[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 123 (Thursday, July 27, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7820-H7913]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 201 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2099.

                              {time}  1211


                     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. 
2099) 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, 1996, and for other purposes, with Mr. Combest in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] will each be recognized for 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, colleagues, I am pleased to present H.R. 2099--the VA, 
HUD, and independent agencies appropriations bill for fiscal 1996. Let 
me get right to the bottom line. This bill, as it now stands, provides 
$60.045 in discretionary budget authority and $19.361 billion for 
mandatory accounts. This represents an overall reduction of $10.006 
billion--or minus 14.3 percent--in domestic discretionary authority 
from last year's levels. It is $10.482 billion less than President 
Clinton requested for the 22 agencies, boards, and commissions that 
fall within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.
  Following directly from our recent success in the rescissions 
package, this bill represents the urgent need to put Uncle Sam on a 
diet. We are doing what many said could never be done. We are making 
the tough decisions required to balance the Federal budget in 7 years. 
The bill reflects real cuts in each and every agency, except the VA's 
medical care account. These cuts, in this bill, at this time, are 
absolutely required if we are to keep our commitment to the American 
people regarding changing the way their Government in Washington 
operates with their hard earned tax dollars. We do not have the luxury 
of postponing these decisions to the outyears. We have tightened Uncle 
Sam's belt a notch or two, but this is the beginning, not the end, of 
identifying real savings.
  At this point, I want to move away from the numbers for just a moment 
in order to share a few observations about the many people who have 
made it possible for the subcommittee to bring this bill to the floor 
today. I know that you will understand when I say this--the 
chairmanship of the VA-HUD subcommittee is not a lonely job. The 
Members should know how fortunate I feel to be working so directly with 
Mr. Stokes of Ohio who chaired the subcommittee in the 103d Congress.
  Mr. Stokes is much more than a friend. Time and again, he has been 
someone on whom I can absolutely count when it comes to understanding 
the impact of the fundamental changes which we are making. The 
gentleman from Ohio never stops listening or working with me regardless 
of how much he may disagree with the substance of any matter under 
negotiation. And we appreciate the help we get from his able staff--
particularly Leslie Atkinson and Del Davis.
  Throughout our hearings this year as the subcommittee developed the 
bill, I encountered reactions ranging from amazement to amusement among 
our subcommittee's 11 other members. But I have always known that I 
could count on each and every one of those members to work with me to 
improve the direction, substance, and purpose of this bill. Indeed, it 
is a very special privilege to work on such a close basis with all who 
serve on the VA-HUD subcommittee. To a person, they are men and women 
of uncommon
 intelligence and conviction. This bill reflects their bipartisan 
participation and cooperation.

  Last, I want to say how much I value and appreciate the work of the 
staff. With the exception of Paul Thomson who has long worked with us 
on appropriations matters, ours is a brand new 

[[Page H 7821]]
partnership. The work of the staff--beginning with our staff director 
Frank Cushing and including Jon Gauthier, Tim Peterson, and Todd Weber 
has been first rate. Their attention to detail has been nothing short 
of essential and I just want each and every one of them to know of our 
appreciation.
  In keeping with the Speaker's guidance, the subcommittee has made 
every effort to work with all of the committees of jurisdiction that 
authorize the various programs affected by this bill. Though there will 
be continuing controversy over the numerous housing and environmental 
administrative provisions contained in this bill, the membership should 
know that we have worked diligently at both the member and staff level 
to develop the language with the knowledge and expertise of the various 
chairs in the Commerce, Transportation and Infrastructure, Veterans, 
Banking, Judiciary, Science, and Agriculture Committees.
  When we have completed general debate, I will offer an amendment that 
increases the total dollars already provided for VA medical care, VA 
health professional scholarships, special needs
 housing, homeless assistance, and FHA multifamily credit subsidies. 
This amendment culminates the prolonged negotiations which we have had 
with our leadership and many of our authorizing partners. I share their 
desire to see much less legislation in this bill next year and I hope 
the coalitions which we have formed in working together this year will 
be lasting ones.

  Let me move now to summarizing just a few of the many difficult 
choices and positive highlights that make up this complex piece of 
legislation.


                           difficult choices

  Four agencies are terminated for a savings of $703 million in 
discretionary authority from 1995 enacted levels: The Corporation for 
National and Community Service, Community Development Financial 
Institutions, the Chemical Safety and Hazards Investigation Board, and 
the Council on Environmental Quality. It's possible that we may get an 
amendment contemplating the elimination of yet another--the Selective 
Service System.
  The bill does not provide requested funding for the construction of 
two additional VA hospitals in Florida and California which would have 
resulted in major construction costs of $343.2 million this year. We 
hope to continue working with Members from the affected regions to 
provide state of the art outpatient facilities that are consistent with 
the direction that Veterans
 Secretary Jesse Brown suggested last year when the VA was 
participating in the national health care reform debate.

  NASA, too, will make a major contribution to deficit reduction. Their 
budget has been reduced by $705 million from last year's level. And we 
have gone much farther than I think Administrator Goldin would be 
comfortable with. This bill begins the process of reducing the size of 
NASA's plate. It makes real and painful program changes which will 
reduce fiscal year 1996 and outyear pressures. Two major NASA programs, 
the Space Infrared Telescope Facility and EOS will be substantially 
altered in order to help reduce the pressures on the overall bill.
  This bill provides $4.88 billion for the EPA--a reduction of $2.4 
billion or 33 percent from the fiscal year 1995 level. Frankly, our 
bill is an urgent plea to Administrator Browner. If you believe that 
Superfund is broken, help us fix it. If you believe that command and 
control is the wrong approach, act now to make EPA a facilitator of 
progressive environmental policy rather than an enforcer of excessive 
and inflexible Federal mandates. If you believe that EPA should base 
decisions on proven sound science, risk assessment, and thorough cost-
benefit analysis, by all means join with us in perfecting this bill.
  The EPA is a regulatory agency completely out of control, an agency 
that until now has delighted in routinely redefining its mission 
without proper
 congressonal oversight. The legislative provisions in this bill 
reflect the need and desire to restore some common sense and 
flexibility to the challenges of environmental protection in our 
country. The EPA should be a facilitator of progressive environmental 
policy rather than an enforcer of excessive and inflexible Federal 
mandates.

  With regard to Superfund, I understand that my colleague from Ohio, 
Mr. Oxley, the chairman of the authorizing Commerce Subcommittee, is 
set to move a reauthorization bill this fall. It is my hope that 
Administrator Browner will work with the authorizing committee in 
addressing the difficulties of this task. The issuance and funding of 
new records of decision [RODS] by potentially responsible parties is 
one area that should be analyzed during the reauthorization process.


                       Emphasizing the positives

  The subcommittee has provided a funding level of $38.1 billion for 
the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA stands alone among the 
agencies in our jurisdiction. It's funding is not significantly 
reduced. Every requested dollar for mandatory spending is provided. If 
my conforming amendment is adopted in a few moments, an increase of 
$562 million will be provided for medical care--over and above last 
year's funding level of $16.2 billion.
  We have also taken great care to provide every available dollar for 
the basic research mission of the National Science Foundation. NSF 
would receive $3.1 billion in this bill--a reduction of 6.5 percent or 
$200 million from last year's level.
  The subcommittee's overall funding level for HUD, if my manager's 
amendment is adopted, would be $19.4 billion. The mark recognizes that 
two of HUD's largest and most cost effective programs--community 
development block grants--$4.6 billion--and the home investments 
partnership program--$1.4 billion--are working largely as intended. 
Neither program will absorb reduction's from last year's level.
  The subcommittee has been mindful of the guidance from those who 
receive HUD dollars--nonprofits, local public housing authorities, and 
resident groups--that reductions in their funding should not proceed 
this year absent substantial legislative reform that maximizes 
flexibility in how they administer Federal housing dollars. And, even 
though HUD's comprehensive reform bill is far from final action in the 
authorizing process, we have provided $862 million for a section 8 
replacement assistance fund.
  In all of these matters, I have had the privilege of working with Mr. 
Lazio--the chairman of the Banking Subcommittee on Housing. He has 
reminded me more than once that there is great need for thoughtfulness 
when one wields the machete. Numbers drive policy. Policy drives
 perception. And before we know it, we can have real change in the 
broken delivery mechanism that we all know as HUD.

  The section 8 replacement assistance funds will provide for nearly 
77,000 units of tenant based housing, thus allowing the Secretary to 
proceed with two of his most important initiatives--tearing down the 
worst of the low vacancy high rises in public housing and targeting 
assistance to individuals rather than properties. These vouchers will 
be available to anyone who loses their unit if these long overdue 
changes are undertaken by the Secretary. No one will be thrown out on 
the street and many of the individuals who could receive assistance 
under this fund will be in decent housing for the first time in years.
  Mr. Speaker, these are the challenges and highlights presented with 
the fiscal year 1996 VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations 
bill. I hope that the members will see fit to accept the difficult 
tradeoffs reflected here. I urge you to support the bill when we get to 
final passage.

                              {time}  1215

  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 today in opposition to H.R. 2099, the fiscal 
year 1996 appropriations bill for Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban 
Development, and independent agencies. As a member of this subcommittee 
for more than 20 years, it is a difficult position for me today to 
stand here in opposition to this measure.
  Let me first acknowledge and recognize the work and leadership of our 
chairman and colleague from California, Jerry Lewis. No one knows 
better than I, having previously served as chairman of this 
subcommittee, the complexities of this bill. As it stands, we must 
provide funding for critical 
 
[[Page H 7822]]

veterans, housing, environmental, science, and research and development 
programs. The increasing Federal deficit and call for Government reform 
has heightened the problems of meeting these essential needs. So 
Chairman Lewis' task has not been an easy one.
  Nonetheless, within the allocation that this subcommittee received, 
we have considerable opportunity to try and meet the basic and pressing 
priorities upon which veterans, the elderly, and low-income and working 
Americans depend. Unfortunately, instead, the subcommittee launches a 
wholesale assault on these individuals and those critical programs that 
provide safety net and human service programs, not to mention programs 
that are
 designed to ensure a safer and cleaner environment for our children 
and our communities.

  Now we have heard our colleagues on the other side represent this 
bill as fair, given the adverse allocation of the subcommittee. But I 
don't think that our veterans, our elderly, our children, and our poor 
would agree. In fact, the President does not agree and has already 
indicated that he will veto this bill if it is presented to him in its 
present form. In his statement on H.R. 2099, the President says and I 
quote:

       The fiscal year 1996 VA/HUD appropriations bill passed by 
     the House Appropriations Committee is unacceptable. I call on 
     the Congress to correct the appropriations bills now under 
     consideration before they reach my desk, not after.

  Let me take a moment to explain to you why this bill is so 
unacceptable to the President and those of us who care about people.
  For our veterans, this bill reduces by nearly $1 billion the level of 
spending that the President has requested for veterans including 
medical care, general expenses, and construction projects. These cuts 
seem especially callous. Certainly, individuals who have given the 
ultimate sacrifice and risked their lives for our collective safety and 
well
 being deserve to have the full level of security for themselves and 
their families to live out the rest of their lives.

  In a letter circulated yesterday to all Members of the House James J. 
Kenney, executive director of AMVETS stated:

       The designated appropriations still falls well short of the 
     funding necessary to even maintain the current level of 
     earned entitlements for our veterans.

  Further he says:

       The proposed budget will require painful decisions on the 
     elimination of critical services.

  The bill falls short in the areas of medical care--almost $200 
million below the President's budget request, in construction--where 
critical facilities are needed for a growing and aging veterans 
population, in benefits servicing--where a cut to the VA Benefits 
Administration would impact the first line of support veterans receive 
when they approach the VA through the vocational rehabilitation 
counselling and the veterans services divisions.
  This bill, once again, targets housing programs as we saw earlier 
this year in the rescissions bill. On top of the $7 billion taken from 
HUD in the 1995 rescissions, this measure cuts $5.3 billion from the 
President's request. The severity of the reductions are appalling 
enough seeing that $4.2 billion of the cuts to HUD came from housing 
programs
 alone. Hardest hit are those programs that provide affordable and 
decent housing for the elderly and poor, like section 8 incremental 
rental assistance and public housing operating and modernization funds.

  But our colleagues on the other side did not stop here. Added to 
these crushing reductions are pages of extensive legislation that is 
tantamount to repealing the statutory goal of decent, safe, and 
sanitary housing for all Americans. Minimum rents are set and residents 
who only average $8,000 a year in income are forced to pay more in 
terms of their rent contributions.
  At a time when affordable housing is at a record short supply, this 
bill would not only gut affordable and low-income housing but cut 
homeless assistance grants by $400 million. Secretary Henry Cisneros 
has stated that while the committee sees savings in these actions, he 
sees a terrible pain for the most economically vulnerable working 
people. Several colleagues and I will be offering amendments to try and 
correct these harmful actions.
  When they finished with destroying our investment in public and low-
income housing, our colleagues decided to set back this Nation's 
efforts to ensure that each American breathe clean air, drink clean 
water, and be safe from hazardous waste dangers. This devastation is 
accomplished
 through a cut in funding to programs like the Superfund Program, the 
Safe Drinking Water Revolving Fund, the Clean Water State Revolving 
Fund, and EPA operating programs. The public health is further 
jeopardized by the nearly 20 limitations and riders that further these 
pernicious acts. I will be offering, with my colleague on the other 
side, Congressman Sherry Boehlert, an amendment to strike these riders 
from the bill.

