       ii. foreign policy reasons

  I also oppose the space station project for foreign policy reasons. 
The Administration has made several claims about the foreign policy 
value of this project. I am not convinced. This project is peripheral 
to United States and Russian policy objectives.
  I meet with Russian officials all the time. I hear testimony from the 
Administration on Russia all the time. I certainly do not ever remember 
the space station mentioned as a priority by Russians. I do not ever 
remember it mentioned as a priority for U.S. policy--until recent 
months. Suddenly, it has become a priority.

  Second the space station is neither consistent with the goals of U.S. 
policy toward Russia, nor the purposes of U.S. assistance.
  Look closely at the Freedom Support Act. The purpose of U.S. 
assistance is to support democracy and market economic reform. Nowhere 
is space cooperation listed.
  Look at the most successful U.S. assistance projects in Russia. They 
support privatization.
  Our proposed partner in this space station project is the Russian 
Space Agency, a large state enterprise.
  The United States will be spending $100 million a year over 4 years 
to support a Russian state enterprise--directly contradicting the goals 
of U.S. policy and assistance toward Russia.
  Look at how the United States provides assistance to Russia. We fund 
exchanges. We provide technical assistance. We do not provide cash 
transfers. This $400 million is a cash transfer. We will have little 
ability to keep track of how that $400 million is spent.
  Third the foreign policy assumptions governing this project are 
unrealistic.
  Each of us want to see a steady, forward trend, in U.S.-Russian 
relations. But that is not something we can count on, given the time 
fame of the space station project. No one can ensure that U.S.-Russian 
relations will be stable through the year 2002, or the subsequent 30 
years of the space station's operation.
  The next time there is a crisis in U.S.-Russian relations, the space 
station will be a tempting target for cancellation.
  The next time the Russians sell missile components outside the 
Missile Technology Control Regime guidelines, the space station will be 
a target for sanction.
  Russia's proposed role is critical to the space station's completion. 
If Russia falls out of the project because of politics, the project 
itself will fall apart--unless we obtain significant additional 
commitments of time and U.S. resources.
  Fourth, there are other, important scientific and technical areas 
where we can--and do--cooperate with Russia.
  We are cooperating on weapons dismantlement and nuclear reactor 
safety programs that are directly in the U.S. national interest.
  Aerospace cooperation is already taking place between U.S. and 
Russian firms exactly where it should take place--in the private 
sector.


                            iii. conclusions

  In summary, I do not accept the foreign policy arguments that have 
been made for the space station.
  Our space cooperation with the Soviet Union in the 1970s did not 
transform or transcend the political relationship. Each of us remember 
Apollo-Soyuz in the 1970s. When our relations with the Soviet Union 
fell apart in the 1980s after the invasion of Afghanistan, space 
cooperation lapsed.
  This space station project does not stand on its merits in the 
domestic debate. It does not stand on its merits in the foreign policy 
debate.
  Space cooperation is peripheral to strong U.S.-Russian relations. 
Space Cooperation will be among the first casualties if those relations 
should fall apart.
  I urge support for the Roemer Amendment.

                              {time}  1950

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Alabama [Mr. Cramer].
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of the fine NASA employees 
around this country, the contractors who have in many cases given their 
careers and even lives on behalf of the manned exploration program. I 
rise in strong opposition to the Roemer amendment.
  I want to say to my colleagues, this is the seventh time in the last 
3 years that we have voted on this issue. At some point we have to, as 
Congress, decide that we want to let this agency do what it does and 
what it has given us in the past.
  To hear the arguments tonight, we would think that this is a program 
that has given us nothing. NASA has given us a lot and has benefited 
many for years in ways that we cannot even calculate today.
  I say that this is a space station that is worthy of the support of 
this body. Nothing has changed in the last year to merit another vote 
on this issue. In fact, the advisory committee that was appointed to 
look at the redesign of the space station, referred to as the Vest 
Committee, Charles Vest, president of MIT, just a few months ago, upon 
review of this program, said, ``This program has been dramatically 
reorganized and has progressed to an extent that has greatly exceeded 
my expectations. There has been an absolute sea change in the 
management and organizational structure of this program.''
  That is quite a turnaround. This committee has done a yeoman's job 
with this issue. I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] 
and the ranking member as well, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Brown] in the authorizing committee that I am a member of, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] as well. We have put NASA 
through every hoop that it must jump through, and it has jumped through 
that hoop. We have redesigned this program. It is a better program. Let 
us support it and get off NASA's back.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields].
  (Mr. FIELDS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Roemer amendment.
  Let us put this in perspective. The Space Station accounts for one 
seventh-hundredth of the entire federal budget so funding for the Space 
Station amounts to about $8 per person, so for the cost of one pizza 
per year, each American can keep the Space Station on track.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support full funding for the NASA Space 
Station Program and oppose the Roemer-Zimmer amendment.
  Let me point out to my colleagues that NASA's annual budget accounts 
for less than 1% of total Federal spending and that the space station 
accounts for 1/700th of the entire Federal budget. Funding for the 
space station amounts to about $8 per person. So, for the cost of one 
pizza a year, each American can keep the Space Station Program on 
track. In addition, every dollar spent on the space program returns 
about $7 to the Nation's economy.
  Its important to remember that technology developed to support space 
flight and space-based research is already improving the quality of 
medical care we receive right here on earth. A few examples of these 
medical ``spin-offs'' include:
  NASA research has led to a 3 inch implant for delivering insulin to 
diabetics. The implant provides more precise control of blood sugar 
levels, and frees diabetics from the burden of daily insulin 
injections.
  NASA developed instruments to measure bone loss and bone density that 
do not require penetrating the skin; such instruments are now being 
used by hospitals nationwide.
  The ``cool suit,'' developed for the Apollo Program, is now helping 
to improve the quality of life for some multiple sclerosis patients.
  The space station is responsible for more than 40,000 jobs 
nationwide, and the aerospace jobs created by the space program pay an 
average of $43,000 a year. Aerospace is the U.S. economy's single 
strongest export sector, with 1992 exports topping $45 billion.
  The Space Station Program has long benefited, and continues to 
benefit Americans, and all mankind, in areas as diverse as medicine, 
telecommunications, industrial production and basic science. Killing 
the Space Station Program would kill these benefits. Please support the 
Space Station Program by opposing the Roemer-Zimmer amendment.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton].
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. 
When debating the pros and cons of the space station, we are at no loss 
for cute phrases like ``fiscal black hole,'' ``pigs in space,'' ``lost 
in space,'' ``costs are exploding out of the world.'' The list goes on 
and on.
  But for all the humorous cliches and one-liners, let us not forget 
what a serious and expensive issue this really is.
  Mr. Chairman, when the idea of building a high-technology research 
station in outer space was first conceived 10 years ago, it was given a 
$8 billion price tag and it would be in orbit this year. I worked at 
the Office of Management and Budget back then, and I can remember well 
the arguments both for and against the station. I had some questions 
about the costs and the mission for such a project back then, but my 
view was overruled.
  Here we are now, 10 years later, the cheapest version of this is 
going to cost still over $70 billion to build and operate for the next 
10 years. And we are not even close to launching a single part of this 
station into space.
  Judging by the higher costs that have already taken place, who knows 
what the final price tag will be?
  The American people are asking us to make some tough choices. And 
this space station, whether you call it freedom or alpha, frankly, I 
would prefer to call it spam, because that is pork in a can.
  We have a $200 billion deficit, with so many big problems to solve 
right here at home.
  Highly respected scientists have questioned the real benefit of a 
manned space station. They have repeatedly stated that experiments that 
would be conducted in this orbiting lab would serve no pressing 
scientific need whatsoever and would, in fact, take away scarce dollars 
from more worthy projects.
  Just this week I met with a number of university presidents 
complaining strenuously that money for research in universities is 
being cut dramatically. We still cannot even keep up with inflation for 
medical research. We have proven that we can send people to the Moon. 
Let us prove that we can cure diseases, robbing millions of health and 
happiness he on Earth.
  Let us prove that we can solve problems like hunger and homelessness, 
joblessness and lack of decent health care and an educational system in 
need of reform. Ventures like the space station can wait, but the 
health and the education of our people cannot.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta].
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Roemer-Zimmer amendment.
  Every Member of Congress should be perfectly clear about what in fact 
the Roemer-Zimmer amendment would and would not do.
  To start, it would not cut the budget deficit. Nor would it redirect 
NASA funds to the Veterans Administration, or for public housing, or 
for any other program under the jurisdiction of the VA, HUD, and 
Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee.
  What the Roemer-Zimmer amendment would do, is re-arrange priorities 
within NASA. Specifically, this amendment would prohibit funds 
appropriated by this H.R. 4624 from being used for further development 
of the space station.
  In other words, this amendment assumes that the Clinton 
administration, NASA, our own Science, Space, and Technology Committee 
and the appropriations Subcommittee for VA, HUD and independent 
agencies are dead wrong about what the priorities should be for this 
Nation's space program.
  Mr. Chairman, I could not disagree more, and I urge those of my 
colleagues who, like me, believe that U.S. competitiveness is tied to 
our pushing the Nation's technology envelope--as we most certainly will 
do during construction of the station--to oppose this amendment.
  I also urge Members to vote against Roemer-Zimmer if they are at all 
concerned about the growing gap between the level of Japan's investment 
in advanced research and development, and our own, and the growing 
trade deficit that has resulted from that gap.
  I believe that Members should vote for the space station because it 
is an incredible testbed for advanced technologies which will drive 
U.S. success in industries such as aerospace, materials, power 
efficiency, robotics, electronics, and remote sensing.
  For instance, the challenge of protecting our astronauts and their 
equipment from the harsh environment of space--radiation, atomic oxygen 
and extreme temperature changes--will lead to the development of 
advanced, longlife structural materials, coatings, lubricants, and 
mechanical devices, which will enable longlife unattended operations of 
power stations, environmental monitoring stations, scientific and 
military observation posts in remote areas.
  These and many other technologies developed during construction of 
the space station will make a critical contribution to the Nation's 
ability to maintain the leading edge in high-technology innovation. The 
importance of retaining international leadership in this area should 
not be underestimated.
  In the end, Mr. Chairman, this vote is essentially a question of 
priorities. When it comes to the issue of our space program, I tend to 
agree with the leaders of the science community, NASA, industry, labor 
and our Science Committee when they say that this is the most important 
way to spend our limited NASA dollars. I urge my colleagues to consider 
the importance of these priorities, and to oppose the Roemer-Zimmer 
amendment.

                              {time}  2000

  Vote for the space station, because it is an incredible testbed for 
advanced technology which will drive U.S. successes in industries such 
as aerospace, materials, power efficiency, robotics, electronics, and 
remote sensing.
  In the end, Mr. Chairman, this vote is essentially a question of 
priorities. When it comes to the issue of our space program, I agree 
with the leaders of the science community, NASA, industry, labor, and 
our Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the Roemer-Zimmer amendment.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Klein], a valuable member of the Committee on Science, 
Space, and Technology.
  (Mr. KLEIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Roemer 
amendment.
  If we had unlimited resources, it might, it might be a good 
expenditure of money to go on with this program, a program that almost 
all of the experts say will yield little or no scientific benefit that 
could not be achieved either on the ground or through unmanned space 
flight. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we do not have unlimited 
resources.
  Mr. Chairman, I would rather spend the $75 billion that this program 
will cost in programs that will yield jobs and will improve the quality 
of life for Americans, programs like medical research, programs like 
energy research, programs like environmental research. Yes, Mr. 
Chairman, manned space flight will make us feel good, but I would 
rather spend the money making us feel good by improving the quality of 
life right here in America.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Tucker].
  (Mr. TUCKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Stokes] for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Roemer amendment and in 
strong support of the VA/HUD appropriations, and in particular the 
space station. This body will have an opportunity to support a vision 
for a better quality-of-life in America, funding for the space station. 
Last year the space station survived a killing amendment by one vote. 
We face a tough vote to fund this most important project, and keep the 
vision alive.
  Over the years the space station has seen many peaks and valleys, I 
think that NASA is now on the right track and is moving toward the goal 
of a manned space station. NASA has brought in the Russian space 
program in an unprecedented move of international cooperation. Why 
should NASA have to reinvent the wheel when we can use the best minds 
of the United States and Russia?
  The economic growth surrounding the space station is tremendous. We 
hear about the $70 billion price tag but nationally there are an 
estimated 55,000 jobs generated by the space station. Now that the cold 
war is over and has been over for a couple of years and the Defense 
budget is showing the effects of it, this country needs to have a 
strong space program once again. The space station will be the 
cornerstone of a strong space program. Decades ago this country had a 
vision of space travel and I think the vision has been clouded in the 
last few years. A yes vote for the funding for the space station 
program will clear the clouds around not only the space station but the 
entire space program.

  NASA has quote, unquote ``reinvented'' itself. They have gone back 
and looked at itself and streamlined, they cut overhead and 
contracting. NASA has done a good job with streamlining the project, 
Congress has put a budgetary cap on funding for the space station, $2.1 
billion a year. We need to give the space program a green light about 
the space station, I urge Members to vote no on the Roemer/Zimmer 
amendment. If the space station funding is cut what will be cut next 
year? Possibly the space shuttle? I do not want to see this domino 
affect happen to NASA's program.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the space station and I strongly 
commend the work of the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my 
colleague, the gentleman from California, Mr. Randy ``Duke'' 
Cunningham.
  (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, imagine, put yourself back a couple of 
hundred years and I was Christopher Columbus asking for financing for 
the Nina, the Santa Maria and the Pinta. There would be argument about 
finances, but there was a disagreement, and the government supported 
that dream, and the rest is history.
  Last week, Mr. Chairman, the Women's caucus, made up of Republican 
and Democratic women, took a bunch of us men to a dinner or actually a 
luncheon held sponsoring Dr. Becker of Florida that talked about cancer 
research and multidimensional cell research that is going to lead to 
cancer. You cannot look at a cancer cell, multidimensional, here on 
Earth; you cannot even grow it the way we can in space. Whether it is 
AIDS, whether it is cancer research, or whether it is Alzheimer's let 
us support it and oppose the Roemer amendment.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wyoming [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I have listened to this debate 
with great interest. As a matter of fact, I have had great interest in 
it since last year. However, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the 
direction that this debate has taken. It sounds as if one is not for 
the space station, somehow you are not for research, somehow you are 
not for NASA. That is not the case. That is not the case at all. 
Indeed, we are continuing to fund NASA. I hope we continue after this 
to fund NASA.
  The previous gentleman said, ``What will be next?'' I do not think 
anything will be next, except to support research. I am for basic 
research. Our military research has gone down. I am for the space 
program. I am for NASA.
  The gentleman from Texas talked about the benefits we have had from 
the space program. They have not come from the space station because 
there has been no space station. We have spent tons of money on an 
elusive space station that is not there. We ought to be spending our 
money within NASA for things that are in fact successful, instead of 
continuing to put money in something that has indeed proven 
unsuccessful.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Ms. Velazquez].
  (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Roemer/Zimmer amendment.
  The question here is not whether in the abstract there is any value 
to a space station or not, but how it stacks up in terms of our 
national priorities. I ask you, does it make sense to spend $1.9 
billion this year in public housing for a few astronauts when hundreds 
of thousands of individuals and families are living on the streets? 
That $1.9 billion would be on top of the $11.9 billion that we have 
already appropriated for the space station.
  It is time that we stop pouring more of our limited funds into a 
luxury hotel in the sky, and instead put more dollars into public and 
assisted housing here on the ground. The space station may have some 
scientific promise, but given the critical needs we confront here on 
Earth, it is one that we simply can no longer afford.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment is an important first step in 
reordering our national priorities. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Roemer/Zimmer amendment.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, last year in a very close vote in the House 
I voted to terminate the space station project. I cast that vote 
because I believed that in setting priorities in a difficult budget 
climate we could not afford to spend the sums necessary to go forward 
with the space station. But, the collective wisdom of Congress was to 
move forward with the project.
  Today, I will be voting for space station funding. I am convinced 
that NASA used the wake-up call delivered by the House last year to 
dramatically change the project, to address Members' concerns, and to 
present us with a very different case for funding this year. A few key 
facts highlight just how different this project is:
  Total costs through to completion of the station in 2002 have been 
cut from more than $24 billion to about $17.5.
  Power on the station has been increased from 68 to 110 kilowatts; 4 
pressurized modules have been added almost doubling the volume in the 
station; and crew size has increased from 4 to 6 persons.
  A single contractor, Boeing, has been named to take responsibility 
for moving the project ahead in a timely and business-like fashion; 
and, finally,
  Russia, our world's other leader in space exploration has been 
brought on as a full international partner. This addition has allowed 
for much of the new station's added capacity and reduced costs, while 
serving our Nation's most critical, long-term foreign policy goal.
  While the space station project has been through several redesigns 
since 1984, this overhaul has finally brought the changes necessary to 
give the project the clear mission and purpose essential to its 
success. We also now have the capability to get the job done at a cost 
this Nation and its international partners can bear.
  This space station will continue America's preeminent leadership in 
science and technology, enhance our Nation's economic competitiveness, 
dramatically build international cooperation, and provide a powerful 
tool for educators to excite generations of children around the world.
  I have been particularly heartened by the conclusions of the 
independent, expert panel assembled by NASA to critique the redesign. 
Dr. Charles Vest, the president of M.I.T. and chairman of the panel 
stated:

       I was absolutely stunned at how much change has been 
     brought into the management and operation of the program. 
     They seem to have by and large gone quite far down the path 
     of implementing all of the things that we recommended in 
     terms of management of the program.

  I am convinced that the space station program before us today is a 
very different and much improved project--compared to the one I voted 
against last year. At the same time, I think there is a second 
significant consideration we all must weigh with regard to today's 
vote.
  At some point we must decide to move ahead with this project or kill 
it. I believe last year was the critical point. Refighting this fight 
each year only makes it more difficult for NASA to take on its greatest 
challenge in an efficient or reasonable manner. We owe it to the 
dedicated men and women who have devoted their extraordinary talents to 
make this project work to give them a decision. That decision was made 
last year.
  At this point, I believe we should stand behind the past decisions of 
Congress and give the space station the support it requires. I would 
urge my colleagues to join with me in moving this project ahead.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Coppersmith].
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would urge Members who are yielding time to 
be ready to yield their time or to yield it back.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, instead of the gentleman from Arizona, I do 
not think he is quite ready with his very brilliant remarks, and I 
would yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barca], who is ready 
with his brilliant remarks.
  (Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)

                              {time}  2010

  Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, this is not a bad project. This 
is a good project. I believe the administrator, Dan Goldin, has gone an 
excellent job in trying to correct the abysmal performance of NASA that 
they have demonstrated in the past at this project. If we had better 
fiscal conditions, if we had a balanced budget, I would support this. 
Some of the opponents are absolutely wrong when they come to this floor 
and say this will not be deficit reduction. This is $70 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, some of this will be reallocated to science and 
research as it should, but most will go to reducing our deficit. Every 
day we hear people in this well exhorting us to take the deficit 
seriously with their $2 million cutting amendments. In many cases I 
applaud their efforts, but we need a thousand $2 million amendments in 
order to come close to the cost of this project.
  Mr. Chairman, this is too expensive. We have had too checkered of a 
past. Let us vote for the Boemer-Zimmer amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will announce that he will call in the 
following order the gentleman to yield:
  The gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Stokes], the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Zimmerman], the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], and the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr Stokes] has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining, the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] has 7 minutes remaining, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining, and 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Chapman, a member of the subcommittee.
  (Mr. CHAPMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to in this forum thank our chairman for his hard 
work in crafting a balanced bill and one in which I believe 
contemplates not only a balance throughout the agencies that we fund 
but in this particular case creates the availability in funding to do 
space station, and I believe we ought to do it.
  Mr. Chairman, the Roemer amendment should be defeated. Space station 
is about our national vitality, undertaking new challenges and 
fostering a national spirit of excellence. it is about American 
competitiveness and supporting the favorable balance of trade in our 
aerospace industry.
  This space station project will contribute to high technology and 
engineering by accelerating breakthroughs and technological prowess in 
space, and in U.S. products and services here at home. It will 
contribute to our knowledge by promoting our understanding of our 
planet and the universe, our employment by directly or indirectly 
creating 50,000 jobs, tapping the services of over 2,000 businesses, 
and providing activity in 36 States across this great land.
  Mr. Chairman, the space station program will contribute to our 
education by stimulating youth in math, in science, and engineering, 
and by supporting a technically competent work force for the future of 
this country.
  The space station most of all will contribute to and is about our 
quality of life by developing products which will contribute to our 
life on Earth in areas of medical research, materials, life sciences, 
robotics, in advances in technology, in making life better that have 
been detailed here on this floor in this debate.
  Mr. Chairman, Theodore Roosevelt once said that we must move forward. 
We should. This is about science, it is about the future of this 
country. We should defeat the Roemer amendment and support the space 
station in this bill.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the space station has been scaled down in 
terms of bureaucracy and enlarged in terms of science. I urge its 
support and the defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman. The space station--scaled down in terms of bureaucracy, 
enlarged in terms of science--has developed into a truly global project 
with a clear purpose. Moreover, at the helm is a reengineered, more 
efficient NASA that is aligned to balance the project with other 
important aspects of its mission.
  In short, the space station deserves to be a top priority. It is 
worth the price tag required for success. Edwin Powell Hubble once 
said, ``Equipped with his five senses, man explores the universe around 
him and calls the adventure science.''
  The space station extends not only our senses, but also our 
imaginations. In addition, to providing a world-class orbiting 
laboratory, the space station will afford the United States and other 
participating nations the opportunity to pursue: The spacefaring 
technologies of tomorrow; a better understanding of the human body; 
peaceful international cooperation; inspiration for our children, and 
hope for the future.
  It is not just the Russians who have joined hands with us in the 
venture that represents a vivid departure from the threatening tensions 
of the cold war. We have forged ahead with help from the Canadians, the 
Japanese, and the European Space Agency, which includes nine nations. 
All told, other countries have provided more than $3 billion toward the 
project, which will provide a scientific space platform for at least 15 
years and most likely more.
  The space station is, in fact, the largest international scientific 
collaboration ever, the embodiment of what distinguished thinkers like 
Linus Pauling have meant when they have expressed the sentiment that 
``we need to have the spirit of science that in international affairs, 
to make the conduct of international affairs effort to find the 
solution.''
  We also should recognize important changes NASA has made in response 
to problems threatening the space station. The agency has restructured 
management to streamline the redesign process, improve efficiency and 
reduce the workforce.
  In closing, I want to reiterate my strong support for the space 
station, a project that deserves to be fully developed and implemented 
for the profound benefits it can ultimately provide the Nation. I urge 
you to join with me in opposing any amendment that would kill the space 
station.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Baker].
  Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, on the afternoon of July 16 at 
3 o'clock eastern time a cataclysmic event of immense proportions in 
our solar system will occur when the Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet plunges 
into the surface of Jupiter creating circumstances which scientists 
cannot yet predict the outcome.
  Some may question why is this of significance. Some years ago the 
Galileo spacecraft was launched without knowledge of the comet's 
existence and it will be the only scientific instrument with direct 
observational capabilities.
  More importantly some 65 million years ago at the beginning of the 
Cenozoic era many believe and some strongly believe that it was such a 
similar event when a comet struck the surface of the Earth that life 
forms across species were eliminated. The Leviathans of the Earth, the 
dinosaurs became extinct as the result of such impact.
  We do not yet know the consequences of small investments in science 
and technology. As long as mankind has the intelligence to explore 
space and we have the people with courage to take that first step on 
what is becoming a discount mobile home circling our globe, I think we 
owe it to our future, not simply to taxpayer concerns about every 
dollar we can save, we owe it to our future to save every opportunity 
for the expansion of man's knowledge.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Coppersmith].
  (Mr. COPPERSMITH asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. COPPERSMITH. Mr. Chairman, it must be a good thing the space 
station is supposed to be out in space, because supporting it requires 
Members to contradict their statements and prior positions here on 
Earth.
  Consider the Russian participation, Members who oppose foreign aid to 
Russia and the other newly independent states by supporting the space 
station, will vote to send far more money to Russia than in the foreign 
aid they opposed. This money will be used not to build a market 
economy, not to build democracy, but instead will go to the Russian 
military-industrial complex.
  Consider deficit reduction. Members who think it a sin to spend any 
money here on Earth, whether for education, for vaccinations, or for 
research close their eyes and say it is fine to spend money in space.
  Consider program accountability. Members who demand results for 
programs here on Earth will accept programs in space on faith and 
speculation, particularly a program whose justification and 
specifications change each year.
  Mr. Chairman, the space station, as has been said before, is good. 
But we must recognize that it is simply not good enough. Too many 
government programs have not shown results. We have had the courage to 
terminate some of them. I hope we have the courage tonight to recognize 
that after 10 years and $11 billion spent, with nothing in orbit to 
show for the money, and with billions more to go, not just to build the 
station but also to operate it, the space station is simply not good 
enough.
  Please support this amendment. Members who do will not only be right, 
they also will be consistent.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown].
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
the Roemer amendment which will terminate the space station program.
  With the tough fiscal constraints on the Federal budget, it is 
important for us to stretch every dollar to ensure that the American 
people get their money's worth. Space station will cost each American 
taxpayer $9 a year about the same as a night at the movies. Every 
dollar put in space programs returns at least $2 in direct and indirect 
benefits.
  And what will we get in return for our money. Scientific, education, 
and international benefits from the space station will far outweigh its 
costs.
  The space station will be the largest and most advanced international 
laboratory ever built for research in space. More than 600 experiments 
have already been proposed for the station which will build on the 
proven medical research already conducted on the space shuttle.
  The space station will inspire a new generation of Americans to 
explore and achieve while pioneering new methods of education to teach 
and motivate the next generation of scientists, engineers and 
explorers.
  In the next century, America's economy will be a multi-cultural, 
multi-racial work force of men and women with interdisciplinary 
technological skills. NASA programs, including the space station, 
provide both the inspiration and the means for minority students to 
pursue careers in science, engineering, astrophysics and related 
fields.
  The space station is a sound investment in NASA and our future. The 
American people support the space station and they believe that the 
U.S. should spend whatever is necessary to maintain U.S. leadership in 
space. President Clinton supports it. Today, we should support it.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes to deal with some 
very important issues that were alluded to by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner]; namely, whether the Russians are in the 
so-called critical path, and to what extent involving Russia has 
increased the risk in this program.
  I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], for his 
hard work to try and make this program independent and less risky, but 
it has not been fully successful, because we sill rely very heavily on 
Russian rockets to launch the space station and keep it from crashing 
back to Earth. We are relying on a rocket called the Progress X which 
Russia has not yet developed. The Zenit rocket which is intended to be 
used for resupply flights is being manufactured in Ukraine with which 
Russia has rocky relations. Russia has looser standards for protecting 
their spacecraft from orbital debris and because we are putting our 
joint space station at a higher inclination, we have doubled the risk 
of collision with orbital debris because of the accommodations we had 
to make with the Russians.