  The list of egregious actions in H.R. 2099 unfortunately continues. 
The Corporation for National and Community Service [AmeriCorps] and the 
Community Development Financial Institutions Program are terminated. 
The bill also calls for the close out of the Council on Environmental 
Quality within the Executive Office of the President.
  Our Nation's critical investment in science and technology has also 
been reduced through the 5-percent cut in NASA and the 6-percent cut in 
the National Science Foundation.
  The reductions in this bill are severe and reason enough for not 
supporting this legislation. What is even worse is that the cuts are 
being made in part to finance a tax break for the most wealthy. These 
actions are penny wise and pound foolish and I therefore strongly 
oppose this bill.
                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg], a member of the committee.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
bill.
  I would like to begin by commending the gentleman from California, 
Chairman Lewis, for all of his hard work. Shepherding an appropriations 
bill through the legislative process is no easy task, yet he has done 
it with skill and flair. I would also like to thank the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
  And finally, we all owe a debt of gratitude to the subcommittee 
staff--Frank Cushing, Paul Thomson, Tim Peterson, John Gauthier and 
Todd Weber. We truly would not be here today if it weren't for their 
tireless efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It does not simply spread the pain 
throughout all of the programs in its jurisdiction, it makes the tough 
choices necessary to move up toward a balanced budget. Overall, it cuts 
about $10 billion in spending from last year's level. But it also 
preserves funding for programs which work well and are important to the 
Nation's future.
  Now, we are going to hear a lot of heated rhetoric about 
disproportionate cuts in housing programs. But do not let that get in 
the way of the facts. Yes, next year housing programs will have to 
absorb some spending reductions--there is no doubt about it.
  But when compared to the other agencies in this bill, HUD's funding 
actually will take up a larger share of the outlays than they did this 
year. In short, HUD will enjoy a slightly larger piece of a smaller 
pie. And in the present budgetary environment, that is nothing to 
complain about.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of good in this bill. VA medical care 
has been protected, as has funding for university-based scientific 
research. We preserve funding for NASA's core missions; and we send EPA 
a strong message that they must move away from their current Soviet-
style, command and control system of regulation.
  I am sure that every Member of this body, given the chance, would 
draft a VA-HUD bill that is different from the legislation before us. 
But, to use an often-heard quote, we can't let the perfect be the enemy 
of the good.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services.

[[Page H 7823]]

  (Mr. GONZALEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues in expressing my 
strong opposition to the mean spirited and draconian HUD-VA 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. If this bill is enacted, we 
are signaling almost a full retreat by the Federal Government as a 
critical partner in affordable housing and community revitalization. 
H.R. 2099 slashes one-quarter of the budget for the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development. It neither expands, nor preserves, nor 
rehabilitates public and assisted housing and then requires poor 
families to pay more for deteriorating housing, or go homeless.
  I find it ironic that on Monday the Center for Budget and Policy 
Priorities released its new study, ``In Short Supply: The Growing 
Affordable Housing Gap,'' which determined that the number of low-
income renters exceeded the number of affordable rental units by 4.7 
million low-income renters. This Nation has lost 43 percent of its 
affordable housing supply, some 2.2 million housing units, over the 
last two decades, according to the study.
  If we pass this appropriations bill, we virtually ensure that 
affordable housing will continue to decrease and deteriorate; we will 
lose our $90 billion investment in public housing; and hundreds of 
thousands more families will become or remain homeless. Despite what 
our colleagues on the majority and on the Appropriations Committee 
contend, these are not hard decisions, they are heartless.
  Public housing residents in the more than 3,400 local housing 
authorities throughout the Nation are at risk of seeing their everyday 
maintenance requests go unanswered for lack of operating subsidies. 
This appropriations bill funds operating subsidies at only $2.5 
billion, some $400 million below this year's funding and only 85 
percent of what housing authorities need to operate their housing 
authorities.
  And the eyesores of deteriorated and dilapidated housing in many of 
our urban centers will remain vacant and crumbling, further destroying 
neighborhoods because nearly one-third of the modernization funds and 
all of the urban revitalization grants for severely distressed public 
housing projects will be lost if this bill passes.
  There will be no new public housing funded and no new section 8 
certificates available for the first time in 20 years even though there 
are more than 5.6 million families today who pay more than 50 percent 
of their incomes for rent, or who live in substandard housing. There 
are more than 1.5 million families on public housing and section 8 
waiting lists throughout this country. The number of families who are 
homeless or who pay exorbitant rents or who live in terrible housing 
conditions grows each year by more than 10 times the number of new 
families that would be assisted under the appropriation bills for 1996. 
During this fiscal year 88,400 units of affordable housing were 
financed through the various Federal housing programs--next year fewer 
than 15,000 units.
  Frail elderly residents of public and assisted housing will not 
receive critical supportive services like personal care, 
transportation, and congregate dining, hastening the entry into 
expensive nursing homes and destroying the elderly's dignity and 
independence. Why? Because this bill provides no funding for the 
Congregate Housing Services Program. The bill also eliminates funding 
for the drug elimination grant program which has been so helpful to so 
many in fighting crime and providing residents a sense of safety and 
security.
  The bill leaves two of the core programs untouched--HOME and CDBG. 
That is good; however, do not be surprised if a year from now or 
sooner, the mayors and the Governors are here begging for more money. 
Because, the deep, deep cuts in public housing and section 8, and the 
increases in the cost of that housing inevitably will mean trouble for 
our cities and States--more deteriorated housing and more 
homelessness--more people with nowhere safe and sound to live. While it 
may seem that there are a myriad of discrete programs, in truth Federal 
housing programs are interrelated, serving different needs and segments 
of our low- and moderate-income families. When one program is 
underfunded, it places pressure on all the other programs. What this 
bill does, make no mistake, is place the burden on cities and States, 
while the Federal Government takes a walk and abrogates its 
responsibilities.
  I know it has become fashionable to bash the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development and to blame the poor, the victims, for their 
troubles. But slashing funding for the very programs that provide for 
one of the most basic needs--housing--is simply inexcusable.
  HUD has taken a budget hit disproportionate to any other agency, 
except perhaps the EPA. And through the appropriations bill, housing 
policy--which I might add, should be under the purview of the Banking 
Committee--has shifted and changed course dramatically, without the 
benefit of hearings or analysis--all to get to the bottom line. So the 
Republicans will make the fundamental problems of a lack of affordable 
and decent housing and viable communities worse.
  I have watched these programs work for poor and working families, for 
the elderly and for the disabled throughout my public career. One of my 
jobs in my home city of San Antonio before I came to Congress was with 
the San Antonio Housing Authority. Then public housing worked as it 
continues to in many communities today. And now with one simple action, 
the Republican majority will devastate the lives of families currently 
residing in public and assisted housing and those who wait, sometimes 
for years, for such housing.
  The Republicans talk about their historic budget resolution, their 
vaunted balanced budget. But their bold insistence and desire to 
provide foolhardy tax breaks for the wealthy at the expense of 
America's poor and working families drives this process. That is the 
thrust of this massive and mean assault on our most vulnerable 
citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the executive summary of the study referred 
to in my remarks for the Record, as follows:

          In Short Supply: The Growing Affordable Housing Gap


                               i. summary

       New national housing data show that the shortage of 
     affordable housing for low-income renters is now wider than 
     at any point on record. This gap--4.7 million units--has 
     grown consistently in recent decades because the number of 
     low-rent units has fallen while the number of low-income 
     families has grown. As a result of these trends, four of five 
     poor renter households with incomes below the federal poverty 
     line face housing costs that exceed 30 percent of their 
     income, the federal housing affordability standard set in 
     1981. More than three of five poor renters spend at least 
     half their income on rent and utilities.

                    The Affordable Housing Shortage

       Data from the 1993 American Housing Survey, which is 
     sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development and conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, 
     indicate that a substantial shortage of affordable housing 
     has developed in recent decades.
       In 1970, the first year for which comparable data are 
     available, there were 7.4 million low-cost rental units. That 
     was roughly 900,000 greater than the number of low-income 
     renters, which stood at 6.5 million. (Low-income renters are 
     defined here as those with incomes of $12,000 or less in 1993 
     dollars, or roughly equal to the poverty line for a family of 
     three. Low-cost units are those with rent and utility costs 
     totaling less than 30 percent of a $12,000 annual income, or 
     less than $300 a month.)
       By 1993 this situation had reversed. The number of low-rent 
     units fell to 6.5 million while the number of low-income 
     renters rose to 11.2 million--resulting in a shortage of 4.7 
     million affordable units. This is the largest shortage on 
     record. There are nearly two low-income renters for every 
     low-rent unit.
       The affordable housing squeeze means that many poor renters 
     spend very large proportions of their income on housing. The 
     new AHS data show that:
       Some 82 percent of poor renter households--5.7 million 
     households--spent more than 30 percent of their income on 
     rent and utilities in 1993.
       Some 4.1 million poor renter households--or three of every 
     five poor renters--spent at least half of their income on 
     housing. These households are considered by HUD to have 
     ``worst case'' housing needs and are given priority for 
     housing assistance under federal law.
       The typical or median poor renter spent 60 percent of 
     income on housing in 1993.
       These housing affordability problems are nationwide, 
     affecting poor households in every region of the country and 
     both urban and rural areas. They are not limited to racial or 
     ethnic minorities, and poor families with one or more workers 
     are nearly as likely as those relying on public assistance to 
     have very high housing cost burdens.

[[Page H 7824]]

       The shortage of affordable housing is one million or more 
     rental units in every Census region--Northeast, Midwest, 
     South, and West. The widest affordable housing gaps, when 
     measured as the number of low-income renters competing for 
     each occupied low-rent unit, are in the West and 
     Northeast.\1\
     \1\ Due to data limitations, the regional gap figures refer 
     to occupied low-cost units only, while the national gap 
     figure accounts for all low-cost units, including those that 
     are vacant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Some 83 percent of poor renter households in central cities 
     spent at least 30 percent of income on housing in 1993, as 
     did 87 percent of poor renters in suburban areas and 74 
     percent of poor renters in nonmetro areas.
       The problems of high housing cost burdens affect poor 
     white, black, and Hispanic households alike, with more than 
     four of five poor renters in each group spending at least 30 
     percent of income on housing. Similar proportions of both 
     elderly and non-elderly poor renters had housing cost burdens 
     this high, as did both working poor families with children 
     and poor families without a worker.
                     The Role of Housing Assistance

       The growing affordability problem reflects both an increase 
     in poverty--and thus in the number of low-income renters--and 
     a sharp decline in the supply of low-cost housing in the 
     private market. In 1973, the first year for which such data 
     are available, there were 5.1 million unsubsidized units with 
     costs of $300 a month or less, as measured in 1993 dollars. 
     By 1993, this number had fallen to 2.9 million units, a 
     decline of 43 percent.
       To help offset these trends, a significant portion of funds 
     appropriated for housing programs since the early 1970s has 
     been used to expand the supply of subsidized housing. While 
     this has led to an increase in the number of low-income 
     families receiving housing assistance, the number of new 
     housing commitments dropped markedly in the 1980s, even as 
     the affordable housing gap was widening.
       Between fiscal years 1977 and 1980, HUD made commitments to 
     expand rental assistance to an average of 290,000 additional 
     low-income households each year.
       From fiscal year 1981 through fiscal year 1995, new rental 
     housing commitments fell nearly three-fourths to an average 
     of 74,000 per year. In addition, two other federal housing 
     programs--the HOME program created in 1990 and the Low Income 
     Housing Tax Credit created in 1986--provide funds that allow 
     state and local governments and private organizations to 
     produce housing. Nevertheless, these programs are likely to 
     add only modestly to the supply of housing affordable to the 
     poorest renters since the programs generally are not targeted 
     to very low-income households with severe housing problems.
       If the number of additional commitments made since 1981 had 
     remained at the level of the late-1970s, over three million 
     more low-income renters would be receiving housing assistance 
     today and the affordable housing gap would not be so wide.
       Altogether, the relatively large expansion of federal 
     housing assistance in the 1970s and more modest expansion in 
     the 1980s resulted in an increase of 2.3 million
      in the number of families receiving housing assistance. This 
     expansion was roughly equal to the decline in the number 
     of low-cost units in the private market but failed to 
     match the large increase in the number of low-income 
     renters over this period. The overall result was a net 
     loss in the proportion of low-income renters able to find 
     affordable units and a substantial widening of the 
     affordable housing gap.
       Most poor renters remain without housing aid. In 1993, some 
     37 percent of poor renter households received a housing 
     subsidy from the federal, state, or local government. The 
     limited level of housing assistance means that most poor 
     families seeking housing assistance are placed on waiting 
     lists and usually wait several years before receiving aid. In 
     1993, some 1.4 million households were on waiting lists for 
     housing subsidies for privately owned housing, and 900,000 
     households were on waiting lists for public housing.