                              {time}  2020

  Another consequence of the joint project is that we now only have a 
5-minute launch window every day to get our payloads up into orbit to 
join with that space station. It had been, a 50-minute window. That 
means that we are either going to have to risk the safety of our 
astronauts or we are going to incur enormous amounts of money skipping 
day after day as we get to that launch window of 5 minutes per day.
  There is the untested fuel tank that has to be developed in order to 
lighten the weight of our shuttle to deliver a full payload to the 
higher inclination orbit, and there are a number of other major 
concerns that still remain. So I believe it would be a very grave error 
to continue this program as long as it is so dependent on Russian 
involvement.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, John Kennedy challenged Congress. Ronald 
Reagan, in fact, challenged Congress. Congress delivered. America's 
space program is number one in the world.
  And opponents tonight say when you find yourself in a deep hole, stop 
digging. That makes some sense. And they are honorable.
  I say, as an old quarterback, when you are winning you never, never 
turn the ball over to your opponent. America is winning.
  Number one, scientists, engineers, astronauts, teachers, space 
industry, companies, 50,000 workers that are saying to Congress 
tonight, ``Do not surrender. Do not throw in the towel. We are 
winning.''
  Folks, I am not going to take all of this time.
  What Congress has to do is finish something we start, and let the 
world recognize that. And it is time for Congress to look the world in 
the eye and say, ``When you get to outer space, you will be beamed up 
by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Boston Pops Orchestra 
playing `The Star Spangled Banner,' because we are going to do it.'' 
And that is the determination we need.
  There are 50,000 workers out there. There are companies in every part 
of this country that have made a commitment to the space station.
  The least the Congress of the United States can do is meet the 
challenge as well.
  Kennedy challenged us. Reagan challenged us. Clinton is there with 
that similar challenge.
  Republicans and Democrats alike, Congress, past Congresses have 
delivered. Let us do our fair share. Let us pass the space station.
  The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] is a fine Member, but I think 
we should defeat this soundly.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would think my colleagues 
would be careful when the gentleman from Ohio, who just spoke, has 
joined the overwhelming majority and falls in line. People should think 
that maybe there is something odd going on here.
  What is odd is at a time when people are talking about the necessity 
of reducing the deficit in the budget and finding desperately needed 
funds to fight disease, to fight crime, to deal with other problems, we 
indulge ourselves as we do here.
  Space exploration is important. But putting a fully manned platform 
up there on a permanent basis is not a mission driven by science or 
scientists. As the gentleman said, it is for prestige. It is so people 
who go up there can her the Boston Pops Orchestra playing. I will 
personally give them CD's if the ethics rules allow of the Boston Pops. 
It would be much cheaper than to spend the tens of billions involved 
here.
  Remember what we are talking about. We are talking about our 
commitment to human life. If we make that space exploration safe for 
human beings because we are so committed to human life, we will spend 
an enormous amount of money that does not have scientific 
justification, that is not driven by experimentation or by industrial 
spinoffs. It will be driven solely by the need to make it safe.
  On a cost-analysis basis, the additional money that it will cost us 
to put people there does not even pretend to have scientific 
justification. It is a justification of prestige.
  My friend said we are No. 1. Sure, we are No. 1. Who did we beat? 
Iran? Belguim? Kazakhstan?
  Competition does not get you as much as it used to. There is no other 
superpower. So we do not have to engage in that kind of competitive 
operation. We can do what needs to be done.
  I will say this, if you vote against this amendment, I do not 
understand how you then go tell people you want to reduce the deficit, 
increase funds for crime, and do all of those other things. That is 
specious.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, this next month is the 25th anniversary of NASA's 
Apollo Moon Mission. It seems appropriate that tonight we are 
celebrating that landing on the Moon, and we are recognizing that we 
are having to make that decision again.
  I serve, like the sponsor of this amendment, on the Committee on 
Education and Labor, and I spend a lot of time in our public schools. 
Each time I go to our public schools in an inner-city district like I 
represent, when I talk about the space program or the space station, 
those children's eyes light up. Their eyes gleam, because they know it 
is their future even though they have to worry about the day-to-day 
existence.
  I would urge you to vote no on the Roemer amendment. Do not take that 
sparkle out of our children's eyes, because it is their future that we 
are voting on tonight, their future, their research that they will be 
doing, just like the Moon program 25 years ago sparked a great deal of 
more physics students.
  By making the right decision tonight and voting down the Roemer 
amendment, we will do that for our children in our elementary schools.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] has the right to 
close.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, much has been said about the dream of Apollo, and it is 
and it was a glorious dream.
  This paper appeared or a similar headline, ``Men Walk on the Moon,'' 
which appeared all over the United States.
  I cannot tell you, as a 12-year-old, how impressed I was watching it 
on a black-and-white television and reading about it. I remember 
vividly watching it, because I was limited to how much TV I could watch 
every night, a half an hour. Yet my parents said on this momentous 
historical occasion we could watch this late into the night. There were 
no limits.
  I remember, after watching the television, walking outside into the 
backyard, looking up to the Moon and thinking that there was a man on 
the Moon and that we could do anything. We could do anything; anything 
was possible for people.

                              {time}  2030

  Yet now, Mr. Chairman, we are thinking of trading in the dream of 
Apollo for a Yugo, for mediocrity, for a pedestrian space station that 
cannot achieve the glory and the dreams of what we did 25 years ago.
  We should not settle for science that is half-baked, science that 
does not achieve all that we want it to. We can push for more in this 
legislation and NASA, and we should not settle for a space station that 
has moved from 8 scientific objectives to only 1\1/2\. It has been said 
by a diplomat, Carl Scherz, Mr. Chairman, he said back 120 years ago, 
``America, when right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right.''
  We need to put this space station right. We need to put NASA right, 
and we need to put our American people as a priority and give them the 
right responses in this Congress.
  However the votes turn out tonight, Mr. Chairman, the votes may be on 
the other side tonight, but the dollars in the budget are on our side. 
Let us not put another $2 billion or $4 billion into this mediocre 
space station that does not conjure up the dreams of Galileo and 
Fineman and Einstein and Newton, but conjures Machiavelli, a space 
station that is very cleverly put in different congressional districts, 
very difficult to cut but very little true science and true good.
  I urge my colleagues to act tonight with the courageous vote to cut 
this space station and get this space program moving back into this 
direction that we made so many people proud of, including myself as a 
12-year-old boy.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Fingerhut].
  (Mr. FINGERHUT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FINGERHUT. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I 
thank the gentleman who has done so much on this issue, my neighbor 
from Ohio and my good friend.
  Most of the arguments that could be made about the space station have 
been made. I certainly associate myself with all those who say this is 
a vote about the future, and about the future of our country, about the 
future of our jobs, the future of our technology. But let me say on 
this particular amendment what I think are the three most compelling 
reasons to vote against the Roemer amendment.
  The first is we have visited this issue time and time again. Just in 
the 2 years I have been in Congress we have voted on this three times. 
At some point I believe we should put this issue to rest. I believe it 
has been decided by this Congress. We support the space station, let us 
move forward and build it.
  Second, I do believe we are going to build a space station someday. 
If we were to vote against this and we were to kill the space station, 
the Russians are going to move ahead, the Japanese are going to go 
ahead; they are going to go up in space and the Nation is going to 
suddenly wake up in alarm and say, ``Look, they have beaten us into 
space. We now have to build a space station.'' We will build it 10 
years down the road at greater cost than we would today.
  Finally last year was a touch vote, it was a weighing against the 
deficit reduction. This is not deficit reduction. This is choice of 
priorities.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Hochbrueckner].
  (Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me provide an opinion here as someone who comes 
from the industry. I worked for over 20 years in the aerospace 
industry, and I think we should hear a point of view from someone in 
that field. I am only one of a handful of people in the Congress from 
an engineering background. We clearly are trying to move from a 
defense-based aerospace industry into one producing better commercial 
products. The space station helps us to do just that.
  Make no mistake about it, the low-tech jobs are leaving and our jobs 
future in the United States will rely very heavily upon producing 
better high-tech, commercial products. No one can predict the future 
products that will come from the space station, but we must invest in 
the future.
  Stopping the space station is equivalent to eating our seed corn, and 
we cannot allow that to happen. So, please invest the money, let us 
give our engineers the opportunity to develop the new products, to make 
us more competitive in the world marketplace.
  Please vote against this amendment and keep our engineering future 
bright.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, America's space program will remain stuck in low Earth 
orbit as long as NASA persists in pursuing extravagant boondoggles like 
the space station. When the space station was proposed in 1984, it was 
going to cost $8 billion; it was going to perform a dazzling array of 
functions, and it was scheduled to be fully operational by 1992. It was 
going to give us a big edge in the space race against our mortal enemy, 
the Soviet Union.
  By the early 1990's, however, the space station had already consumed 
that $8 billion, the Soviet Union was gone and with it our superpower 
rivalry. But the space station was not even close to being operational. 
It was allowed to continue simply because, as some Members have 
intimated this evening, it had become a huge Government jobs program.
  Now the administration has another rationale for the space station: 
It tells us the space station will promote democracy and free markets 
in Russia while saving American taxpayers money. We have heard 
testimony in the Space Subcommittee from the State Department that 
there are absolutely no assurances that democracy and free markets will 
be promoted. As the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
pointed out, the money will all go to state-operated enterprises in 
Russia and will probably strengthen the very forces we are trying to 
overcome as Russia tries to develop a democratic and free market 
society.
  As for NASA's claim that the joint Russian-American space station 
will save the taxpayers $2 billion, the General Accounting Office 
released a study just last Friday that concludes that those savings are 
grossly exaggerated and may not exist at all.
  This is not a $17.4 billion space station, as some would have you 
believe.
  Here is what the space station will cost, according to NASA's own 
numbers. We have spent $11.4 billion on research and development so 
far. Those are sunk costs. We will spend $17.4 billion on future 
construction costs. We will spend $13 billion on operating costs; that 
is $1.3 billion for 10 years; and more if the lifespan of the project 
is longer. We will spend $29 billion on transportation costs to build, 
service, and use the space station.
  Now, that is $70.8 billion. But NASA's sticker price really is not 
the full price. The price tag is going to be higher because NASA's 
estimate does not include the $438 million cost of upgrading the space 
shuttle so it can reach the space station with the full payload. It 
does not include the cost of the module to house the centrifuge, 
something that has not been mentioned tonight but is absolutely 
essential if we are going to do life sciences, research on the space 
station. It does not include the $100 million cost to us due to 
Canada's recent decision to reduce its contribution to the space 
station because Canada can no longer afford the cost.
  Those are just the extra costs we can quantify. In addition, NASA is 
still negotiating the price of the contract with Boeing, the prime 
contractor, and it is still negotiating a contract with Russia over 
what exactly Russia will provide in the long run and how much more we 
are going to have to pay to Russia for that.
  Mr. Chairman, the fundamental question before this House today is 
whether this orbiting boondoggle is worth the untold billions of 
American taxpayer dollars it will cost. I submit that it is not.
  Mr. Chairman, we should cut our losses now; vote for the Roemer-
Zimmer amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, 
the gentleman from New York, Mr. Floyd Flake.
  (Mr. FLAKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge a ``no'' vote on the Roemer-Zimmer 
amendment. As many may be aware, I have previously voted against the 
Space Station Program. I did so primarily for economic reasons. I 
thought that our limited resources were better spent in other areas. 
But times are changing. I have, however, had a change of heart.
  I recognize that spinoff technology in the areas of seminar software, 
industrial inspection systems, business software innovations, medical 
research, and other sciences to be compelling--compelling in the sense 
that all Americans benefit from this program. Furthermore, I recognize 
that America needs a presence in space. Without the space station, we 
will have wasted money not only in the program itself but in the 
resources and effort we have put into the Shuttle Program.
  By voting for this amendment, we also fail to recognize the new 
international space station, partners, management reforms at NASA, and, 
despite skewed perceptions, we fail to recognize many NASA successes. I 
therefore urge you to vote against the Roemer- Zimmer amendment.

                              {time}  2040

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, 
the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek], a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, it is not often in a body such as 
this body that is steeped in tradition and institutionalism that one 
has a chance to do something that is good, not only for increasing the 
quality of life, but also for advancing in science and technology. I 
think each of us has that opportunity now because now we can either 
look forward to improving our scientific and technological knowledge in 
the future, or we can be mired in going back to the olden days.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, it is time to go forward now. The time has gone 
to stand still and think about what was good 10 or 20 years ago. The 
space station is looking forward to the 21st century, and we must be a 
part of that.
  This is a hard vote. The Congress is a place for those people who do 
not mind making a hard vote.
  Vote yes for the space station.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional minute 
to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] is recognized 
for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I wish to rise in strong 
opposition to the amendment to terminate funding for the space station. 
While the amendment does not reduce the deficit, it does inflict 
serious damage to the balanced civil space program that I believe is an 
important part of the Nation's investment in civilian research and 
development.
  Let me elaborate for a minute on the state of the U.S. investment in 
R&D. Quite frankly, the situation is worrisome. For the first time 
since 1958, Federal support of R&D will fall below 1 percent of gross 
domestic product. As defense R&D has declined, the investment in 
civilian R&D has not risen enough to compensate, and both have declined 
as a percentage of gross domestic product. Cancellation of space 
station would only exacerbate the situation.
  Let us examine what the proposed amendment would do--and not do. 
First, while the opponents of the space station say that killing the 
station will help cut the deficit, the amendment that Members are 
voting on today does not reduce the deficit by a single dollar.
  Second, in an argument that is somewhat contradictory to their 
deficit reduction argument, space station opponents assert that killing 
the station will free up funds for housing, veterans, and other 
important programs. However, the amendment does not provide a single 
dollar to any of those programs. The chart illustrates that their other 
accounts have already benefited greatly in the bill and there is no 
conceivable need for further reductions to NASA.
  Third, space station opponents say that funding the station will 
squeeze out other important NASA programs in science and aeronautics. 
Members know that I have worked hard to ensure that funding for science 
and aeronautics is protected, and I would not support the space station 
if I believed that those programs were suffering. However, the simple 
fact is that the appropriations bill before House today contains full 
funding for the Science, Aeronautics, and Technology account. Thus, the 
amendment attempts to correct a nonexistent problem and increase 
funding in these areas above the requests of NASA and the President.

  In reality, this debate is not about deficit reduction or about 
funding for social programs--it is about the future course of the Civil 
Space Program.
  I strongly believe that the Nation's Space Program will be much more 
balanced and vital with a space station than without one. The space 
station is a central element of the Space Program, and the cornerstone 
of our future activities in human spaceflight. It truly is the next 
logical step in the human exploration of space.
  The space station will be a valuable orbiting research facility on 
which significant scientific and engineering research will take place. 
Based on the results that have been obtained with the shuttle to date, 
it is clear that there is a vast potential for productive work in 
space. The microgravity environment of space offers truly exciting 
possibilities for meaningful research and development activities.
  In microgravity, we are able to study fundamental properties and 
processes of materials in ways not possible on Earth. We can grow more 
perfect crystals of important proteins and learn how to alter them to 
preform better in the treatment of medical conditions. We can improve 
our understanding of the fundamental functioning of our biological 
systems.
  However, the space station has an importance beyond its role as a 
research facility. It represents the world's largest cooperative 
undertaking in science and technology. It has become the centerpiece of 
the national space programs of Canada, Japan, and 10 European Nations. 
And it marks a historic realignment of the American and Russian Space 
Programs from competition to cooperation.
  The importance of this realignment should not be underestimated. 
Cooperation in space between Russia and the United States on the Space 
Station Program offers the promise of reduced costs for each nation. It 
also allows each nation to benefit from the strengths of the other's 
Space Program.
  It is also clear that the benefits of the space station collaboration 
are not confined to space exploration. The Gore-Chernomyrdin agreements 
are strengthening the links between our nations and accelerating the 
process of reform in Russia. Equally important, the agreements have 
also helped make the world safer by reducing the prospects of 
proliferation of harmful technologies.
  The House has voted on the space station numerous times and the 
position of the House has always been the same: The Space Station 
Program is important, is affordable, and is worthy of support. Nothing 
has happened to change that conclusion. I urge you to support the space 
station and defect the amendment to terminate it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], if he 
wishes, has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, or he may yield it back.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
the time, not to close the debate on this amendment, but rather because 
we are closing debate very quickly on this entire bill. Mr. Chairman, I 
want to take just a moment to express my deep appreciation for the work 
of my colleagues who have been so helpful on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say this, that there really have been two 
portions to this bill. There has been the space station, and, on the 
other hand, there have been all these other very, very important 
programs, our housing programs, veterans programs, vital programs that 
relate to the work of EPA. I want to express my deep appreciation to my 
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], for his work on 
all of this, to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] and to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], who have been so helpful 
in this process.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I especially want to express my deep appreciation 
one more time to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and his fine 
staff for their cooperation in this effort. Tonight, I believe, space 
station is going to be successful. I hope it is overwhelmingly 
successful. It is important that we set the record straight on just a 
couple of items.

                              {time}  2050

  It has been said time and time again that space station was stealing 
from other science programs. The fact is that nothing could be further 
from the truth, that nobody but nobody with credibility suggests that 
if we eliminate space station, that money will automatically be going 
to be transferred to other science projects. Indeed, it is this 
Member's judgment that space station going down would destroy all of 
NASA's programs.
  Mr. Chairman, our country is at its best when it focuses on very 
important programs that affect us here at home, such as our housing and 
veterans programs. But our Nation and our world have been at their best 
when people look beyond their horizons to their future. That portion of 
the bill that deals with station indeed is looking to the future of 
mankind. I urge my colleagues to recognized that as they give not just 
support for station, but to the entire bill as well.
  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the action taken by 
the Appropriations Committee to fully fund the Cassini and AXAF 
programs.
  These two programs are top priority planetary exploration and 
astrophysics missions.
  AXAF is an x-ray observatory designed to view some of the most 
intriguing and energetic celestial objects, such as black holes, 
quasars and the remnants of exploded stars. AXAF will probe fundamental 
questions about the origin and fate of our universe.
  The Cassini mission to Saturn and its moon, Titan, will investigate 
crucial questions about the formation and evolution of our solar 
system.
  Two years ago, in response to increasing Federal budget pressures, 
both AXAF and Cassini were restructured to reduce costs substantially 
while maintaining scientific integrity. Both programs are approximately 
half completed and are outstanding examples of NASA's commitment to 
maximizing return for the taxpayer's dollars.
  AXAF and Cassini are challenging and visionary missions. They are an 
investment in our technological future and will inspire and motivate 
the next generation of scientists, engineers and computer specialists. 
AXAF and Cassini will provide over 1,000 high-tech jobs in California 
alone, and will also provide significant numbers of jobs in other areas 
of the country. Our international partners are also very enthusiastic 
about their collaboration on these missions.
  AXAF and Cassini are cornerstones of the new NASA. These are programs 
of the highest scientific merit which will maintain our country's 
preeminence in space science. I commend Chairman Louis Stokes and 
ranking minority member Jerry Lewis, for producing a bill that, under 
difficult budgetary circumstances, supports a balanced NASA program 
which includes adequate funding for space science, mission to planet 
Earth and the space station.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment 
and in support of space station Freedom.
  I recognize the magnitude of the investment required for this project 
and the difficulties the House faces with constrained resources. But 
space station is a unique laboratory in space that will provide a wide 
range of scientific technological, educational and economic benefits. 
Fundamentally it represents the future of manned exploration of space.
  I am pleased to note that the program has been restructured to reduce 
cost and increase capability by streamlining management, reducing 
overhead and consolidating contractor accountability. These 
improvements were overwhelmingly endorsed by members of the President's 
Advisory Committee on Space Station. In the words of the Committee's 
Chairman, Dr. Charles Vest.

       There has been an absolute sea change in the management and 
     organizational structure of this program. As you know, the 
     Advisory Committee was extremely critical of the 
     organizational structure that had evolved for Space Station 
     Freedom. The new organization reflects both the 
     recommendations of the Advisory Committee and the modern 
     management practices brought to the table by Boeing, and is 
     consistent with the themes of Reinventing Government.