     The Impact of Congressional Proposals To Cut Housing Programs

       The trends highlighted in this analysis--a declining supply 
     of low-cost rental housing in the private market and a 
     growing number of low-income renters--indicate that unless 
     the number of families receiving government housing 
     assistance increases each year, the affordable housing gap 
     will grow wider. Congress, however, is considering large cuts 
     in funding for federal low-income housing programs. These 
     reductions are likely to end the longstanding practice of 
     modestly adding to the supply of subsidized housing each year 
     and would likely lead to a reduction in the number of low-
     income families receiving assistance.
       The cuts being considered would have an adverse effect on 
     the supply of low-cost housing. Reductions in operating and 
     modernization assistance for public housing included in the 
     House appropriations bill for HUD would likely lead to an 
     increase in the number of vacant public housing units, since 
     public housing authorities would face difficulty maintaining 
     current units and repairing dilapidated units. The bill also 
     would reduce funding for homeless assistance by nearly half, 
     while suspending the requirement that available subsidies be 
     targeted on households with severe housing problems that are 
     most at risk of becoming homeless. In addition, the bill's 
     elimination of efforts to expand the subsidized housing stock 
     while the number of low-rent unsubsidized units continues to 
     fall would widen the affordable housing gap. This can be seen 
     by calculating what would have happened had such policies 
     been in effect in the recent past. If no additional families 
     had received housing assistance between 1973 and 1993, the 
     shortage of affordable housing would have reached nearly 6.9 
     million units in 1993, rather than 4.7 million.
       The proposed reductions in low-income housing programs also 
     would tighten the financial squeeze on many households with 
     very low incomes. Some of the federal savings would come from 
     raising rents on nearly all tenants of subsidized housing, 
     with the greatest increases falling on the poorest tenants. 
     Poor renters not receiving housing assistance also could 
     experience rent increases; if the number of unsubsidized low-
     cost units continues to fall while the subsidized housing 
     stock is stagnant or begins to shrink, there will be more 
     low-income renters competing for fewer low-rent units. The 
     laws of supply and demand suggest this could push rents 
     upward for many unsubsidized low-rent units. Furthermore, 
     both poor renters who receive housing assistance and those 
     who do not are likely to face greater difficulty in meeting 
     higher rental costs as a result of reductions in other 
     federal programs that assist low-income families and 
     individuals. Expected reductions in AFDC, SSI, food stamps, 
     Medicaid, and the Earned Income Tax Credit will limit the 
     ability of many families to pay rent and meet other 
     necessities. The combined effect of these developments is 
     likely to be pressure for more poor families to ``double up'' 
     and an increase in the number of families at risk of becoming 
     homeless.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen], a member of the 
committee.
  (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time. I rise in support of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, as a new member of this subcommittee I want to thank 
Chairman Lewis, Congressman Stokes, and the subcommittee staff for 
their leadership and guidance during this long process.
  Our bill contains funding for many vital programs for our Nation's 
veterans, to protect and preserve our environment, to help house the 
needy and disabled, and for scientific research and discovery.
  It has been a difficult task balancing these needs and funding all of 
the programs. I believe that we have achieved this. In total, our bill 
provides $79.4 billion for these programs. Mr. Chairman, this is $10.5 
billion less than last year and $10.5 billion below the President's 
budget request.
  Like the other appropriations bills that have passed the House this 
year, this bill moves the country closer toward the goal of a balanced 
budget. While I do not agree with all the reductions in this bill, I do 
believe it is time to stop throwing good money after bad and start 
refocusing our limited resources toward programs that work.
  Since subcommittee markup, I have been contacted by many people who 
merely look at the bottom line or the appropriated level for each 
agencies that are contained in this bill. I would suggest to these 
people that they begin to look at the programs contained in this bill 
and ask the question are these programs working? In many cases they are 
not.
  For example, both Secretary Cisneros and the President agree that the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] needs to be reformed. 
In fact, it is the Secretary's own suggestion that many programs should 
be eliminated and the entire department should be reduced down to three 
umbrella programs. I am hopeful that the authorization committee on 
housing will soon adopt a housing bill that will reform HUD and put it 
back on track.
  This message is also targeted toward the Environmental Protection 
Agency [EPA]. Simply sitting back and extending current law, like 
Superfund, is an abdication of their leadership. Its time to come to 
the table and be a full partner toward reform. EPA's Administrator has 
said the program is broken and this bill recognizes that fact. The bill 
provides adequate funding to keep the program moving, however, it stops 
the expansion of the program until the law is reauthorized. The last 
reauthorization was done in 1986.
  In reviewing EPA's budget, I have found that the Superfund situation 
is not an isolated case, but a rule of thumb for many of EPA's 
programs. 

[[Page H 7825]]
Yes, environmental laws have worked, however, laws need to be updated 
and reformed and the status quo is not acceptable. In many cases the 
bureaucrats have decided arbitrarily to overstep their legal authority 
and push policies that are clearly beyond statutory intent. Distracted 
by regulation and litigation, EPA has lost their focus on the bottom 
line--protecting our resources and addressing critical environmental 
needs.
  In my State of New Jersey, both housing and environmental programs 
are extremely important. That is why I am pleased to have worked with 
the chairman to provide additional resources for section 202 and 811--
two housing programs that do work to help our older Americans and 
people with disabilities. This issue will be addressed in the 
chairman's amendment and I thank him for his support of these programs.
  This bill also funds the Department of Veterans Affairs. Nearly half 
of the bill's funding supports these activities and I am pleased that 
the committee was able to increase medical care above this year's level 
by nearly $500 million. In addition we have been able to fully fund the 
compensations and pensions programs, veterans' insurance, and the Loan 
Guarantee Program.
  This bill is not the perfect answer to all the problems that we face, 
however, it is the first step in a process that will bring us toward a 
compromise. Mr. Chairman, I support this bill and I urge my colleagues 
to adopt this measure.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn].
  Ms. DUNN of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise as a strong supporter of the space station and 
urge my colleagues to continue funding for this valuable space and 
science mission.
  When I first came to Congress in 1993, I became a member of the 
Science Committee and the Space Subcommittee. During the 103d Congress, 
we lived through the highs and the lows of this program. There was a 
call for the project to be redesigned, and space station funding passed 
on the House floor by one single vote.
  In early 1994, NASA made significant changes in the way it conducted 
business. They streamlined the program. For the first time, they named 
a single overall prime contractor for the space station, and they 
brought proven private sector know-how, decision-making, and 
competitiveness into the program.
  Russia joined our international partnership, a partnership that 
already included Japan, Canada, and member countries of the European 
Space Agency. This provided us the opportunity to use selected Russian 
hardware, to learn from their experience in extended space flight, and 
to use the MIR space station for testing and training purposes. We all 
witnessed the successful results of this partnership earlier this month 
with the MIR docking.
  The new, redesigned station, with Boeing as the prime contractor, 
forced NASA to trim costs and develop a program that was both fiscally 
and scientifically sound. The space station budget has been capped at 
$2.1 billion annually. This is not an open-ended obligation, Mr. 
Chairman. We will reach completion in 2002.
  In 1994, continued funding for the station passed overwhelmingly, 
highlighting the success and bipartisan support for this program.
  Mr. Chairman, with the station, we will promote international 
cooperation and the peaceful exploration of space. We will spawn new 
industries, new products and new jobs. We will give rise to 
unprecedented research capabilities, and we will provide incentives to 
our students to pursue scientific professions if America remains 
dedicated to preserving its scientific cutting edge.
  Since we began the race for space in the 1950's, this Nation has 
taken upon itself the role of leader, not only in space exploration but 
also in space-based research.
  For my colleagues who are looking for a down-to-earth, practical 
reason to support this station, here is one for you: your mother, your 
daughter, your sister, or your wife. Because of the unique microgravity 
environment the station provides for research, new and exciting 
approaches to diagnosing and treating breast cancer, ovarian cancer, 
and osteoporosis are being investigated in space labs in ways that 
simply are not possible on Earth.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, as a result of an amendment that I worked on 
that set aside funding specifically for women's health care research, 
for the first time on the recent MIR mission female rats were used to 
study the relationship of long-term space existence on the development 
of osteoporosis. Biomedical research on Earth, working hand-in-hand 
with space-based research, will help eradicate this terrible disease 
that affects our mothers.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say that some of the cuts in this bill 
are obviously acceptable in the interest of deficit reduction. But the 
problem with this bill is that it simply goes too far. It makes what I 
consider to be savage cuts in housing. It contains a wholesale assault 
on our ability to protect public health and to protect clean water and 
clean air and our natural resources, and it contains unnecessary 
reductions in veterans' health care, all to free up more money in this 
grand scheme to provide significant tax reduction for people who make 
$200,000 a year or more.
  I do not believe that is right. I would urge at the end of the day 
after we have had at it on the amendments that unless this bill is 
improved markedly, and I do not think it can be--I think it is beyond 
help almost--I would urge you to vote against it.
  I have great respect for the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], 
he is a good friend of mine, but I do not see any reason why we ought 
to use this vehicle to really crunch in a serious way our ability to 
protect public health from toxic chemicals.
  If you take a look at this bill, fully one-third of this bill, which 
is supposed to be simply a budget bill, contains illegitimate 
legislative language that prevents the Government from enforcing the 
law to protect the health of workers, to protect the right of 
neighborhoods to know what kind of toxic chemicals are being infused 
into the atmosphere, to protect the public's right to drink safe clean 
water, and it engages in all kinds of Rube Goldberg operations in the 
veterans' health care area in order to squeeze out yet more money for 
tax cuts for the rich.
  This is not a fair bill. It is not a decent bill. It ought to be 
defeated.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], ranking minority member of the 
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], my good friend who has done yeoman's 
work on trying to protect the poor and the vulnerable and the working 
people and our senior citizens in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the trouble is we just do not have the votes to protect 
the people that the Republican majority wants to cut in order to 
provide a tremendous tax break to the richest and most powerful 
interests in this country, and at the same time, pump more and more 
funds into the defense bill.
  It would be one thing if all of these bills were looked at with any 
kind of sensibility, but what we have seen is a $7.6 billion increase 
in the defense bill alone as it pertains to equipment purchases. We are 
buying B-2's that the Navy and Air Force say they do not need. We are 
buying F-22's that they say they do not need. The Navy says it really 
does not need this new submarine, but we are buying that anyway.
  But, Mr. Chairman, when it comes to housing, we are going to go out 
and get public housing, raise rents on our senior citizens, and turn 
around and say that we are going to try to protect the homeless by 
cutting the homeless program in this country by 50 percent.
  When all sorts of Cain was raised about that, the Republicans are 
going 

[[Page H 7826]]
to come back in and say they are going to put another $1 million back 
into the homeless program after 7 years, but they are going to take the 
money out of assisted housing in order to fund the homeless program.
  We are going to create more homelessness and put the money back into 
homelessness. This is one of the most half-cocked, hair-brained schemes 
I have ever seen. The authorizing committee ought to have had hearings; 
made decisions about whether or not we ought to put funds into the 
section 8 program, versus public housing, versus assisted housing. 
There are good decisions that could be made and we do not have one of 
them that is located in this bill.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Flake], the ranking minority member on the Subcommittee on 
Domestic and International Monetary Policy.
  (Mr. FLAKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
2099.
  Mr. Chairman, I think all of us realize that these cuts are targeted 
to the most vulnerable people in our population, those persons who are 
in the greatest need, those persons who cannot stand the lethal blow 
that this particular bill makes available for them.
  Mr. Chairman, it is the highlight of arrogance, in my opinion, that 
we devastate possibilities for community revitalization, that we take 
those persons who are in need of government support as it relates to 
section 8 rental assistance and that we reduce the amount available to 
them, while at the same time raising the amount of rent that they will 
have to pay.
  Mr. Chairman, the height of hypocrisy is reflected in the fact that 
on this day we unveil a memorial for the Korean War veterans, while at 
the same time are cutting millions of dollars from the veterans' 
programs.
  As a nation, we cannot afford to continue to allow people to live in 
substandard housing, allow people to live at a standard that is not 
qualitative, so that all of our people understand that they have a 
place in this great democracy of ours.
  Mr. Chairman, where is our compassion? If we are compassionate, we 
will vote this bill down.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], a member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, when I refer to H.R. 2099 in one word 
that word is ``commitment.'' Congress has made a commitment to the 
people of our Nation to balance the budget and this bill takes a large 
step in that direction--providing more than $10 billion in deficit 
reduction. Yes, Uncle Sam can be put on a diet and the Appropriations 
Committee is his personal trainer.
  But Congress also committed itself to end duplication of programs and 
eliminate the never-ending source of redtape. This bill eliminates 
outlived bureaucracies and consolidates several programs, with the 
President's blessing, in an effort to improve services such as better 
housing for those who need assistance.
  Last, the bill fulfills our Nation's commitment to veterans. Our 
veteran's health is of utmost importance. That is why the VA medical 
care account was the only account in the bill not to receive a 
reduction. Assuming that the chairman's upcoming amendment is 
approved--and I urge my colleagues to support it--the VA medical care 
account will increase by $562 million more than last year's funding 
level. But that is not all. The bill provides increases over fiscal 
year 1995 funding for compensation and pensions, readjustment benefits 
for education and training, and veterans insurance. The bill also 
provides funding for medical research, the National Cemetery System, 
and State veterans' cemeteries, among other essential programs for 
veterans.
  As a member of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, I can tell you 
that this was not an easy bill to draft--and I thank and applaud the 
chairman and his staff for their dedication to this task. But it is a 
bill that makes priorities and fulfills our commitment to the people of 
this Nation to spend their money wisely. That is a promise made and a 
promise kept by this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Waters], a member of the Subcommittee on Housing and 
Community Opportunity.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. It is 
fundamentally flawed. It would ravage communities, uproot families, and 
disrupt the lives of thousands of Americans. We must reform public 
housing, but Republicans have gone about it entirely wrong.
  This bill would increase rents paid by residents recieving section 8 
vouchers from 30 to 32 percent of adjusted income. The average voucher 
family has a yearly income just under $8,000. This increase would have 
the affect of taking away $140 per year from these families.
  It would also decresae the work incentive for able-bodied adults.
  It would zero out community development banks, a bi-partisan programs 
which generates private-sector economic development.
  This bill reduces housing for seniors, for the sick, and for the 
needy. It legislates a series of changes which would greatly inhibit 
our ability to house Americans, expand opoprtunities, and develop 
economically. It is extreme and it should be defeated. I urge defeat of 
this bill.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Roybal-Allard], a member of the Subcommittee on Housing 
and Community Opportunity.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the cuts contained in the Republican VA-HUD 
appropriations bill are devastating for working American families. For 
example, the community development financial institution fund, which 
helps communities and individuals empower themselves, will be defunded.
  The CDFI fund was created because residents and entrepreneurs from 
low and moderate income communities unfairly experience barriers in 
obtaining credit.
  Many do not qualify for loans to purchase a home or start a business 
because they lack conventional credit histories. As a result, 
individuals and communities cannot achieve economic prosperity and 
self-reliance.
  CDFI fund resources leverage private sector funds and provide 
assistance and training to community development financial 
institutions.
  The CDFI fund is a powerful tool that creates jobs, restores hope, 
and provides a better way of life for those desiring a piece of the 
American dream.
  Only last year the CDFI received the near unanimous support of 
Democrats and Republicans. Vote ``no'' on the VA-HUD appropriations 
bill.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk specifically about cuts in 
this bill which concern me greatly; cuts to the Mission to Planet 
Earth, a critical NASA program. The President requested $1.34 billion. 
This bill, unfortunately, includes only $1 billion. That is a lot of 
money, but it is a very significant reduction from the request and from 
the level adopted by the Committee on Science this week.
  The committee, on Tuesday, reported a bill that authorizes $1.27 
billion for Mission to Planet Earth. This is $272 million above the 
reported appropriation amount.
  Mr. Chairman, we should restore that money, if the allocation to this 
appropriation measure was not so constrained. I understand the problem 
of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Stokes] with respect to the funds available, but this program 
is a critical program for the future, not only of the space program, 
but for the future of the ability of those of us on Earth to understand 
better our environment and our weather.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the committee would see fit to 
increasing this sum as this bill moves through.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition 
to H.R. 2099. It represents a political meat ax, rather than a 
responsible 