  The new partnership with Russia on this project is also critically 
important both to reduce program costs and to promote important foreign 
policy goals in assisting Russia's transition to a free market economy 
without dependence on ballistic missile exports. Despite rumors spread 
by station opponents that the cost of Russian participation was 
escalating wildly, NASA recently signed the contract for specific 
Russian hardware and services on schedule and for the exact amount 
estimated last year.
  Critics also contend that station is squeezing out every other NASA 
effort. But the facts are that human space flight has declined from 47 
percent of the NASA budget in fiscal year 1993 to 38 percent by fiscal 
year 1997. The percentage dedicated to Science and Aeronautical and 
Technology Research has increased from 34 percent to 42 percent of NASA 
expenditures.
  Abandoning station now that we have efficient management, costs under 
control and a precedent setting agreement for cooperation with the 
Russians would be the height of folly. Oppose this amendment.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4624, the 
VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1995, 
but in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  This amendment would have a devastating effect on a program that has 
just been started called the Community Investment Demonstration 
Program, also known as the Pension Investment Program. The Investment 
Program, as established in the HUD Demonstration Act of 1993, sets 
aside section 8 project-based subsidies for multifamily rental and 
limited equity co-op housing projects whose construction or 
rehabilitation will be financed with pension fund capital.
  This new program is designed to build bridges to pension fund 
managers and forge new investment partnerships for affordable housing. 
The AFL-CIO Housing Investment Trust helped conceive and refine the 
idea based on their experience investing in affordable multifamily 
housing. The idea is simple. HUD makes available to pension funds, on a 
competitive basis, Section 8 project based rental assistance to support 
construction and rehabilitation of affordable multifamily housing. The 
subsidy reduces the risk by ensuring more predictable cash flows from 
project rents. Thus, making pension fund financing more secure both for 
portfolio yield and more liquid for sale to secondary market investors 
such as Fannie Mae and Feddie Mac.
  HUD has already received applications from throughout the country. 
Other pension funds participating in the program are: California Public 
Employees Retirement System working with the BRIDGE Housing Corp., the 
Board of Pensions and Retirement of the city of Philadelphia working 
with the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority, and others.
  HUD is currently expecting to receive numerous additional 
applications for the Section 8 Community Investment Demonstration 
funds, including from the AFL-CIO Housing Investment Trust. The trust 
solicited project proposals to package investments for its own 
application to HUD, including one for a housing project in the city of 
El Paso. The trust received 191 proposals to build or rehabilitate over 
21,000 affordable housing units, more than half of them to be for 
Section 8 tenants. These proposals cover 34 States and 110 cities, from 
California to Florida, Maryland to Massachusetts, Virginia to 
Wisconsin, New Jersey to Illinois, Texas to Michigan, and more.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this 
amendment and support these types of initiatives in the future. With 
housing dollars becoming more scarce, this is the best method to 
proceed.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to again support the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] to eliminate funding for the 
space station.
  Mr. Chairman, we all recognize that human space flight is a source of 
national esteem and prestige. In another era, we may have been able to 
support a program as costly as the space station. However, today the 
budget deficit threatens the very underpinnings of our Nation's 
economic security. The fact is, we cannot afford to nurse huge and 
hugely unsuccessful projects such as the space station through 
countless redesigns and perennial cost-overruns--in the meantime 
wasting billions.
  In 1984, the Reagan administration proposed to construct a manned 
space station that would be in service by 1994 at a cost of $8 billion. 
Today, we have spent $11 billion and have nothing whatsoever to show 
for it. It is now estimated that the total cost to build and operate 
the space station will be at least $70.8 billion.
  I have heard proponents of the space station argue, rather 
incredibly, that the Roemer amendment does not reduce the deficit. It's 
true that the Roemer amendment redirects the $2.1 billion provided in 
this bill for the space station to pay for station shutdown costs and 
to fund NASA science and space programs now being devoured by the 
station. However, it's also true that the Roemer amendment stops the 
multibillion dollars hemorrhage created by the station--saving more 
than $60 billion in the out years. In fact, the Roemer-Zimmer may well 
be the most significant deficit reduction proposal Members will 
consider this year.
  Finally, I would like to emphasize that a ``yes'' vote on the 
bipartisan Roemer-Zimmer amendment is not a vote against NASA. Quite 
the opposite, to support Roemer-Zimmer is to support valuable, cost-
effective NASA space and science programs that have been starved by the 
space station. A vote for the Roemer-Zimmer amendment is a vote against 
the space station--a project that is rapidly losing its scientific 
missions even as it continues to add billions to our deficit.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, space is man's last and greatest frontier. 
It has been since the inception of the Space Program, and will be for 
years to come, for space represents tomorrow. It is a window of 
opportunity for man to see into the future.
  Tonight we have an opportunity to vote on the future of the space 
station. It is a vote that signifies the continuance of our desire to 
walk in the footsteps of our forefathers. We have always been a 
frontier nation. We have always sought what is on the other side of the 
river, or over the next mountain. This sense of frontier has shaped our 
people and our Nation into what it is today.
  The critics of the space station are men of little vision. They do 
not see the possibilities; they do not see the future. They would hold 
America back, forbidding us the opportunity to pass into tomorrow. 
Obviously, the critics of the space station are content with the status 
quo. They claim that we cannot afford the space station. On the 
contrary, we cannot afford to be without the space station.
  There are so many possibilities opened up to all of mankind by the 
space station. It signifies so much that is new and desirable. It 
allows us the opportunity to forge ahead, working jointly with other 
nations to create a better tomorrow for all of humanity. The space 
station would provide a place for science to grow in new directions, a 
place for us to begin to comprehend the unknown, a place for man to 
look into his own future.
  Let me offer a lesson from the pages of history. The mid-1400's 
Europe was starting on the epic voyage of discovery and it was the 
country of Portugal who first led the way with names that ring through 
history--Prince Henry the Navigator, Dias, Da Gama. These men and other 
discovered the passage to India and the East Indies, discovered Brazil 
and had the ability to bring untold wealth back to their country and 
the rest of Europe. But there were critics of these voyages who said it 
was too expensive and costly and not enough benefits to outweigh the 
dangers. So Portugal did not go forward. Spain, England, France, and 
the Dutch did. Portugal lost its lead and momentum and its leadership 
in world history.
  Are we to be the Portuguese of the 20th century? It was America who 
opened the universe for all of mankind. Are we to allow our country to 
slid into the backwater in the exploration of space?
  America was founded by men of vision. From the very beginnings of our 
Nation we have continued to search for new horizons. From Christopher 
Columbus to Lewis and Clark to Neil Armstrong, Americans have always 
forged ahead. This is no time to begin to backtrack. The space station 
represents what is across the river, or over the next mountain. It is 
our window of opportunity. We cannot neglect our own future. We must 
continue to lead the way. We must support funding for the space 
station. Vote against the Roemer amendment.
  Mrs. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 1995 
VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations bill, specifically the 
appropriation for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I 
commend Chairman Stokes for his role in guiding this legislation.
  The variety of scientific programs that are covered under this 
appropriations bill provide benefits and inspiration to a wide range of 
people. The projects undertaken by NASA provide for advances in areas 
from health care to communications as well as encouraging our students 
in the fields of math, science, and engineering. We often do not 
realize the far-reaching effects of NASA projects, yet we cannot 
underestimate their importance.
  There has been a great deal of controversy and debate regarding the 
provisions of this legislation, specifically the international space 
station program. However, we must realize the benefits and 
possibilities that such projects hold for everyone in our society. 
Maintaining a strong industrial base that incorporates the most 
advanced technologies and materials is vital to our economic stability 
and growth. A world-class orbiting laboratory, the international space 
station, will allow us to take advantage of the unique zero-gravity 
environment to pursue the spacefaring technologies of tomorrow, better 
understand the human body, and pioneer 21st century technologies. It 
will be a contributor to our economic future and a giant leap forward 
in our technological and scientific capabilities.
  We must also remember that we are not alone in this endeavor. As the 
world redefines itself in the wake of the cold war, the value of 
international cooperative projects, like the space station, is 
unmeasurable. While the United States has contributed a great deal to 
the space station project, it is truly an international endeavor. 
Russia, Japan, Canada, and the European Community have committed to add 
$9 billion to the United States contribution; they have already 
contributed more than $4 billion for the project. Should we take the 
drastic step today of cutting off our involvement with the space 
station, we jeopardize our standing as a world leader in scientific 
advancement and threaten any future international partnerships.
  In these difficult economic times it is clear that we need to examine 
every area for savings to eliminate waste and mismanagement wherever 
possible. We cannot simply and blindly turn our back on projects such 
as this which offer so many possibilities. I would encourage your 
support for the program and the many other worthy projects encompassed 
in this legislation not only for our future but for the future of many 
generations to follow.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Roemer-
Zimmer amendment to delete funding for the space station from the VA/
HUD appropriations bill.
  We have already spent over $11 billion on the space station, which is 
projected to cost $75 billion. Today, while we debate spending an 
additional $2.1 billion for this project, over 500,000 children are 
homeless. Forty percent of our homeless population is made up of 
families with children, and one-quarter of the homeless population is 
comprised of children under the age of 18. How can we continue to pour 
money into the space station when we cannot even ensure access to safe, 
decent, and affordable housing for this Nation's children?
  In times like these, we simply cannot afford budget-busting 
experiments like the space station.
  Some of my colleagues today have said that the space station's work 
will benefit education and women's health research. I would argue that 
a much more efficient and cost-effective way to support this research 
is to cancel the space station and fund directly the many quality 
initiatives here on Earth.
  In this fiscal environment, we simply cannot afford to indulge in 
projects like the space station. We have to make tough choices. I urge 
my colleagues to support the Roemer-Zimmer amendment. It is a sound 
move in a difficult fiscal situation.

 Statement of Congresswoman Jolene Unsoeld on the Roemer Amendment to 
               Terminate the International Space Station

  Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Chairman, difficult votes are part of the terrain 
when serving in this body and I generally make them and move on. Each 
year that I have voted to kill the Space Station, however, it's left a 
bitter taste.
  I am a believer in the importance of space exploration. We all know 
of the many technological spinoffs from past space efforts that 
continue to enrich the lives of all of us. Furthermore, space 
exploration has served to inspire generations of children just as 
exploration of our own globe inspired earlier generations.
  In past years, however, I could not bring myself to vote for the 
Space Station because NASA simply didn't have its act together. Cost 
overruns, constant redesigns, and abominably bad management practices 
gave me little reason to believe taxpayer dollars would be well spent 
or that the station--quite literally--would ever get off the ground.
  That has changed, and to a degree I frankly did not consider 
possible. The Vest committee highlighted the change in its recent 
report. The head of the committee and president of M.I.T., Charles Vest 
wrote to Dr. John Gibbons, the President's science adviser, that there 
had been ``an absolute sea change in the management and organizational 
structure of this program.'' Dr. Vest also noted a marked improvement 
in our coordination with other participating governments.
  That is the other critical development that demanded that I take a 
fresh look at this project Coordination with Japan, Canada and the 
European Union is on a sounder footing. What's more, the inclusion of 
Russia in the space station effort is a major new development, and the 
evidence suggests that while their participation is not risk free, the 
pluses far outweigh the minuses.
  The Space Station Program can benefit greatly from the considerable 
experience the Russian Space Agency has in human space flight. They 
have developed technologies from which we can benefit. Additionally, 
our ability to use the Mir station during construction will allow us to 
cut the cost of constructing the space station while reducing the 
amount of time it will require to complete it.
  Russian participation offers another extraordinary opportunity. 
Joined with the European Union, Japan, and Canada, the United States, 
and Russia are poised to undertake a remarkable cooperative adventure 
that can serve to inspire us all while breaking down nationalist 
barriers. The cold war may be a thing of the past. Cold war suspicions 
are not. That alone would not justify building the space station, but 
it represents one additional reason I have re-evaluated my past 
opposition.
  Vastly improved program management, benefits offered by Russian 
participation, the prospect for scientific advancement, the opportunity 
to inspire our children and a belief that it is the destiny of 
humankind that we push back the boundaries of space--these are the 
reasons I am voting this year to continue development of the space 
station. But there is a message for NASA--those of us who have been 
troubled by management of the program in the past will keep our eye on 
you. We will offer our praise and support if the program is well run, 
but we will not stand for a return of earlier mismanagement.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to oppose the 
Roemer/Zimmer amendment and support NASA's Space Station Program.
  As a member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, I 
believe the space station will: increase our scientific knowledge, 
provide new defense technologies, and develop successful civilian spin-
offs.
  But beyond the scientific and economic reasons to fund the space 
station, there are critical foreign policy and national security 
reasons for supporting it.
  Russia is in an economic state worse than our Great Depression. One 
exception to this industrial collapse is the technology produced by the 
Russian Space Agency. It is good and it is available.
  We have a choice. We can enter into a well-negotiated, well-
constructed, agreement where our two nations work with other countries 
on this international space project.
  Or, we can pass the Roemer/Zimmer amendment, terminate this 
international effort, and the Russians will switch to producing 
missiles and begin selling them to India, Iran, and other countries.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the reality. This amendment is short-sighted 
and fails to recognize the changes in our world. Voting yes means 
turning our backs on an opportunity to turn swords into plowshares 
without weakening America's defenses. Such opportunities are rare.
  Vote no on the Roemer/Zimmer amendment and support the space station.
  Mr. GEDJENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of NASA programs 
and the space station.
  Less than 1 percent of the Federal budget is spent on space, but the 
payback is enormous. Space-derived technology has led to advances in 
health care, communications, weather forecasting, and environmental 
research. The international space station will provide a permanent 
laboratory for important experimentation to develop lifesaving drugs, 
new alloys and other useful technologies for America's future economic 
well being. The products of this research will directly benefit all 
Americans now and well into the next century, as well as generate 
industries that will provide new high technology employment for our 
future. Space programs stimulate transition from a defense-oriented to 
a peacetime economy, effectively using many existing manufacturing 
assets. Space programs provide jobs for highly skilled workers and 
sustain the vendor base. With the depressed state of the defense market 
in Connecticut, space programs are crucial in helping to retain 
technical expertise to provide for future growth opportunities in this 
region. The Space Station Program employs hundreds of highly skilled 
workers in southeastern Connecticut. Termination of the program would 
be devastating for the businesses, workers, and communities of my 
district.
  NASA and the space station are not robbing veterans, housing the 
National Science Foundation, or other worthy activities. Budgets are 
tight, but we cannot sacrifice our future. The space station will 
generate thousands of lifesaving and useful technologies which will 
provide significant long-term benefits to the American taxpayers. The 
VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations bill strikes a reasonable 
balance between current needs and future requirements.
  I urge you to join me in supporting space programs. Vote for the 
space station and other NASA programs and against the Roemer/Zimmer 
amendment.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to strongly support the space 
station.
  The space station will provide us with a long-duration, gravity-free 
laboratory of literally unparalleled capabilities. We have already seen 
remarkable progress on breast and cervical cancers and other life-
threatening conditions due to space research. With the space station we 
can expand this work and further enhance the quality of life on Earth.
  The space station will offer a unique ability to observe Earth. It 
will let us perform long-term research on atmospheric, environmental, 
and oceanic conditions, again improving life here on Earth.
  Pursuit of the space station will promote work on critical 
technologies essential to our Nation's success in the 21st century. I 
would note that space research has historically returned to our economy 
some $9 for each $1 spent.
  Finally, the space station is an international program, with the 
United States leading the effort. If we abandon it, our partners will 
only question our reliability on other cooperative projects.
  Mr. Chairman, the Space Program has long fueled the collective 
imagination of our Nation. We must move forward on space station. Vote 
no on the Roemer amendment.
  Mr. ANDREWS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, once again we are faced with a 
vote not just on our commitment to the space station but on our 
commitment to the future. The potential scientific, educational and 
economic benefits of the station are well documented. However this year 
there is an important new factor that makes the space station an even 
better investment in the future.
  Thirty-five years ago competition from the Soviet Union (Sputnik) 
provided a major impetus to build our Nation's space program. Today, 
our conflict is not against a rival power, but rather against our own 
limitations. Competition with the Soviet Union has turned into 
cooperation with Russia, a cooperation that brings together the best 
and brightest minds in an endeavor that will greatly expand the 
boundaries of human achievement.
  As our relationship with Russia continues to evolve in this post-cold 
war world, the space station provides an catalyst for building mutual 
trust and cooperation. Today, this partnership is more important than 
ever. Finding solutions to world problems such as regional instability, 
arms technology proliferation and environmental degradation require 
that we work in close concert with both friends and former adversaries.
  In addition to these global considerations, Russian participation in 
the space station will make a substantial and immediate contribution to 
the project itself. One such pay-off will come from the U.S. Shuttle-
Mir missions, which will give us extremely valuable on-orbit 
experience. It is impossible to understate the importance of this type 
of experience--it is exactly what made the Hubble Telescope repair 
mission such an astounding success.
  Russian involvement in the space station has already resulted in a 
more robust and capable station. The new station has more electrical 
power and pressurized volume than the previous designs, allowing for 
both a larger crew and a wider range of experiments. Working with the 
Russians is going to save us both money in developing this station and 
time in deploying it. Russian long-term experience in space and the 
addition of their own network of communications, control and launch 
centers will add to the station's margin of safety.
  The cold war competition between the Soviet Union and the United 
States helped launch our exploration of space. Today the contest has 
changed, but our goals of scientific advancement and human progress are 
stronger than ever. We must now act here in this chamber to seize this 
historic opportunity and join with the Russians and our international 
partners in an endeavor in space that holds great promise for life on 
Earth.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support 
the International Space Station. Our Nation's technological growth is 
dependent on programs such as the space station.
  The Federal budget request calls for the government to spend $2.9 
billion in fiscal year 1995 on the space station. The space station 
requires less than one-seventh of the annual budget and less than 15 
percent of the NASA budget. The development of the program costs each 
American about 2.2 cents a day. This figure is minute in comparison to 
the opportunities that will be gained from this endeavor.
  The space station will allow scientists to participate in over 600 
experiments and provide the opportunity to evaluate several different 
medical phenomena. This station would enhance the opportunities to 
explore possible cures for cancer, arthritis, osteoporosis, and AIDS. 
The Space Program research has opened an opportunity to improve upon 
familiar medical machinery including CAT scans, x-rays, and laser 
surgery.
  Space science technology has greatly improved this country's 
communications capacity and its spin-offs have contributed to every 
major area of human development.
  Super Bowl XXVII was brought to you by satellite communication, the 
improvement of running shoes by incorporating moon boot material to the 
soles for shock absorption, radiation hazard detectors have been made 
available by NASA to protect people exposed to potentially dangerous 
levels of microwave radiation, improvements made on air purification 
systems, and the effectiveness of X-ray technology has been greatly 
improved by the introduction of solar cell sensors.
  The space station is essential to space education. In the next 
century, America's economy will be founded in a multicultural, 
multiracial work force of men and women with interdisciplinary 
technological skills. Space education can stimulate students to enter 
into academic programs that are crucial to our Nation's technological 
competitiveness and in which they can develop vital job skills for the 
21st century. Space education is especially valuable to minority 
students from nontraditional backgrounds who are seeking careers which 
provide security and favorable economic opportunities.
  The space station is a sound investment in NASA and our future. This 
program allows the world's best scientists and astronauts to work 
together in a cooperative effort. It is a program whose historical 
benefits have far outweighed its costs. The International Space Station 
is essential to maintaining our Nation's preeminence in space 
technology. I urge my colleagues to support funding of the space 
station.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 155, 
noes 278, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 309]

                               AYES--155

     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Blackwell
     Blute
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Camp
     Cantwell
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Duncan
     Durbin
     English
     Evans
     Fawell
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hastert
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Roemer
     Roukema
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Synar
     Tauzin
     Thomas (WY)
     Underwood (GU)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--278

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Grams
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inhofe
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kennelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Kopetski
     Kyl
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Lucas
     Manton
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meek
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swift
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Washington
     Waters
     Watt
     Weldon
     Whitten
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Ford (MI)
     Grandy
     Machtley
     Rangel
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)

                              {time}  2110

  Messrs. WASHINGTON, MICA, and McDADE changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Mr. DERRICK and Mr. BLACKWELL changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                  science, aeronautics and technology

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for the 
     conduct and support of science, aeronautics, and technology 
     research and development activities, including research; 
     development; operations; services; maintenance; construction 
     of facilities including repair, rehabilitation and 
     modification of real and personal property, and acquisition 
     or condemnation of real property, as authorized by law; space 
     flight, spacecraft control and communications activities 
     including operations, production, and services; and purchase, 
     lease, charter, maintenance, and operation of mission and 
     administrative aircraft; $5,901,200,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 1996.


                            mission support

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in 
     carrying out mission support for human space flight programs 
     and science, aeronautical, and technology programs, including 
     research operations and support; space communications 
     activities including operations, production, and services; 
     maintenance; construction of facilities including repair, 
     rehabilitation, and modification of facilities, minor 
     construction of new facilities and additions to existing 
     facilities, facility planning and design, environmental 
     compliance and restoration, and acquisition or condemnation 
     of real property, as authorized by law; program management; 
     personnel and related costs, including uniforms or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902); travel 
     expenses; purchase, lease, charter, maintenance, and 
     operation of mission and administrative aircraft; not to 
     exceed $35,000 for official reception and representation 
     expenses; and purchase (not to exceed thirty-three for 
     replacement only) and hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     $2,549,587,000.


                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, $16,000,000.


                       administrative provisions

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Of the budgetary resources available to the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration during fiscal year 1995, 
     $59,003,000 are permanently canceled. The Administrator of 
     the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall 
     allocate the amount of budgetary resources canceled among the 
     agency's accounts available for procurement and procurement-
     related expenses. Amounts available for procurement and 
     procurement-related expenses in each such account shall be 
     reduced by the amount allocated to such account. For the 
     purposes of this paragraph, the definition of ``procurement'' 
     includes all stages of the process of acquiring property or 
     services, beginning with the process of determining a need 
     for a product or service and ending with contract completion 
     and closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C. 403(2).
       Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds 
     appropriated for ``Human space flight'', ``Science, 
     aeronautics and technology'', or ``Mission support'' by this 
     appropriations Act, when any activity has been initiated by 
     the incurrence of obligations for construction of 
     facilities as authorized by law, the amount available for 
     such activity shall remain available until expended. This 
     provision does not apply to the amounts appropriated in 
     ``Mission support'' pursuant to the authorization for 
     repair, rehabilitation and modification of facilities, 
     minor construction of new facilities and additions to 
     existing facilities, and facility planning and design.
       Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds 
     appropriated for ``Human space flight'', ``Science, 
     aeronautics and technology'', or ``Mission support'' by this 
     appropriations Act, the amounts appropriated for construction 
     of facilities shall remain available until September 30, 
     1997.
       No amount appropriated pursuant to this or any other Act 
     may be used for the lease or construction of a new 
     contractor-funded facility for exclusive use in support of a 
     contract or contracts with the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration under which the Administration would be 
     required to substantially amortize through payment or 
     reimbursement such contractor investment, unless an 
     appropriations Act specifies the lease or contract pursuant 
     to which such facilities are to be constructed or leased or 
     such facility is otherwise identified in such Act. The 
     Administrator may authorize such facility lease or 
     construction, if he determines, in consultation with the 
     Committees on Appropriations, that deferral of such action 
     until the enactment of the next appropriations Act would be 
     inconsistent with the interest of the Nation in aeronautical 
     and space activities.
       The unexpired balances of prior appropriations to NASA for 
     activities for which funds are provided under this Act may be 
     transferred to the new account established for the 
     appropriation that provides funds for such activity under 
     this Act. Balances so transferred may be merged with funds in 
     the newly established account and thereafter may be accounted 
     for as one fund to be available for the same purposes and 
     under the same terms and conditions.