[[Page H 7827]]
carving knife, as we approach the budget process.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a 23-percent cut in housing programs, 
representing more than $5 billion; representing the elimination of 
personal programs such as section 8, which helps disadvantaged people 
get housing, and HOPE homeownership grants that allow people to pursue 
the American dream.
  This bill represents a 46-percent cut in housing for the elderly. How 
some Members could say we are helping the elderly is beyond me. The 
elderly will pay between an average of 400 and 600 additional dollars 
per year for senior housing.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill represents a 54-percent cut for low-income 
assisted housing programs, the working poor of our country, and a 49-
percent cut in homeless programs, which means that more Americans will 
be living in cardboard boxes and laying out along the street side.
  Critically, it represents a 48-percent cut in construction and 
improvement in veterans' facilities, which means our Nation's veterans 
will continue to see inadequate treatment and work in inadequate 
facilities.
  Mr. STOKES. 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 out of a sense of deep 
sadness and outrage. Yet again, the majority brings before this body an 
attack on children, the elderly, and the poor.
  The cuts in this bill are criminal. Funding for low-income housing is 
slashed by $7 billion. Homeless assistance; public and assisted 
housing; housing for the elderly, the disabled, and AIDS victims; and 
the FHA multifamily insurance program all suffer steep rollbacks. Many 
others, such as the Drug Elimination Program, are eliminated 
altogether. These cuts, Mr. Chairman, aren't about numbers--they're 
about human beings. There's a human tragedy behind every dollar of 
these reductions.
  On any given night last winter, there were 600,000 men, women, and 
sometimes children living on the streets. This bill's $540 million cut 
in the McKinney program would mean that hundreds of thousands more will 
join them this winter. I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 2099. 
There is too much pain behind this bill.
  A $700 million cut in public housing operating subsidies, and a $2.3 
billion reduction in the public housing capital budget isn't an 
abstraction. These cuts mean delays in both basic maintenance and major 
repairs; less security services; and the elimination of essential 
social services. For 3 million public housing residents, the reductions 
translate into deteriorating buildings, greater insecurity, and fewer 
opportunities for economic advancement.
  Ending the Drug Elimination Program isn't about cutting wasteful 
pork-barrel projects. In New York City, the program funds 435 housing 
police officers who patrol the grounds and hallways of New York's 
public housing developments. These beat cops would be lost.
  This is only a partial list of the many tragedies that would result 
from this bill. At some point in this appropriations process, 
reasonable minds and compassionate hearts must prevail. I urge my 
colleagues to reach that point in this bill.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento], a member of the Subcommittee on Housing and 
Community Opportunity.
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I certainly rise in opposition to this bill, 
because it affects the people we represent.
  Mr. Chairman, what do they want from us? What do they expect from 
this bill? They expect decent, affordable, sanitary shelter. They 
expect environmental justice. They expect us to try and respond to what 
their needs are.
  We obviously have a budget problem, that is dug deeper by the tax 
breaks that our Republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
seem to want to advance and dig the hole deeper with our Federal budget 
deficit. We have to pull in the belt, but we do not have to do it on 
the basis of the poorest of the poor, the working people, or families.

                              {time}  1300

  They want shelter; they want a green environment. They want the same 
small good things of life. People want us to take the knowledge we have 
and use it to provide for their need and protection.
  There are a lot of people walking around who have got their heads up 
in the stars. They want to look too and fund the space station. The 
votes are here for that.
  Frankly, to me, it is the alchemists project of the 20th century 
trying to do something of questionable value at the very same time we 
have got real serious problems right here in our communities. We have 
got to advance not just on defeating the budget deficit, the fiscal 
deficit, but we have got to deal with the human deficit, what is 
happening to people in our communities. Those that do not have the 
skills, that do not have the education, do not have the shelter, to 
give them the wherewithal, those working people, so they can pull 
themselves up.
  We have got to be partners in this process, the Federal Government 
with the non-profits and others. We cannot walk away from the State and 
local governments that are depending on these housing and environmental 
programs. They work. Let us not kill them.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this, appropriations 
legislation that devalues communities and families with slash-and-burn 
cuts in important programs at HUD and the EPA. While the VA, HUD, and 
independent agencies bill has essentially insulated important Veterans 
programs, and saved NASA's space station yet again, this bill has set 
in its sights the undermining of environmental law and policies and the 
gutting of basic housing and shelter needs of poor American citizens. 
These housing cuts measuring roughly 25 percent of the total and budget 
for 1995 and are all the more dangerous in light of the recently 
approved rescission bill for fiscal year 1995 that took over $6 billion 
from HUD.
  The underlying bill basically halves the funds available for HUD's 
homeless programs: assuring that approximately 130,000 fewer homeless 
Americans will be served this coming fiscal year. These are not just 
numbers, they affect real people families. They are the lives that 
won't recover from homelessness by moving into transitional or 
permanent housing, to jobs and self-sufficiency. Talk about a fiscal 
deficit must also consider the human deficit. The Minnesota communities 
of St. Paul, Minneapolis, Hennepin County, and St. Louis County, that 
could receive over $13 million in fiscal year 1996 for homeless 
assistance, would likely see $6.5 million less for providing key 
services and intervention to do just that.
  Furthermore, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Emergency Food 
and Shelter Program for the homeless is reduced 23 percent by this 
bill. This highly successful program that partners with the major 
national charities will find that it will be able to serve almost 24 
million fewer meals, provide close to 1 million fewer nights of shelter 
for individuals and families, and give homeless prevention assistance 
through emergency mortgage-rent-utilities payments in close to 200,000 
instances in the next fiscal year because of this bill.
  To add salt to the budget cut wounds, this appropriations bill will 
cut public housing modernization funds and operating subsidies funds, 
forcing an increase in vacant unit, a reduction in maintenance and less 
spending on necessary security and social services. These cuts will 
mean almost $19 million less for housing authorities in Minnesota 
alone. The underlying bill then ironically asks low-income families, 
who do not have income to spare, to kick in more of their meager funds 
through minimum rents, a repeal of the decades old Brooke amendment 
that limits the percentage of their income spent on rent, and through 
the inclusion of utilities payments which of course is a significant 
cost in extreme climate areas such as Minnesota. All of this, without 
one hearing on the implications of these policy changes in our Housing 
and Community Opportunities Subcommittee at the Banking Committee.
  This bill eliminates the Congregate Housing Services Program. It 
combines elderly, disabled and HIV/AIDS housing programs into one 
program and then cuts their funds 46 percent. It wipes out the 
successful Public Housing Drug Elimination Program. This program, which 
I tried to expand last year, often provides the extra support necessary 
for public housing authorities [PHA's] and their residents to make a 
difference in their lives. For example, in St. Paul Public Housing, 
this program is being used to offer a STEP Program: Support for 
Training and Employment Program. STEP provides job training with 
individualized 

[[Page H 7828]]
case management. This particular program partners with the Minnesota 
Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services, and St. Paul Public Schools.
  This appropriation bill further reneges on decent, safe, affordable 
housing for all Americans by eliminating funding for new incremental 
section 8 rental assistance. This move will resign the millions on 
waiting lists today to an certain terminal wait in substandard housing 
or our Nation's streets.
  The VA, HUD and Independent Agencies appropriations bill continues 
the assault on underserved communities by killing AmeriCorps, the FDIC 
Affordable Housing Fund, and the Community Development Financial 
Institutions Fund. The CDFI fund that was created in late 1994 to 
provide a national network of financial institutions dedicated to 
community development. It was bipartisanly supported at that time--and, 
even in the recent 1995 rescissions bill assured that the CDFI would 
have $50 million as it streamlined and reduced the administrative costs 
of the program.
  This program is unique providing capital support for CDFI's to use to
   leverage or to provide incentives for more traditional thrifts and 
banks to increase community investment and lending. This Clinton 
initiative is about developing private markets in distressed 
communities in order to create jobs, provide housing loans, construct 
affordable housing, and provide other opportunities to help communities 
and individuals to help themselves through access to capital. The CDFI 
program should be funded. It has broad support from community groups 
and lending institutions alike. It is petty politics that sees it 
defunded today and I would hope that this Congress could rise above 
that and seek good policy instead.

  In a year of relentless attacks on decades of environmental policies 
and laws, the Appropriations Committee budget plan for the 
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] sets a new standard for 
outrageousness. The VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations 
bill for fiscal year 1996 cuts EPA's operating budget by one third and 
enforcement budget by 50 percent. The legislation prevents EPA from 
enforcing central parts of the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and 
other major environmental programs.
  Because of these proposed radical cuts, the bill would reduce the 
ability of the EPA to respond to threats to the environment and human 
health. In the long run, this approach will mean more water pollution, 
more smog, more food poisoning, more toxic waste spills, and 
eventually, more taxpayer dollars spent to solve these problems.
  It is particularly egregious to use the budget process to eliminate 
critical programs that protect public health and the environment--the 
Appropriations Committee should not be prohibiting any agencies from 
enforcing Federal law. If Congress intends to repeal or roll back 
environmental protection statutes, these changes should be debated out 
in the open. The American people will not stand for this give away to 
polluters behind closed doors.
  Mr. Chairman, as I have stated, I have so very many concerns 
regarding this bill that I must certainly and will oppose it. This bill 
is full of authorizing language that reflect policy changes that have 
not been reviewed by the Committees of jurisdiction much less the 
public. This Congress has its priorities all wrong: Tax breaks for the 
rich, $2 billion in pie-in-the-sky funds for space stations our modern 
day alchemy, and giveaways for corporations who plunder our natural 
resources, while at the same time, eviscerating affordable housing, 
gutting environmental safeguards, and cutting funds for our most 
vulnerable citizens, the homeless. I do wish to be associated with 
supporting these ill-conceived attacks on our future and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], chairman of the Committee on 
Science.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, once again, I am pleased to rise in support of an 
appropriations bill both because of its substance and the process that 
molded it.
  Chairman Lewis fully consulted with the Science Committee on programs 
under our jurisdiction. The result is a bill that closely tracks the 
NASA and NSF authorizations reported by the Science Committee over the 
past 2 months.
  H.R. 2099 starts the transition of NASA from an operational service 
agency to a premier research agency. Space science and human 
exploration are the priority as evidenced by full funding of such 
programs as the Cassini Saturn mission, Gravity Probe B, and the 
paramount space-based basic research laboratory known as Space Station 
Alpha. Revolutionary new efforts such as fundamental research in 
support of private sector development of fully reusable launch vehicles 
and small satellite and spacecraft technology is also promoted.
  NASA programs that continue the Government as a service provider are 
transitional to the private sector. These include the space shuttle and 
Mission to Planet Earth. American commercial interests can provide both 
space transportation services and environmental and planetary data much 
more efficiently and effectively than huge, inflexible Federal 
bureaucratic armies that too often lack creativity and incentive.
  The other shining jewel for science in the VA-HUD bill is NSF. Its 
basic university research grant funding is held virtually harmless at 
its current level. Not too many Federal missions can claim that fact. 
This appropriation follows the Science Committee's lead in promoting 
the priority of basic research in the physical science directorates.
  So, all in all, Mr. Chairman, this is a very good bill. It makes 
significant progress on deficit reduction while also setting wise 
priorities for the future knowledge base of the Nation. I thank and 
commend Chairman Lewis for accommodating the Science Committee's policy 
goals. I strongly support the bill.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], a member of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and 
Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Sadly, I rise in opposition to this bill, which we have worked so 
very hard on.
  Let me say for the record that I voted for almost every balanced 
budget amendment that passed this House and maintain a voting record 
that proves that.
  This bill is truly too severe. It cuts housing in our country by over 
23 percent. It means seniors living in buildings across this country 
will be paying $1,000 more a year even though they make $8,000 a year. 
It means our mayors will have to choose between homeless, where funds 
are being cut by half, and drug elimination programs, and I think that 
EPA's cut of 33 percent, when we have got dumps and leaking dumps all 
over this country and toxic waste that we have to clean up is really 
wrong.
  I think the President had a 2-percent cut in this budget. I think 
that was reasonable. This budget is too extreme, too sever, and in 
addition to that, if you read the provisions in the report, it even 
tries to undermine EPA's ability to enforce environmental standards 
along our border as a result of NAFTA.
  It is even undermining environmental enforcement. I encourage my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this measure.
  Mr. Chairman, sadly, I rise in opposition to this bill. It is too 
extreme, at the same time too severe. I want to commend the 
distinguished chairman of our committee, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Lewis], for his cordial handling of this very complicated bill and 
to express my sincere appreciation for his efforts in restoring $10 
million of funding to the Department of Veterans Affairs' Health 
Professional Scholarship Program by transferring funds from other 
accounts. I also want to acknowledge the diligence an wise counsel of 
the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], on 
this bill.
  Let me point out, I voted for the budget amendments that passed this 
House and maintain a voting record that proves it. But this bill is not 
even-handed--it cuts environmental protection by one-third; it cuts 
housing and senior housing by 25 percent, and it cuts medical care by 
$250 million at times when our World War II veterans are using the 
system in greater numbers.


                              Introduction

  The programs under our committee's jurisdiction provide assistance 
and benefits that help millions of Americans achieve a better life. 
Included are programs for medical care and benefits for our Nation's 
veterans, affordable and decent housing for families and individuals of 
all incomes and circumstances, a safe and clean environment, and 
investments in technology and science.
  Rather than cutting these budgets by a reasonable amount--say 2 to 5 
percent--it axes support for key national commitments. The overall 
effect of the bill before this body is to seriously erode our efforts 
for veterans, housing, and the environment. This bill provides 
inadequate support for our Nation's veterans, 

[[Page H 7829]]
and it will impair our ability to provide them quality medical care. It 
also makes deep cuts in the funding for the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development--25 percent--and the Environmental Protection 
Agency--32 percent. In addition, this bill continues to fund one very 
big-ticket item, the space station, at the expense of other programs 
under the committee's jurisdiction, including ones designed to assist 
the poorest, the neediest, and the most vulnerable among us. I disagree 
with the severity of the reductions. And what makes it more egregious 
is that all the savings will not be used to balance the budget. Rather, 
the money is being controlled to give tax breaks to the Fortune 500 
``big daddies'' later this year. This is simply wrong.


                Health Professional Scholarship Program

  Let me say, I am grateful to the chairman for his willingness to work 
with me to fund the Health Professional Scholarship Program. This 
educational and training program assists in assuring an adequate supply 
of trained health professionals, not only for the VA but also the 
Nation. To date, these scholarship awards have provided more than 4,000 
scholarships to students in nursing, occupational therapy, physical 
therapy, respiratory therapy, and nurse anesthesia. I thank the 
chairman for his strong willingness to cooperate and provide leadership 
on this health scholarship program which helps advance professionals 
during a time when tuition costs are skyrocketing.
  Upon graduation, students are required to complete 2 years of service 
in the VA health system, and the retention rate of the scholarship 
recipients in VA medical centers is greater than 50 percent.
  The flexibility to provide scholarships for the education of a 
variety of health professionals has made this program particularly 
useful as changes have occurred in the delivery of health care 
services. As the program has identified shortages in particular 
categories of health professionals, the numbers and types of 
scholarship awards have been shifted accordingly. For example, in 
fiscal year 1994, more awards were made for advanced practice nurses, 
in contrast to entry-level nurses, and for physical therapists and 
occupational therapists. These are the health professionals currently 
in shortest supply in the VA, and they are anticipated to be needed 
nationwide in the future. This academic year, the program will be 
adding physician assistant awards to meet the needs of a health care 
system that is increasingly focusing on primary care.
  The funding of this program is vital to the recruitment and retention 
of scarce health professionals in the VA, and it is necessary to be 
responsive to the health care needs of veterans who have courageously 
defended this Nation. I thank the chairman for his strong leadership on 
this program.


                       eap/nafta report language

  I also oppose this bill because it contains too much free rein with 
legislation on an appropriation bill.
  In addition, the report to this bill contains language which 
undermines our ability to enforce NAFTA. The report to the bill 
questions EPA's use of subpoenas to collect United States-Mexico border 
environmental data it infers EPA's issuing subpoenas to American 
companies with subsidiaries located in the vicinity of the New River 
and Imperial Valley in southern California, has somehow contravened 
NAFTA. This language is just one more example of the influence of big 
business lobbyists, and the extent to which the majority has 
subordinated the health and safety of our continent to pure greed.
  Everyone knows that the EPA is well within its authority in issuing 
these subpoenas. They were issued to U.S. companies, which are required 
to comply with existing U.S. standards. The NAFTA contains provisions 
that protect our rights to determine and apply our own levels of 
environmental protection, and the Toxic Substances Control Act 
specifically authorizes the EPA to issue subpoenas as it did in this 
case. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would be better 
served by listening to the Member of their own party who represents the 
district in question rather than the special interests and big business 
lobbyists who would use report language such as this in an attempt to 
intimidate the EPA into backing off of an investigation which would 
have major health implications for our citizens.


                               conclusion

  As I outlined earlier during the debate on the rule, I also oppose 
this bill because it zeroes out the effective drug elimination program. 
That has stemmed the drug tide across this Nation. Because of its 
elimination as well as the reductions in other vital programs that help 
veterans, the elderly, and children, I must oppose this bill and urge 
my colleagues to do the same. The bill is not balanced, and its savings 
will not help reduce deficit, but rather be transferred to billions in 
tax breaks to the privileged few. How sad.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
1996 appropriations bill for the Department of Veterans Affairs, the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and independent agencies.
  The Republicans have once again adopted a paint-by-numbers strategy 
to reach their arbitrary deficit reduction target and finance a tax 
break for wealthy special interests.
  How simple is their strategy? Remarkably simple. And remarkably 
cruel.
  Draw a line through those programs that help the poor, the needy, and 
the less fortunate. Slash your way across the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, and the Department of Veterans' Affairs, until you 
reach the Environmental Protection Agency.
  Once again, the Republican's have enacted wholesale change that will 
significantly decrease the quality of life for millions of Americans.
  The Republicans profess to have our long-term interests at stake, but 
their actions--in this case--speak loudly and clearly.
  This bill not only risks the health of our veterans, but the health 
and safety of all Americans.
  Unable to eliminate the EPA, my Republican colleagues have done their 
level best to cripple this agency and eviscerate programs that ensure 
every American has access to safe drinking water, clean air, and a 
toxic-free environment.
  Mr. Chairman, along the way, strike a crippling blow against housing 
programs that provide affordable, safe, and decent housing for the 
elderly, the poor, and the sick.
  When you are painting by numbers, when your goal is driven by 
numbers, not by people, it is easy to pursue your goal with abandon.
  I would like to take this opportunity to remind my Republican 
colleagues that behind those numbers are real human beings, living real 
lives, and struggling to get by in tough times.
  A great number of the public housing units in this country are 
occupied by elderly women. And over a million of our children--of 
America's children--live in public housing units. For many of these 
kids, just about the only thing they can depend on, from day-to-day, is 
a place to go home to at night.
  This bill slashes public housing operating subsidies and 
modernization funds. The bill eliminates--obliterates--funding for 
severely distressed public housing and development, in addition to new 
housing vouchers and certificates for the poor.
  If you are homeless, forget it. The Republicans have decided to paint 
you out of the picture, cutting homeless assistance grants by 50 
percent.
  The Republican approach is really very simple. They shake your hand 
and direct your attention to the magnificent prize behind curtain No. 
3. When you turn your head, they reach around and pick your pocket.
  Hundreds of thousands of families who depend on section 8 assisted 
housing will get their pockets picked if this bill passes. At least 
600,000 families in public and section 8 assisted housing will pay more 
every month in rent unless we reject this bill.
  While we debate these cuts, I urge my colleagues to remember that 
this week marks particularly poignant moment. Today, we will dedicate a 
monument to the veterans of the Korean war.
  There are few Americans more deserving of our support than these 
veterans, and the veterans of our wars of the last half-century.
  Yet, the Republican bill cuts $250 million from veterans medical care 
and zeroes-out funding for a replacement VA hospital in northern 
California that was to service a veterans population of over 400,000 
men and women. These cuts are unwise and break a promise that Congress 
made to northern California veterans 4 years ago.
  Without adequate support, the VA will simply be unable to meet the 
increasing demand for health services as our veterans population ages.
  This bill cuts the EPA budget by one-third, hazardous waste cleanup 
programs by 30 percent, and funds for wastewater treatment facilities 
by 25 percent.
  Perhaps most devastating is the legislative language in this bill 
that would prohibit the EPA from taking action to clean our 
environment. These include restrictions on the EPA's ability to 
regulate sewer systems, wetlands, refineries, oil and gas 
manufacturing, radon in water, pesticides in processed food, lead 
paint, and water pollution.
  Some very important programs--such as the Sacramento River Pollutant 
Control Program--have been funded in this bill. With this funding, 
Sacramento County will be able to complete the process of identifying 
which pollutants exceed water quality standards.

[[Page H 7830]]

  Once this is accomplished, the county can develop a feasible, cost-
effective plan to address the problem of pollution in the Sacramento 
River.
  While this critical program has been funded, hundreds of others 
around the country have not.
  The Sacramento River Pollutant Control Program is a step in the right 
direction. But it does not begin to make up for the hundreds of steps 
back in this bill.
  All of us have been asked to make sacrifices to help balance the 
Federal budget. We are prepared to make those sacrifices. But no one--
not one American--should have to sacrifice decent living conditions or 
a clean environment to finance a tax-break for Republican special 
interests.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have the utmost respect for the 
chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member, but I do want to 
say to this House and to this country that to cut VA, HUD, and 
independent agencies as they have been cut in this bill is obscene, and 
it is not credible, and it does not show responsibility on the side of 
the Republicans' part of our House.
  I have served with them for 2 years, but I cannot believe that our 
good chairman on the Republican side would cut these housing programs 
and gut them for poor people.
  I want you to go with me for a moment or two and realize that there 
are poor people who live in public housing whose water has sewage in 
it, whose housing is really, really depreciated to the point that they 
can not live in the housing. It makes just a mockery of poor people who 
need public housing.
  If government is any good to anybody, it should be good to poor 
people.
  You zero out funding to seriously distressed public housing. I appeal 
to you to, please, redo some of the things in this bill.
  First of all, you need to kill this bill, because it deserves a 
respectable death.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Stokes] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is very big on the deficit and tiny on 
fairness.
  Certainly, we have to contribute and share the sacrifice in moving to 
a balanced budget by the year 2002. But we should be as concerned about 
the millions of senior citizens in this country as we seem to be about 
housing for astronauts in space. Our priorities should not be just 
about four astronauts being housed in comfortable quarters but about 
being fair to millions of seniors and low-income people and not slash 
their budget by 23 percent.
  Let us make some of the tough choices around here and cut a B-2 
bomber or two that the Defense Department does not even want. Let us 
cut back on the CIA and the tobacco subsidies. Let us not decimate NASA 
and the space station.
  Other people have said the NASA budget is good. That is not true. 
Mission to Planet Earth is cut by $338 million. Science, aeronautics, 
and technology is cut by $313 million.
  Let us be fair in our efforts to move together in a bipartisan way to 
balance this budget.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta], the ranking member of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill. Through targeted 
spending cuts, restrictive language, and legislative riders, this bill 
is designed to assure less environmental protection and increased risk 
to the health and safety of our constituents. Without substantial 
changes, the House should reject this bill and allow the Appropriations 
Committee to develop a bill which is worthy of support.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2099 reduces funding for the Environmental 
Protection Agency by over one-third. This is unconscionable. While all 
agencies can use trimming of their budgets, we should be reviewing 
unsuccessful programs for cuts. Instead, this bill inadequately funds 
many of the programs which have proved to be highly successful--
programs such as the Clean Water Act State revolving loan fund program. 
This is not cutting the fat, this is cutting the lean.
  It also inadequately funds the Superfund Program with the excuse that 
this is a transition year for that program. If this bill is part of a 
transition, it is a transition to disaster.
  This bill makes the funding of assistance to States and local 
governments subject to reauthorization of the Clean Water Act. It 
creates a hostage of every constituent who is concerned about clean 
water. It would also cut off funding for the Superfund Program on 
December 31 of this year. It creates a hostage out of every constituent 
who cares about cleaning up toxic waste sites.
  Why does the bill contain these restrictions? Unlike past years, this 
is not about the prerogatives of the authorizing committees under the 
rules of the House. No, the restrictions of H.R. 2099 are designed to 
put pressure on the Senate to adopt the House position on waivers, 
loopholes, and rollbacks for industrial polluters which were included 
in H.R. 961.
  That's right, the needs of State officials for money to operate State 
programs, the needs of cities to construct improvements in wastewater 
treatment, and the needs of the people for improved water quality are 
all being put on hold so that industrial dischargers might have more 
leverage in convincing the Senate to accept waivers, loopholes, and 
rollbacks of the Clean Water Act.
  Throughout the clean water debate on this floor, proponents of the 
legislation repeatedly argued that the States know best, and that the 
States must be allowed the maximum ability to control water pollution 
decisions. But now, when it is time to actually indicate your support 
for cities and States, to literally put your money where your mouth is, 
the interests of State and local governments are being swept aside so 
that industrial polluters can have increased leverage in the Senate.
  Under H.R. 2099, States and local governments are held hostage in 
receiving $1.4 billion in grants to implement the Clean Water Act 
programs, even as cities and States continue to bear the burden of 
State and Federal requirements to improve water quality. This bill is 
the mother of all unfunded mandates. This is not what the cities and 
States want, and it is not what the citizens who we represent deserve.
  H.R. 2099 is an abuse of the legislative process, and an abuse of the 
interests of State and local governments.
  In Clean Water alone, the funding in H.R. 2099 is far below what is 
required, and far below the levels which the House approved just 2 
months ago.
  The most recent estimate of needs generated by the States indicates 
that there are documented needs of over $130 billion over the next 20 
years. At the funding levels of this bill, it will be impossible to 
ever fully capitalize the State revolving loan funds so as to meet 
these needs.
  Additionally, the House budget resolution assumed a funding level of 
$2.3 billion annually for the water infrastructure account. During 
consideration of the clean water amendments of 1995 in May, it was the 
opinion of the majority of the House that the funding authorization 
level should be reduced to match the budget resolution. I opposed that 
amendment, and many of you joined with me. Now, even that reduced 
funding level is cut in half.
  What we see is just one broken commitment after another to the cities 
and States. Promise the cities and States $3 billion to get support for 
gutting the Clean Water Act. When critics raise concerns about the 
bill, proponents argued that H.R. 961 was a strong bill because it 
provided $3 billion annually to the States.
  But then the House Budget Committee developed a budget resolution 
which assumed spending of $2.3 billion annually. So the Republican 
leadership supports an amendment on the floor to reduce the 
authorization level to $2.3 billion to conform to the budget 
resolution. Now, we are being asked to approve a funding level one-half 
of the promise made just 2 short months ago.
  This sounds again like promises made, and promises broken.