                  National Credit Union Administration


                       central liquidity facility

       During fiscal year 1995, gross obligations of the Central 
     Liquidity Facility for the principal amount of new direct 
     loans to member credit unions as authorized by the National 
     Credit Union Central Liquidity Facility Act (12 U.S.C. 1795) 
     shall not exceed $600,000,000: Provided, That administrative 
     expenses of the Central Liquidity Facility in fiscal year 
     1995 shall not exceed $901,000.

                      National Science Foundation


                    research and related activities

              (including transfer and rescission of funds)

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the purposes of the 
     National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 1861-1875), and the Act to establish a National Medal 
     of Science (42 U.S.C. 1880-1881); services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109; maintenance and operation of aircraft and 
     purchase of flight services for research support; acquisition 
     of aircraft; $2,216,923,000, of which not to exceed 
     $225,430,000 shall remain available until expended for Polar 
     research and operations support, and for reimbursement to 
     other Federal agencies for operational and science support 
     and logistical and other related activities for the United 
     States Antarctic program; the balance to remain available 
     until September 30, 1996: Provided, That receipts for 
     scientific support services and materials furnished by the 
     National Research Centers and other National Science 
     Foundation supported research facilities may be credited to 
     this appropriation: Provided further, That to the extent that 
     the amount appropriated is less than the total amount 
     authorized to be appropriated for included program 
     activities, all amounts, including floors and ceilings, 
     specified in the authorizing Act for those program activities 
     or their subactivities shall be reduced proportionally: 
     Provided further, That amounts appropriated in prior fiscal 
     years for the United States Polar Research Programs, the 
     United States Antarctic Logistical Support Activities, and 
     the Critical Technologies Institute shall be transferred to 
     and merged with this appropriation and remain available until 
     expended.
       Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-124, $35,000,000 are rescinded.


                        major research equipment

       For necessary expenses in carrying out major construction 
     and procurement projects pursuant to the purposes of the 
     National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, 
     $105,000,000, to remain available until expended.


                    academic research infrastructure

       For necessary expenses in carrying out an academic research 
     infrastructure program pursuant to the purposes of the 
     National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 1861-1875), including services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109 and rental of conference rooms in the District of 
     Columbia, $100,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 1996: Provided, That these funds shall not become 
     available for obligation until March 31, 1995.


                     education and human resources

       For necessary expenses in carrying out science and 
     engineering education and human resources programs and 
     activities pursuant to the purposes of the National Science 
     Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875), 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and rental 
     of conference rooms in the District of Columbia, 585,974,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 1996: Provided, That 
     to the extent that the amount of this appropriation is less 
     than the total amount authorized to be appropriated for 
     included program activities, all amounts, including floors 
     and ceilings, specified in the authorizing Act for those 
     program activities or their subactivities shall be reduced 
     proportionally.


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary salaries and expenses in carrying out the 
     purposes of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as 
     amended (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875); services authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109; hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed 
     $9,000 for official reception and representation expenses; 
     uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by law (5 
     U.S.C. 5901-5902); rental of conference rooms in the District 
     of Columbia; reimbursement of the General Services 
     Administration for security guard services; $123,966,000: 
     Provided, That contracts may be entered into under salaries 
     and expenses in fiscal year 1995 for maintenance and 
     operation of facilities, and for other services, to be 
     provided during the next fiscal year.


                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, $4,000,000.


          national science foundation headquarters relocation

       For necessary support of the relocation of the National 
     Science Foundation, $5,200,000: Provided, That these funds 
     shall be used to reimburse the General Services 
     Administration for services and related acquisitions in 
     support of relocating the National Science Foundation.

                 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation


          payment to the neighborhood reinvestment corporation

       For payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation 
     for use in neighborhood reinvestment activities, as 
     authorized by the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 8101-8107), $38,667,000.

                        Selective Service System


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Selective Service System, 
     including expenses of attendance at meetings and of training 
     for uniformed personnel assigned to the Selective Service 
     System, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 4101-4118) for 
     civilian employees; and not to exceed $1,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses; $22,930,000: Provided, 
     That during the current fiscal year, the President may exempt 
     this appropriation from the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 1341, 
     whenever he deems such action to be necessary in the interest 
     of national defense: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated by this Act may be expended for or in connection 
     with the induction of any person into the Armed Forces of the 
     United States.

  Mr. STOKES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of title III through page 65, line 12, be 
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any 
point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to this portion of title III?
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that title IV and 
title V, through page 73, line 18, be considered as read, printed in 
the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The text of title IV and title V, through page 73, line 18, is as 
follows:

                                TITLE IV

                              CORPORATIONS

       Corporations and agencies of the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development which are subject to the Government 
     Corporation Control Act, as amended, are hereby authorized to 
     make such expenditures, within the limits of funds and 
     borrowing authority available to each such corporation or 
     agency and in accord with law, and to make such contracts and 
     commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as 
     provided by section 104 of the Act as may be necessary in 
     carrying out the programs set forth in the budget for 1995 
     for such corporation or agency except as hereinafter 
     provided: Provided, That collections of these corporations 
     and agencies may be used for new loan or mortgage purchase 
     commitments only to the extent expressly provided for in this 
     Act (unless such loans are in support of other forms of 
     assistance provided for in this or prior appropriations 
     Acts), except that this proviso shall not apply to the 
     mortgage insurance or guaranty operations of these 
     corporations, or where loans or mortgage purchases are 
     necessary to protect the financial interest of the United 
     States Government.

                 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

                         fslic resolution fund

       For payment of expenditures of the FSLIC Resolution Fund, 
     for which other funds available to the FSLIC Resolution Fund 
     as authorized by Public Law 101-73 are insufficient, 
     $827,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                    fdic affordable housing program

       For the affordable housing program of the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Corporation under section 40 of the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1831q), $15,000,000 to pay for any 
     losses resulting from the sale of properties under the 
     program, and for all administrative and holding costs 
     associated with operating the program.
       Notwithstanding any provisions of section 40 of the Federal 
     Deposit Insurance Act or any other provision of law, the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation shall be deemed in 
     compliance with such section if, in its sole discretion, the 
     Corporation at any time modifies, amends or waives any 
     provisions of such section in order to maximize the efficient 
     use of the available appropriated funds. The Corporation 
     shall not be subject to suit for its failure to comply with 
     the requirements of this provision or section 40 of the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Act.

                      Resolution Trust Corporation

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, $32,000,000.

                                TITLE V

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Section 501. Where appropriations in titles I, II, and III 
     of this Act are expendable for travel expenses and no 
     specific limitation has been placed thereon, the expenditures 
     for such travel expenses may not exceed the amounts set forth 
     therefor in the budget estimates submitted for the 
     appropriations: Provided, That this section shall not apply 
     to travel performed by uncompensated officials of local 
     boards and appeal boards of the Selective Service System; to 
     travel performed directly in connection with care and 
     treatment of medical beneficiaries of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs; to travel performed in connection with 
     major disasters or emergencies declared or determined by 
     the President under the provisions of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; to 
     travel performed by the Offices of Inspector General in 
     connection with audits and investigations; or to payments 
     to interagency motor pools where separately set forth in 
     the budget schedules: Provided further, That if 
     appropriations in titles I, II, and III exceed the amounts 
     set forth in budget estimates initially submitted for such 
     appropriations, the expenditures for travel may 
     correspondingly exceed the amounts therefor set forth in 
     the estimates in the same proportion.
       Sec. 502. Appropriations and funds available for the 
     administrative expenses of the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development and the Selective Service System shall be 
     available in the current fiscal year for purchase of 
     uniforms, or allowances therefor, as authorized by law (5 
     U.S.C. 5901-5902); hire of passenger motor vehicles; and 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
       Sec. 503. Funds of the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development subject to the Government Corporation Control Act 
     or section 402 of the Housing Act of 1950 shall be available, 
     without regard to the limitations on administrative expenses, 
     for legal services on a contract or fee basis, and for 
     utilizing and making payment for services and facilities of 
     Federal National Mortgage Association, Government National 
     Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, 
     Federal Financing Bank, Resolution Trust Corporation, Federal 
     Reserve banks or any member thereof, Federal Home Loan banks, 
     and any insured bank within the meaning of the Federal 
     Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, as amended (12 U.S.C. 
     1811-1831).
       Sec. 504. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 505. No funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     expended--
       (1) pursuant to a certification of an officer or employee 
     of the United States unless--
       (A) such certification is accompanied by, or is part of, a 
     voucher or abstract which describes the payee or payees and 
     the items or services for which such expenditure is being 
     made, or
       (B) the expenditure of funds pursuant to such 
     certification, and without such a voucher or abstract, is 
     specifically authorized by law; and
       (2) unless such expenditure is subject to audit by the 
     General Accounting Office or is specifically exempt by law 
     from such audit.
       Sec. 506. None of the funds provided in this Act to any 
     department or agency may be expended for the transportation 
     of any officer or employee of such department or agency 
     between his domicile and his place of employment, with the 
     exception of any officer or employee authorized such 
     transportation under title 31, United States Code, section 
     1344.
       Sec. 507. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used for payment, through grants or contracts, to recipients 
     that do not share in the cost of conducting research 
     resulting from proposals not specifically solicited by the 
     Government: Provided, That the extent of cost sharing by the 
     recipient shall reflect the mutuality of interest of the 
     grantee or contractor and the Government in the research.
       Sec. 508. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used, directly or through grants, to pay or to provide 
     reimbursement for payment of the salary of a consultant 
     (whether retained by the Federal Government or a grantee) at 
     more than the daily equivalent of the rate paid for Level IV 
     of the Executive Schedule, unless specifically authorized 
     by law.
       Sec. 509. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act for personnel compensation and benefits shall be 
     available for other object classifications set forth in the 
     budget estimates submitted for the appropriations: Provided, 
     That this section shall not apply to any part of the 
     appropriations contained in this Act for Offices of Inspector 
     General personnel compensation and benefits.
       Sec. 510. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to 
     pay the expenses of, or otherwise compensate, non-Federal 
     parties intervening in regulatory or adjudicatory 
     proceedings. Nothing herein affects the authority of the 
     Consumer Product Safety Commission pursuant to section 7 of 
     the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056 et seq.).
       Sec. 511. Except as otherwise provided under existing law 
     or under an existing Executive order issued pursuant to an 
     existing law, the obligation or expenditure of any 
     appropriation under this Act for contracts for any consulting 
     service shall be limited to contracts which are (1) a matter 
     of public record and available for public inspection, and (2) 
     thereafter included in a publicly available list of all 
     contracts entered into within twenty-four months prior to the 
     date on which the list is made available to the public and of 
     all contracts on which performance has not been completed by 
     such date. The list required by the preceding sentence shall 
     be updated quarterly and shall include a narrative 
     description of the work to be performed under each such 
     contract.
       Sec. 512. Except as otherwise provided by law, no part of 
     any appropriation contained in this Act shall be obligated or 
     expended by any executive agency, as referred to in the 
     Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 et 
     seq.) for a contract for services unless such executive 
     agency (1) has awarded and entered into such contract in full 
     compliance with such Act and the regulations promulgated 
     thereunder, and (2) requires any report prepared pursuant to 
     such contract, including plans, evaluations, studies, 
     analyses and manuals, and any report prepared by the agency 
     which is substantially derived from or substantially includes 
     any report prepared pursuant to such contract, to contain 
     information concerning (A) the contract pursuant to which the 
     report was prepared, and (B) the contractor who prepared the 
     report pursuant to such contract.
       Sec. 513. Except as otherwise provided in section 506, none 
     of the funds provided in this Act to any department or agency 
     shall be obligated or expended to provide a personal cook, 
     chauffeur, or other personal servants to any officer or 
     employee of such department or agency.
       Sec. 514. None of the funds provided in this Act to any 
     department or agency shall be obligated or expended to 
     procure passenger automobiles as defined in 15 U.S.C. 2001 
     with an EPA estimated miles per gallon average of less than 
     22 miles per gallon.
       Sec. 515. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
     1995 pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be 
     absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
       Sec. 516. None of the funds appropriated in title I of this 
     Act shall be used to enter into any new lease of real 
     property if the estimated annual rental is more than $300,000 
     unless the Secretary submits, in writing, a report to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Congress and a period of 
     30 days has expired following the date on which the report is 
     received by the Committees on Appropriations.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title IV or title V, through 
page 73, line 18?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 517. (a) The Resolution Trust Corporation 
     (``Corporation'') shall report to the Congress at least once 
     a month on the status of the review required by section 
     21A(b)(11)(B) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act and the 
     actions taken with respect to the agreements described in 
     such section. The report shall describe, for each such 
     agreement, the review that has been conducted and the action 
     that has been taken, if any, to rescind or to restructure, 
     modify, or renegotiate the agreement. In describing the 
     action taken, the Corporation is not required to provide 
     detailed information regarding an ongoing investigation or 
     negotiation. The Corporation shall exercise any and all legal 
     rights to restructure, modify, renegotiate or rescind such 
     agreement, notwithstanding any other provision of law, where 
     the savings would be realized.
       (b) To expend any appropriated funds for the purpose of 
     restructuring, modifying, or renegotiating the agreements 
     described in subsection (a), the Corporation shall certify to 
     the Congress, for each such agreement, the following:
       (1) the Corporation has completed its review of the 
     agreement, as required by section 21A(b)(11)(B) of the 
     Federal Home Loan Bank Act;
       (2)(A) at the time of certification, in the opinion of the 
     Corporation and based upon the information available to it, 
     there is insufficient evidence or other indication of fraud, 
     misrepresentation, failure to disclose a material fact, 
     failure to perform under the terms of the agreement, 
     improprieties in the bidding process, failure to comply with 
     any law, rule or regulation regarding the validity of the 
     agreement, or any other legal basis sufficient for the 
     rescission of the agreement; or
       (B) at the time of certification, the Corporation finds 
     that there may be sufficient evidence to provide a legal 
     basis for the rescission of the assistance agreement, but the 
     Corporation determines that it may be in the best interest of 
     the Government of restructure, modify or renegotiate the 
     assistance agreement; and
       (3) the Corporation has or will promptly exercise any and 
     all legal rights to modify, renegotiate, or restructure the 
     agreement where savings would be realized by such action.
       Sec. 518. Compliance With Buy American Act.--None of the 
     funds made available in this Act may be expended in violation 
     of sections 2 through 4 of the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 
     U.S.C. 10a-10c; popularly known as ``Buy American Act''), 
     which are applicable to those funds.