[[Page H 7831]]

  However, as objectionable as these funding levels are, this bill is 
totally unacceptable for the way in which it seeks to radically alter 
the implementation of the Nation's environmental laws. In all my years 
in the House, I have never seen a more outrageous attempt to dismantle 
environmental protection through the appropriations process.
  Changes to the Nation's environmental programs should be debated 
within the context of the proper committees of jurisdiction. Instead 
what we have here is an attempt to gut the major environmental statutes 
by tucking legislation in the back of an appropriation bill at the last 
minute--legislation which would never survive public opinion if done in 
the open and through the normal process.
  Let's look at some of the more egregious provisions.
  Under this bill, EPA is prohibited from using any funds for the 
implementation of the Great Lakes water quality guidance, 
notwithstanding the enormous amount of work which States, local 
governments, private citizens, and EPA have put into the development of 
that guidance.
  This guidance was the subject of two separate amendments during 
markup of the clean water amendments of 1995 by the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure. Over the course of 2 days, a 
compromise was developed which was adopted by the committee. While the 
compromise clearly did not please all parties, it allowed the 
authorizing committee the opportunity to fully debate and consider the 
issue. In the end, the Transportation Committee specifically approved 
the use of the guidance. This thoughtful and deliberate process would 
be overturned should the provision in this bill restricting the use of 
funds remain.
  Another of the restrictions prohibits EPA from taking steps to stop 
raw sewage overflows regardless of the environmental consequences of 
these overflows. These are the same overflows which cause beach 
closures and prevent the consumption of shellfish. This is not an 
imaginary concern, and it is not without its economic consequences. In 
1994 alone, polluted water caused at least 2,279 swimming advisories 
and beach closings. This results in the loss of millions of dollars in 
tourist and recreational dollars, and thousands of lost jobs.
  This bill says that EPA cannot address the serious issue of 
stormwater pollution, even though it often represents the major 
pollution problem in urban areas. This restriction would bar 
enforcement not only of municipal stormwater violations, but also of 
all industrial stormwater violations as well.
  While I have long supported changes to the municipal stormwater 
program to make it more responsive to environmental needs and the 
economic realities of the cities, it is not the role of the 
Appropriations Committee to stop all efforts to address this serious 
problem. Not even H.R. 961 did that. Yet, that is what we have here 
before us.
  EPA is prohibited from taking any action to implement or enforce the 
wetlands program. Clearly the Nation's wetlands program is in need of 
reform, but it is not in need of wholesale abandonment. H.R. 2099 will 
allow illegal activities to proceed unabated, regardless of the impacts 
on adjoining property owners since EPA will be powerless to assist in 
any enforcement activities. If this bill is enacted, upstream property 
owners will be able to fill wetlands with no risk of EPA interference. 
Upstream property owners will be able to contribute to flooding and 
water quality degradation downstream with no fear of enforcement of the 
law by EPA. This is not wetlands reform, this is an abandonment of the 
protection which we all expect our Government to provide.
  The bill prohibits EPA from revising or issuing effluent limitations 
guidelines and standards, pretreatment standards, or new source 
performance standards notwithstanding the need of industry, States and 
localities for updates of existing standards. Yet, it is these 
standards which the States use for the dramatic improvements in water 
quality which we will enjoy. If this language is enacted, there are two 
likely results--either all progress in improving water quality will 
stop, or States will have to go this route alone. I do not believe that 
American people want improvements to stop, and telling the States that 
they must develop standards and guidelines on their own is a very 
expensive proposition for the States.
  H.R. 2099 creates a new right to pollute the environment with no fear 
of repercussion. First, it reduces the enforcement budget of EPA by 
nearly $130 million. Second, it creates an entirely unfounded and new 
defense to any enforcement action. No penalties may be sought against a 
polluter if the matter is subject to a State law providing for a 
privilege for voluntary environmental audit reports. This may be the 
biggest ``Get Out of Jail Free'' card which ever existed.
  Under this language, a polluter would be able to escape any penalty 
for environmental violations, no matter how severe, if the polluter 
merely turns himself in. In addition, this language is written so 
broadly, that the admission need not be related to the pollution which 
is the subject of the enforcement action. If this language is taken to 
its extreme, it appears as though it is not even necessary that the 
State law providing for immunity and the pollution need to have taken 
place in the same State.
  Imagine if you would, the ability for a polluter to escape 
responsibility merely by reporting the polluter's own wrongdoing, and 
even if the reported wrongdoing is unrelated to the environmental harm 
caused by the pollution.
  H.R. 2099 also would permanently waive categorical pretreatment 
standards for a single wastewater treatment plant in Kalamazoo, MI. Why 
this particular plant, and why right now? There has been no public 
discourse over the merits of such a broad exemption. Yet, the 
appropriations process seems to be the place where all your concerns 
with environmental laws can be addressed, and all environmental 
protection abandoned.
  Mr. Chairman, the concerns I have just outlined are more than enough 
reason to oppose this bill. Unfortunately for the interests of our 
constituents and the environment, I have barely touched the surface. 
H.R. 2099 includes many more riders and restrictions on the ability of 
EPA to perform its responsibilities under the law and to fulfill the 
expectations of the general public. Many of these riders and 
restrictions favor specific industries or specific locations--
industries such as oil, cement kiln, and pulp and paper, and locations 
such as Kalamazoo, MI, and the Kammer power generating station in West 
Virginia.
  Each of these special riders or restrictions must be removed from the 
bill prior to House approval. That is why I intend to support the 
Stokes-Boehlert amendment to delete the riders and restrictions. The 
waivers, loopholes, and rollbacks which H.R. 2099 contains clearly make 
this an unacceptable bill.
  I urge defeat of H.R. 2099.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon]. No Member has been more diligent 
in representing his district and more cooperative with the committee 
than the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time. I commend the chairman for the hard work that he 
has been doing.
  It must be made very clear to all Members that if we do not balance 
our budget, there will be no resources for important programs like that 
NASA, like VA, and like HUD.
  I support the chairman in the outstanding efforts in making sure that 
our manned space flight program is funded in this budget, particularly 
the space station.
  I do have some concerns about the provisions in this budget for VA 
medical care in my district as well as some concerns about senior 
housing. I believe that we will be able to address some of these issues 
in an upcoming amendment on this bill.
  However, I cannot overstate the importance that if we do not move 
toward a balanced budget, all of these crucial programs will no longer 
exist.
  I commend the chairman. I commend all the Republican Members as well 
as the Democrat Members on the other side of the aisle for working very 
hard to getting us toward that goal, that goal that has been so elusive 
for so 

[[Page H 7832]]
many years and years and years, up until this new Congress, of 
balancing our budget and moving our Nation toward a future of 
prosperity not only for the people alive today but as well for future 
generations that will not be inheriting bankruptcy.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today recognizing what we have 
to do regarding a sound fiscal policy.
  But I also rise to say that we must give hope to the homeless. We 
have some 600,000 individuals who are homeless at any given night, and 
these cuts specifically in Homeless Assistance would fall heaviest on 
the poorest Americans. A national sample found the average monthly 
household income among homeless persons was less than $200, regardless 
of household composition.
  Mr. Chairman, I am asking we give hope to the homeless. I would like 
to see more money added. I hope I will be able to offer an amendment 
that adds an additional $25 million to the homeless so they will not be 
hopeless.
  I think the key issue is investment. Are we investing in people so 
that they can make a difference in their lives?
  I think the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act supportive 
housing [SHP] funds for the homeless have been utilized successfully 
and productively. It provides the homeless with an opportunity to be 
housed, but at the same time it provides the homeless families with 
support services. In addition to this program, housing for those living 
with AIDS is vital. My local government and community in Houston found 
that those individuals suffering with AIDS can live in dignity if we 
provide them with support services and good housing.
  We are here today to give hope, Mr. Chairman, and I hope we will give 
hope to the homeless by providing them the opportunities to make a 
difference in their lives.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Bishop].
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this appropriations 
bill, VA, HUD. Cuts go too deeply. They have cut housing, veterans, 
space, environmental programs, HUD cut 23 percent, deepest cuts against 
the homeless people, funds for the elderly and disabled cut in half, 
operating expenses for improving public housing cut, elderly and low-
income people soon to become homeless, EPA cut 33 percent, the 
Superfund toxic waste sites cleanup cut a third, the State revolving 
loan funds for sewage treatment plants cut in half, no funds for safe 
drinking water loan fund, veterans cut $1 billion, almost, veterans 
medical care cut $250 million under request, VA administrative costs 
and construction costs $500 million below requests, no new veterans 
hospitals, services to veterans who are now receiving it, 916,000 of 
them will be cut, the President's National Service Program cut.

                              {time}  1315

  Cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts. We need to do something better than this. We 
need to send this bill back. This appropriation is insufficient, and I 
urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] 
for yielding this time to me. I rise to oppose H.R. 2099. The 
Republican majority finally has to reveal how they pay for $245 billion 
in tax cuts mostly for the wealthiest handful of Americans and who will 
get hurt. The hour of reckoning is here.
  Who gets hurt? Well, yesterday it was our neighborhoods which lost 
the certainty of security that more cops on the streets have given 
them. Today the victims of the Republican assault are the homeless and 
low-income families who lose billions in housing assistance. Today it 
is middle-class students who lose the opportunity to serve their 
country while paying for college. Today it is our cities and rural 
areas which lose millions in community development block grants. At a 
time when the majority is block-granting everything in sight, they 
choose to slash this effective, flexible block grant that was 
established 20 years ago by President Nixon. Today it is our 
environment that takes a hit. Clean water, clean air, safe drinking 
water, the cleanup of hazardous waste; all are hurt by this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, these are just a few examples of the harm done in a 
bill that at the same time preserves funding for the archaic Selective 
Service and gives billions to the space station. This bill typifies the 
Republicans' agenda: Slash funding for housing, education, training, 
and job creation for average Americans to finance tax cuts for the 
handful making over $100,000 a year.
  Vote against this bill.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump].
  (Mr. STUMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lewis] for the tremendous job he has done in crafting this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill and want to compliment 
subcommittee Chairman Lewis and Chairman Livingston of the full 
Appropriations Committee for their work on this measure.
  They have made some of the most difficult decisions to implement the 
budget resolution mandate to balance the Federal budget by the year 
2002.
  The bill reduces virtually every agency under its jurisdiction below 
last year's spending level except the VA.
  Compared to fiscal year 1995 spending levels, HUD is decreased 25 
percent, EPA 32 percent, NASA 5 percent.
  On the other hand, the bill puts VA's total spending levels slightly 
above 1995 rather than cutting it substantially.
  The bill fully funds the President's request in several areas, with 
spending over and above the fiscal year 1995 level.
  These include compensations for veterans with service-connected 
injuries, pensions for war-time veterans, education and training 
readjustment benefits, insurance programs, and the VA Home Loan 
Program.
  Major construction is not as much as last year because the bill does 
not fully fund the two new inpatient hospital construction projects in 
the administration's request.
  Medical research, which is very important to VA's ability to attract 
high-quality health care professionals, is funded at last year's level.
  The national cemetery system is funded at last year's level to 
maintain this important activity.
  I believe the cemetery system is in particular need of long-term 
attention because of demographic trends facing the veteran population.
  Between 1990 and the year 2010, the VA projects that the veterans 
population will decrease by about 7 million veterans, or 26 percent. 
Many of these veterans will desire to be buried in a national cemetery 
and the VA should be ready.
  The annual operating budget for the cemetery system, as well as grave 
site development in existing cemeteries, and establishment of new 
cemeteries should receive high priority than they are currently 
getting.
  I will continue to work closely with the Appropriations Committee and 
the VA to expand and improve our national cemeteries so that veterans 
may be accorded the last measure of dignity a grateful Nation can 
provide in recognition of service to country.
  H.R. 2099 increases VA medical care by $563 million. This is 75 
percent of the administration's requested increase, and puts VA medical 
care spending at $16.8 billion for fiscal year 1996.
  This increase has been accomplished through a combination of 
additional appropriated dollars and legislative savings which will 
probably not be possible again next year.
  The VA should use this year to prepare for tougher fiscal constraints 
through management initiatives such as the New Visions Networks and the 
North Chicago hospital example.
  Integrating VA medical centers and other health care facilities on a 
regional basis can eliminate or reduce duplication of capacity and 
administration.
  Recent testimony in the Committee on Veterans' Affairs by the 
Disabled American Veterans indicates that the North Chicago VA Medical 
Center has implemented an HMO-based model of health care delivery.
  Their experience apparently shows that since October of 1993, the 
number of veterans enrolled in their managed care plan increased 
fivefold.
  In less than 10 months, the number of acute days of hospital care per 
$1,000 enrollees fell by 85 percent.
  This was due to a reduction in the consumption of acute hospital 
resources due to 

[[Page H 7833]]
50 percent reduction in hospital stays; 90 percent reduction in the 
need for acute hospitalization for nursing home care unit patients; and 
98 percent reduction in acute hospitalization for detoxification 
resulting from a shift from inpatient medical evaluation of these 
patients to an outpatient medical evaluation.
  The facility was able to reduce from five to only two the number of 
acute hospital wards, representing a 63 percent reduction in beds.
  The medical center estimates that they have tripled their efficiency. 
Quality of care was maintained while their operating costs were reduced 
dramatically. It is projected that annual potential savings could 
exceed $15 million.
  Also, the realignment of services allowed for a reduction of 170 
full-time positions.
  If such projected savings and increased efficiencies prove out, this 
example should be duplicated as much as possible throughout the VA 
system.
  The VA should aggressively pursue initiatives which can help reduce 
fixed costs and overhead, so that funds can be shifted to delivery of 
health care and other services.
  The VA should eliminate or merge duplicative positions within the 
Veterans Health Administration and Veterans Benefits Administration 
bureaucracy in areas of procurement, personnel, logistics, EEO, 
administrative services, and finance.
  Such duplication is acutely apparent in the departments of Veterans 
Affairs organizations that are collocated or within networking 
proximities.
  The VA should also actively pursue privatizing service areas such as 
third party insurance collections, laundry services, food service, and 
computer software development and fire protection services.
  The department currently has a tremendous opportunity to reap savings 
by more proactively implementing the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
  The DOE recently published final rules for accelerating installation 
of energy conservation measures in existing federally owned buildings 
through energy saving performance contracts with the private sector.
  These contracts allow Federal agencies to contract for energy 
conservation equipment and services with performance guarantees, and 
pay for them in the future from resulting energy cost savings.
  This program could boost energy efficiency investment significantly 
beyond what can be purchased with appropriate funds.
  The VA can use those savings to help maintain services during tighter 
fiscal times.
  The Veterans' Affairs Committee will continue to explore proposals to 
increase VA's flexibility to provide health care at the most 
appropriate level and in the most cost effective way.
  Working within current budget constraints, we will pursue eligibility 
and health care delivery reform. We will also look for additional 
revenue sources for the VA health care system.
  I hope the VA will more aggressively pursue areas where it can save 
money to use for direct care rather than continuing to threaten closure 
of significant parts of the system.
  The VA should close its 22 golf courses and sell off all its excess 
land before closing any hospitals.
  The amount of money the VA receives each year is obviously critical 
to the amount of care which can be provided.
  But just as important is what the VA does with those dollars.
  Given a rapidly declining veterans population, the VA must improve 
strategic planning for its health care system, reevaluate 
infrastructure needs, enhance contracting and sharing agreements, and 
continue the shift away from expensive hospital inpatient care.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support the bill.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I would tell my colleagues that I have 
shared some of the serious reservations that others have expressed on 
this floor today with the bill as it was reported from the committee. 
But may I say to the chairman of the committee that, as a former 
ranking member of the HUD subcommittee, I was very concerned about the 
HUD budget and the housing for the poor and the homeless. Let me be 
clear there is no question that HUD was certainly primed and ready for 
significant reductions. It is badly in need of reform, and in fact I 
would like to say it is in need of reinvention.
  That having been said, may I say that I understand the problems that 
the committee had in reaching our budget targets, and they were 
enormous. But I, along with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], 
quickly went to our committee members to state our concerns, 
particularly the concerns for the senior citizens, and the disabled, 
and those AIDS sufferers that have been talked about. Certainly these 
are needy and vulnerable populations, and, more than that, for those of 
us who worked with HUD over the years and on these programs, we also 
know that these programs are not only among the most popular programs, 
but from my perspective among the most scandal-free and well-run 
programs in HUD, and so I was very pleased when Mr. Lewis, the 
subcommittee chairman and others on the committee were responsive to 
our concerns.
  We will talk a little bit more later about the manager's amendment, 
but I do want to say that many things have been corrected in this 
legislation. We have targeted with humaneness and sensitivity the 
problems that are most in need of reform and at the same time protected 
the concerns of the vulnerable populations.
  Compared to current funding levels, the bill deeply cuts 
appropriations for virtually every department and agency funded by the 
measure. Most significantly, the measure cuts funding for HUD by 25 
percent and EPA by 32 percent.
  While at the same time, the NASA budget is cut by a mere 5 percent--
assuming full funding of Congress' new sacred cow, the space station. 
This is despite the fact that continuous redefinition of the goals and 
designs have inflated the cost of this project more than $63 billion 
over budget before its completion. And despite the fact that after 11 
years, not one piece of hardware has been put into space for this 
project.
  As the former ranking minority member on the Housing Subcommittee, I 
was very concerned about the effects of the cuts in the HUD budget.
  Let me be clear, HUD was primed for significant reductions. It is 
badly in need of reform--significant reform. Indeed, reinvention.
  But as the bill was reported out of committee, the combined cut to 
the programs affecting seniors, disabled persons, and people with 
AIDS--those people with special needs was 47 percent, from $1,852 
billion in fiscal year 1995--prerecission--to $1 billion in fiscal year 
1996. These seniors, disabled and AIDS suffers, are among the most 
needy and vulnerable. And, I must stress these 202 and 206 programs are 
among the most popular and well run scandal free of all the programs 
under HUD jurisdiction.
  With that said, let me say that I recognize the difficult task that 
our members on the Appropriations Committee have before them. If we are 
to meet the goal of a balanced budget by 2002, we must make difficult 
decisions and significant changes in Federal spending.
  We must work to fund the programs that work well and perform 
essential service while beginning the process of reducing or 
eliminating programs that are repetitive or ineffective.
  For this reason, I will be supporting Chairman Lewis's amendment to 
H.R. 2099. This amendment addresses many of the concerns raised by both 
Chairman Lazio and me. Including, retaining the ceiling of 30 percent 
on the retail levels for public housing tenants.
  I share the concerns of some of my colleagues across the aisle about 
rent increases for residents of public housing. That's why I worked 
with Chairman Lazio of Housing Subcommittee to remove the suspension of 
the Brooke amendment and minimum rents for public housing. These 
changes will be adopted in the manager's amendment, and I urge my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to support the manager's 
amendment.
  In particular, the floor manager's amendment increases the total 
aggregate budget authority for HUD from $19.1 to $19.4 billion. This 
brings HUD to the post rescission fiscal year 1995 funding level.
  Special needs housing for the elderly, disabled, and persons with 
AIDS is increased from the 1995 post-rescission amount of $1 billion to 
$1.4 billion, and HUD homeless assistance programs are increased by 
$100 million.
  In addition, this amendment restores $70 million in budget authority 
for FHA multifamily credit subsidy. This $70 million is sufficient to 
meet current multifamily credit needs and provide funding authority for 
HUD and the authorizing committee to transition FHA's multifamily to a 
self-sustaining program.
  This amendment deserves the support of this House. The provisions 
included in this amendment make H.R. 2099 a better bill--one that I can 
support.

[[Page H 7834]]

  Nevertheless, I must also note my reservations and deep concerns over 
the funding levels and the legislative language and prohibitions on the 
enforcement abilities of the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. I 
welcome the full and open debate we will engage in during the 
amendments offered by Sherwood Boehlert and others.
  The CHAIRMAN. There are 3\1/2\ minutes remaining on each side.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Visclosky].
  (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
fiscal year 1996 VA-HUD appropriations bill. This bill is a polluters' 
bonanza.
  Our environment is cleaner today not because individual businesses 
decided to put themselves at a competitive disadvantage and stop 
polluting. The air we breath and the water we drink is cleaner today 
because Congress passed Federal laws, which leveled the playing field 
for businesses and mandated a cleaner environment.
  Instead of building on this success and fine tuning our environmental 
laws, the Republican majority is bent on taking us back to the good old 
days of little or no environmental regulation. Let me tell you about 
the good old days. The good old days resulted in six declared superfund 
sites in my tiny northwest Indiana district. In the Black Oak section 
of Gary the water was so toxic that the residents couldn't drink it or 
even water their plants without killing them. In the good old days, a 
northwest Indiana river stopped flowing because it was clogged with 
animal carcasses. Why does the Republican majority want to take us back 
to the good old days?
  If a regulation is silly we should end it. It a law is wrong we 
should change it. But we must not roll back years of environmental 
progress.
  Consider the drastic cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency. 
This agency, whose sole purpose is to protect public health and improve 
the living conditions of American citizens, will take a cut of 34 
percent--the biggest reduction by far for any major agency! But this 
Republican bill does not stop there--it also contains 17 legislative 
riders all aimed at curtailing or eliminating the EPA's ability to set 
environmental standards or enforce regulations that are aimed at 
protecting public health. What's the point of giving the EPA two-thirds 
of its funding when you prohibit its enforcement of our laws in the 
same bill?
  Upon closer examination of the vicious assaults upon the EPA, Mr. 
Chairman, I urge the House to oppose this bill.
  The VA-HUD bill cuts funding of hazardous waste site cleanup by 33 
percent, or $560 million. Does the Republican Party believe this waste 
is just going to disappear? If we slow the cleanup by cutting funding, 
it will cost us more later. Furthermore, one in four Americans lives 
near a toxic waste dump. Are we helping the citizens of this Nation by 
allowing the perpetuation of hazardous filth? Absolutely not.
  The VA-HUD bill slashes enforcement of all environmental programs by 
almost 50 percent. By cutting $245 million of the funds that enforce 
those laws, the Republican majority's proposal severely limits 
enforcement of the protections Americans demand and deserve--and 
encourages polluters to continue breaking the law. Moreover, the 
cutback unfairly penalizes the thousands of companies that have 
invested in pollution controls and played by the rules to protect our 
health and our environment.
  It gets worse, ladies and gentlemen. For, the VA-HUD bill sharply 
limits citizens' right to know about toxics released in their own 
community. By slashing funds used to provide American communities with 
information about toxic chemicals being emitted in local areas, 
citizens will be left in the dark. Toxic emissions don't understand 
property lines. People should have access to information about the 
toxics that are being emitted into their air, and harmful substances 
are polluting their streams. Thinking along practical lines, emergency 
workers need this information as well. If an environmental catastrophe 
were to occur in your community, would you feel safe with any less than 
the full information?
  And what about the housing provisions in this bill. It targets its 
deepest cuts at vulnerable populations: the poorest residents in public 
and assisted housing, the homeless, poor and working families and the 
elderly.
  The Department of Housing and Urban Development has been slashed by 
25 percent. HUD assists 4.7 million households living in public housing 
and receiving section 8 rental assistance. Of these households, 36 
percent are elderly. Encompassing housing assistance for the elderly, 
HUD's Special Needs Housing program took an $852 million cut! Is this 
the Republican's moral mandate--to abandon our senior citizens and 
their need for decent, affordable housing?
  In my district, Merrillville, IN is lucky to be the home of the AHEPA 
House, a section 8 apartment complex that serves senior citizens. More 
than 100 elderly people are on AHEPA's waiting list.
  Recently, the AHEPA House was able to afford an expansion. There will 
be 50 new units opening up in September. Calls requesting applications 
for those 50 units have been coming in from Indiana, Illinois and 
Michigan. So far, almost 150 people have applied for these 50 units. 
One hundred senior citizens are going to have to be turned away.
  When I recently spoke with AHEPA staff about the crisis, I was told 
they were extremely concerned. One staff member spoke of those on the 
waiting list, ``I don't know how some of these people even eat,'' she 
said. Calls come in to AHEPA house every day asking for help.
  If this bill passes, Congress will be sending a clear response to 
those calls for help. It comes in the form of a $852 million cut to the 
section 8 Special Needs Housing program.
  I urge a return to decency. Are we to turn our backs on senior 
citizens who are barely able to get a roof above their heads while 
majority in this House finances a tax cut for the wealthiest in 
society? Of course not.
  This legislation is a travesty and a danger to the American people. 
Public health is threatened. Pollution is encouraged. Housing is 
denied. The elderly are abandoned. Let's stop these irresponsible and 
indecent proposals that hurt American citizens.
  Join me in opposition to this Republican bill and join me in a vote 
for the American people.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
our time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 3\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, first I want to express my 
appreciation for the cooperation of the Members dealing with this very, 
very difficult bill. We have had within our allocation great difficulty 
in dividing up these accounts in a way that is equitable to all. There 
is little question that everyone who is used to government continuing 
to grow is most disconcerted by the effort to reduce those historical 
levels of growth.
  Nonetheless, let me address two basic subject areas of this bill. I 
want to make sure that it is clear in the Record that, while we have 
been through some very difficult times with housing, we have had great 
cooperation from the key members from the authorizing committee in 
connection with the way we have distributed these funds. It is a fact 
that housing accounts have increased by 50 percent in the last 4 years, 
so there is some room for flexibility as we address those problems.
  In terms of actual spending in the 1996 year, the outlays for housing 
will actually increase over 1995. Those programs will have both time 
and a good deal of flexibility in terms of responding to the future 
pattern that we hope to see in these accounts.
  Beyond that, I want to mention to my colleagues that the one account 
within this bill that has been treated differently than all others has 
to do with Veterans Administration medical services. There is an 
increase of some $553 million over the 1995 outlay account for medical 
services. The House has indicated its concern about making sure that we 
do not have cuts in medical services available to our veterans.
  As my colleagues look throughout the bill, while there is very, very 
tough decisions that have been made, there is little doubt that the 
membership has helped the committee a great deal to make sure that we 
have treated each of these responsibilities as fairly as possible.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis], and also the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], 
and my colleagues the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen] for 
their help in correcting a FEMA problem in my district as part of this 
legislation. I also appreciate the need for belt-