                              {time}  2120

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I expect that soon the floor manager will be moving 
that the committee rise and report this bill back to the House, This is 
not just a procedural motion, Mr. Chairman. If his effect succeeds, it 
will mean that for another year the money in this Veterans, HUD, and 
Independent Agencies Appropriations bill will go to illegal aliens, 
even as many American citizens have to go without those same benefits.
  This policy is wrong, Mr. Chairman. This policy is wrong because our 
country should not be handing out any benefits to illegal aliens on the 
same basis as American citizens. This policy is wrong because it 
entices more and more people to come into our country illegally.
  And, Mr. Chairman, this policy is wrong because it is simply unfair 
to American citizens and legal residents, who should always come first 
when taxpayer money is spent.
  Yet the leadership on the other side wants you to vote for a motion 
that will continue this failed policy. Because the point of this motion 
is to deny me the right to offer an amendment that says, No more. My 
amendment, which this motion would prevent me from offering, says that 
we are going to stop the nonsensical policy of giving benefits to 
illegal aliens.
  Let me offer my colleagues an example of what will happen if the 
motion to rise passes. This bill funds long-term disaster assistance 
and several housing assistance programs. Although there is a 
restriction in current law that is reiterated in this bill with regard 
to illegal aliens receiving housing subsidies, it does not apply to 
most housing programs.
  Also, I would point out that although we were successful in adopting 
an amendment to the Los Angeles Earthquake Supplemental Appropriations 
bill, to cut off long-term disaster assistance to illegal immigrants, 
that provision applied only to that bill.
  In order to prevent illegal aliens from receiving future long-term 
disaster assistance, we must amend this bill.
  Unless the motion to rise is defeated, and my amendment is adopted, 
there will continue to be Americans who will be denied assistance so 
that illegal aliens can continue getting the help instead.
  Let us stop this insane policy of handing out taxpayer-paid benefits 
to anyone who can make it into this country illegally. Vote ``no'' on 
the motion to rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the Departments of Veterans 
     Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995.

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and 
report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the 
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 261, 
noes 163, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 310]

                               AYES--261

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Whitten
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--163

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooper
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Cox
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Grandy
     Istook
     Machtley
     Mollohan
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rush
     Swift
     Torres
     Washington
     Wheat
     Williams

                              {time}  2142

  Mr. FAWELL changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. LIVINGSTON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to rise and report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
Oberstar] having assumed the chair, Mr. Beilenson, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4624) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and 
Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, 
boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, had directed him to 
report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the 
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to, and that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any 
amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                motion to recommit offered by mr. kolbe

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. KOLBE. In its present form, I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Kolbe moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4624 to the 
     Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report back 
     the same forthwith with the following amendment: On page 66, 
     strike line 10 and all that follows through page 67, line 15.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] is 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. KOLBE. I thank the Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker. I realize that the hour is late, although I suspect we 
may still be here for a while. I rise this evening to offer this motion 
to recommit the VA-HUD appropriation bill. My motion would recommit 
with instructions to report it back by striking the funding for three 
programs. It would strike $827 million from the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation and FSLIC resolution fund; it would strike $15 
million from the FDIC affordable housing program, and $32 million from 
the Resolution Trust Corporation, Office of Inspector General.
  Mr. Speaker, I suppose we could say that we could in one quick blow 
here save almost $900 million for the American taxpayer, but there is 
another underlying issue for this motion. The fact is, none of these 
three agencies for which I would strike the funds in this bill 
testified before the VA-HUD Subcommittee to provide justification for 
their budget requests.
  Every year, every year since these agencies have been in existence, 
they have testified before the VA-HUD Subcommittee or the relevant 
subcommittee of Appropriations to which they were assigned. But not 
this year.
  And as a result, the House of Representatives, the subcommittee, the 
Appropriations Committee, and the full House of Representatives has 
been denied the opportunity to exercise its responsibility to exercise 
respect to oversight authority over the budget requests for these 
agencies.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I suspect--though I hope I would be wrong--but I 
would suspect there may be just a bit of politics in this decision not 
to call these three particular agencies to testify.
  I think the reason is fairly obvious. We might as well lay it out on 
the table here tonight. The reason these agencies were not called to 
testify was that somehow some members of the subcommittee might just 
ask some embarrassing questions pertaining to the so-called Whitewater 
investigation. But Mr. Speaker, there is more to this issue. It is not 
Whitewater we are talking about; we are talking about their regular 
budget requests. We are talking about their operating funds. No 
justification was ever presented to the subcommittee; no opportunity 
was given for the subcommittee to ask questions, to get oral testimony 
from the agency officials as to why these funds were required or how 
they would be spent.
  So I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the issue tonight goes beyond 
Whitewater. I think it goes beyond the issue of party politics despite 
the rhetoric that may be heard. I think that Congress, as an 
institution, and certainly the Committee on Appropriations as part of 
this House, has a responsibility, a constitutional responsibility to 
conduct budget oversight of all the agencies of the executive branch. 
That is our basic responsibility. And when the majority party, for 
whatever reason, cancels hearings in front of the committee, then this 
sacred system of checks and balances is put in jeopardy.

                              {time}  2150

  We have to acknowledge the potential for abuses if legitimate 
oversight responsibilities are ignored when both the executive branch 
and the legislative branch are controlled by the same party. Congress 
has an obligation, when it comes to the use of taxpayer funds, to 
question agencies on their funding priorities. There is no reason that 
these agencies should be excused from testifying on their budget 
requests. It is our duty, it is the duty of Congress, certainly of the 
Committee on Appropriations on which I serve, to know precisely what is 
in the budget requests for these agencies, why they request the funds, 
and how they exercise their spending authority. They must explain their 
costs; they must account for their expenditures. If not the Congress, 
Mr. Speaker, then who should they account to?
  I agree with Senator Byrd in the other body who was quoted today in 
the newspaper as saying, while speaking about funding for another 
agency; he said, quote, it, meaning funding, must be justified on an 
annual basis along with other programs funded in the same bill, 
unquote.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, there is precedent for zeroing out an agency that 
did not testify on its appropriation bill. Two years ago the House did 
not provide funds for the National Space Council, as a matter of fact, 
in this same subcommittee, because it had sent a letter in lieu of 
testifying. Both the minority and the majority on the VA-HUD 
Subcommittee agreed a letter was not sufficient justification for a 
funding request. We are in the same situation today. Many important 
questions remain unanswered about a large amount, $900 million of 
funding for these agencies, because they never appeared before the 
subcommittee to testify.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to exercise its oversight process. We 
should send a signal to these agencies. We should vote aye on the 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Oberstar). The time of the gentleman 
from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] has expired.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] is 
recognize for 5 minutes in opposition to the motion to recommit.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, due to the lateness of the hour, I have no 
intention of taking up the entire 5 minutes to speak on this issue. Let 
me just begin by saying that the issue of holding hearings on these 
agencies became more of a partisan problem than an issue. As a result 
the Whitewater case, we decided not to hold hearings with these 
agencies until the ongoing investigations concerning Whitewater was 
moving forward, and I might add, Mr. Speaker, the investigations are 
still ongoing.
  Let me also say, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Gonzalez] of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs has 
stated earlier this week that hearings on the Whitewater case will be 
held on July 26, 1994.
  Before closing let me just call to the attention of Members what the 
gentleman's motion to recommit will do.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's motion to recommit takes all of the 
money out of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FSLIC 
resolution fund in the amount of $827 million in borrowing. It takes 
out $15 million, the total amount of money in the FDIC Affordable 
housing program, and it takes all of the money, $32 million, out of the 
Resolution Trust Corporation's Office of Inspector General. The result 
of this motion to recommit, Mr. Speaker, would be to prevent the 
agencies, which Congress established, from efficiently and effectively 
utilizing taxpayer dollars. In addition, this would limit the agency's 
ability to leverage sources of funds because of the absence of an 
appropriation in fiscal year 1995.
  I would urge that the Members oppose the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will announce that pursuant to the 
provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair will reduce to a minimum 
of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic 
device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of passage of the 
bill.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 166, 
nays 262, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 311]

                               YEAS--166

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--262

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Hyde
       

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Grandy
     Machtley
     Washington

                              {time}  2217

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          legislative program

  (Mr. MICHEL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to inquire of the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] the program for the balance of this evening and 
tomorrow.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MICHEL. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, our plan, in cooperation with the Minority, is to 
proceed to a unanimous consent request on the rule on the legislative 
branch conference report; also, a rule on the DOD appropriation bill; 
then to move immediately after that to the legislative branch 
conference report; and then after that to go into the DOD appropriation 
bill. The final business for the evening would be the motion to 
instruct on the crime bill.
  Mr. Speaker, if we are able, as we hope, to move quickly through this 
business, we would then have one piece of business left for tomorrow, 
which we are working to try to resolve, which is the D.C. appropriation 
bill. We are in collaboration or negotiation and consultation with the 
minority to try to work our way through that bill as well, which would 
mean a very short day tomorrow.

                              {time}  2220

  If we have everyone's cooperation, we can move quickly through this 
business this evening and try to get out of here at the earliest 
possible moment.
  Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader.
  If I might just make a comment, I would like to compliment the House 
on its decorum and the chairmanship of the current Member. If we keep 
on that kind of track, then the very important pieces of legislation 
that we always anguish about the temperament about the House at any 
given time, if everybody cooperates, why, it should work very smoothly 
and everybody take note of that.
  We will be happy to agree.

                          ____________________