[[Page H 7835]]
tightening as identified by the chairman, but I must point out that the 
Environmental Protection Agency, I believe, is treated too harshly in 
this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill contains about eight pages of provisos 
limiting the EPA's ability to improve, implement, and enforce 
regulations related to the environment and particularly with regard to 
the Clean Water Act that passed this House, which I opposed. If it does 
become law, this legislation would attempt to accomplish much of its 
negative impact through the appropriation process.
  Just as examples: If the Clean Water Act was not reauthorized by 
October 1 of 1996, funds are not available or are limited under this 
bill for implementation or enforcement of the stormwater permitting 
process, enforcement of permit limits or compliance schedules for 
combined sewer overflows or sanitary sewer overflows. There is also 
cutback in implementation in enforcement of the wetlands programs and 
pretreatment standards.
  For these reasons, unless some of the amendments are passed by the 
ranking member, I would oppose.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio for 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, let me in closing say once again how 
disappointing it is for me to have to vote against this particular 
bill. It is a bill that, as I said earlier, in the last Congress I took 
a great deal of pride in bringing to the floor, and it was a bill which 
I felt was responsive to the Nation's priorities at that time. 
Unfortunately I do not feel that this bill is currently responsive to 
our needs, and, therefore, I must oppose the bill.
  But also in closing, a lot of comments have been made with reference 
to what has been done for veterans, and I just want to cite some of the 
statements that have come to us by way of letters.
  ``We strongly oppose any action by the Committee on Appropriations to 
make substantive changes to laws authorizing veterans benefits''--the 
Blinded Veterans Association.
  The Vietnam Veterans of America say ``We like to see an appropriation 
bill that provides for medical research, and running the Veterans' 
Administration at the levels recommended by the President. There is 
room for change, but we cannot accept substantive changes in the 
veterans benefits laws being made by the appropriations committees.''
  I can go on and cite the American Legion's response, the Paralyzed 
Veterans of America response, all of whom are not satisfied with this 
bill as it appears now.
  As I said earlier, the President has indicated that unless this bill 
is changed substantively from its current form, that he intends to veto 
the bill. I think the best thing Members of this House can do is vote 
down the bill.
  Mr. FILNER: Mr. Chairman, I rise today to alert you to a matter of 
utmost importance. Many of you know of the large number of veterans 
residing in California, and especially in my congressional district.
  I am committed to seeing that we do not abandon our veterans, 
especially those who are in need of care--ranging from moderate care in 
assisted-living situations to full nursing home care. These veterans, 
who have sacrificed so much for our Nation, deserve to have their 
country come through for them when they need help.
  Last October, the California Governor's Task Force selected a site in 
Chula Vista, CA as their top choice for a proposed home for military 
veterans. This is an excellent site, given the large number of veterans 
in Chula Vista and the nearby community of National City. This site is 
near Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center and within a 20 minute drive to 
the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in La Jolla, CA. 
Close to the waterfront and located in a stable community, this home 
will provide southern California veterans with the care they need and 
deserve. It will also create 250 to 300 permanent jobs for this region.
  The construction of this home depends in part upon funding from the 
Federal Government. The State of California will fund 35 percent of the 
cost--the State assembly has passed the appropriations for this project 
and the bill is now pending in the State senate. The State will soon be 
applying to the Federal Government for the remainder of the funding--
and I intend to fight to insure that this funding is available.
  This money will come from the line item, grants for construction of 
State extended care facilities, in the Federal Veterans' Health 
Administration construction budget.
  I am here today to advocate for our veterans. We must never forget 
their service to our country. We must remain steadfast in our support 
as they grow older.
  I am as committed as anyone to balancing our Federal budget, but not 
on the backs of our veterans. I urge my colleagues to keep the promise 
to our veterans during these budget deliberations and vote to retain 
the State home construction program funding. Our veterans deserve no 
less.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from 
California, the chairman of the subcommittee for his willingness to 
increase the funding for the special needs account. If the HOPWA 
Program funds remained at the level reported by the Appropriations 
Committee, it would have resulted in significant program cuts for New 
York City.
  Homelessness would have surely increased for people living with HIV 
infection. This limitation on funding would have delayed the release of 
homeless inpatients and prevented individuals and families from moving 
out of housing that is no longer adequate to the health status of a 
person with AIDS. Fortunately, because of the compromise that you 
reached with my good friend from Long Island, Mr. Lazio, New York City 
has been spared these serious program reductions. I want to complement 
you Mr. Chairman and all of my colleagues, Mr. Shays, Mr. Schumer, and 
Ms. Lowey, who have been worked so hard to develop a positive solution 
for restoring the HOPWA funds.
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The bill before us places many vital services such as housing, 
veterans benefits, and environmental protection on life support. The 
amendment seeks to sustain some of these important programs through a 
transfusion. Unfortunately, the transfusion is inadequate and is not 
sufficient to bring about a full recovery. In the process, a program no 
less meritorious than those the amendment seeks to protect will perish.
  This is the 19th vote on the space station program. The station has 
been studied and redesigned to death. We are less than 30 months away 
from deployment--enough is enough.
  As if terminating the space station was not enough, the amendment 
reduces funding for NASA an additional 20 percent below the level the 
President requested and severely threatens the viability of the space 
shuttle program. The loss of these two programs will result in the loss 
of more than 50,000 jobs and countless dreams.
  Over the last 2 years, NASA has managed to keep the birds flying 
while absorbing a 30-percent cut. Frankly, I consider that a phenomenal 
feat. Dan Goldin and the men and women at NASA deserve our gratitude 
and appreciation for their hard work. But, the truth is Dan Goldin has 
run out of miracles. NASA simply cannot handle any more major 
programmatic cuts. There is no more water in the well.
  So, although I am sympathetic to the gentleman's efforts to correct 
the deficiencies in the bill, I do not agree with his method. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 2099, the VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations bill.
  As vice chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am especially 
pleased that, under this bill, the VA will experience a $159 million 
increase over fiscal year 1995's levels. The Appropriations Committee 
is to be commended for asserting that, even in these times of fiscal 
restraint, our Nation's veterans deserve quality health care and 
equitable compensation for their service to our country.
  The VA's medical care account will be increased by over half a 
billion dollars from last year. The compensation and pension program 
will see a $23 million increase from fiscal year 1995. Funding for 
readjustment benefits, which assists former service members in getting 
acclimated to civilian life, will increase over $50 million.
  Mr. Speaker, New Jersey's veterans will be greatly assisted by this 
appropriations bill. Included in the funding for minor construction 
projects are two programs--a geriatric patient care program at the 
Lyons VAMC and a low vision center at the East Orange VAMC--which will 
bring immediate relief to thousands of New Jersey veterans who 
previously were forced to travel out of State for these types of care.
  I will be working with Veteran's Affairs Chairman Stump to ensure 
that report language endorsing these initiatives--along with an 
outpatient cancer chemotherapy center at the East Orange VAMC--is 
included in our construction authorization bill to be marked up later 
this year.
  I have also been working with the New Jersey Department of Military 
and Veterans Affairs in an attempt to secure funding for a replacement 
State nursing home located in 

[[Page H 7836]]
Menlo Park, NJ. We have gone through a grueling application process and 
are encouraged that Menlo Park will be at or near the top of a priority 
list of deserving applicants. Because the Appropriations Committee 
funded the Grants for Construction of State Extended Care Facilities 
Program at last year's equitable level, we can be assured that 
sufficient funds will be available to fully fund those projects deemed 
most worthy.
  I would like to thank Chairman Lewis for all his hard work on this 
spending bill. It is fair to veterans, while still being mindful of the 
Nation's fiscal realities.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to cuts in the 
Public Housing Drug Elimination Program which are part of the 
Appropriations bill for Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban 
Development, and Independent Agencies.
  The bill reduces funding for the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development by $5.6 billion, or 23 percent below the 1995 level. It 
cuts funding for important programs which have important and beneficial 
impacts on the lives of many elderly and low-income Americans. I cannot 
turn my back on these people, so I want to bring some facts about these 
programs to the attention of the House.
  While all Members of the House would claim to be opposed to the sale 
and use of illegal drugs, funding for the Public Housing Drug 
Elimination Program is zeroed-out in this bill. This program funds 
effective locally-run efforts to eliminate drugs. It is a key tool to 
help local housing authorities combat crime in public housing 
communities in Massachusetts and through-out the country.
  The Drug Elimination Program received $290 million in fiscal year 
1995. This money is used to fight drug distribution and abuse by 
reimbursing local law enforcement agencies, by employing security 
personnel and investigators, by providing physical improvements 
designed to enhance security, and by supporting tenant patrol groups. 
Along with making communities safer, it also funds the creation of 
innovative youth programs, offering young people and adults positive 
alternatives to drug use.
  This money is a very cost-effective expenditure. The costs of drug 
use include higher security and law enforcement costs, a lower quality 
of life, lower educational attainment, and higher healthcare costs. 
Compared to the terrible costs which drug use imposes upon individuals 
and communities, this program is a bargain, and it is essential.
  In my district, several housing authorities were recipients of drug 
elimination funds in 1995, including Medford ($240,000), Chelsea 
($175,000), Woburn ($50,000), and Malden ($250,000). The end of funding 
for these programs would significantly hamper efforts to lessen drug 
use and improve the quality of life in these communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I call upon the House to put taxpayers' money where 
their commitments are, and to continue funding for the Drug Elimination 
Program. The House recently funded $553 million as the down payment to 
build two additional B-2 bombers that the Pentagon didn't ask for or 
want. Let's stop wasting money on unwanted planes and start saving 
wasted lives.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
bill.
  The Republicans have once again adopted a paint-by-numbers strategy 
to reach their arbitrary deficit reduction target and finance a tax 
break for wealthy special interests.
  How simple is their strategy? Remarkably simple. And remarkably 
cruel.
  Draw a line through those programs that help the poor, the needy, and 
the less fortunate. Slash your way across the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, until you 
reach the Environmental Protection Agency.
  Along the way, strike a crippling blow against housing programs that 
provide affordable, safe, and decent housing for the elderly, the poor, 
and the sick.
  When you're painting by numbers, when your goal is driven by numbers, 
not by people, it's easy to pursue your goal with abandon.
  I would like to take this opportunity to remind my Republican 
colleagues that behind those numbers are real human beings, living real 
lives, and struggling to get by in tough times.
  A great number of the public housing units in this country are 
occupied by elderly women. And over a million of our children--of 
America's children--live in public housing units. For many of these 
kids, just about the only thing they can depend on, from day to day, is 
a place to go home to at night.
  This bill slashes public housing operating subsidies and 
modernization funds. The bill eliminates--obliterates--funding for 
severely distressed public housing and development, in addition to new 
housing vouchers and certificates for the poor.
  If you're homeless, forget it. The Republicans have decided to paint 
you out of the picture, cutting homeless assistance grants by 50 
percent.
  The Republican approach is really very simple. They shake your hand 
and direct your attention to the magnificent prize behind curtain No. 
3. When you turn your head, they reach around and pick your pocket.
  Hundreds of thousands of families who depend on section 8 assisted 
housing will get their pockets picked if this bill passes. At least 
600,000 families in public and section 8 assisted housing will pay more 
every month in rent unless we reject this bill.
  While we debate these cuts, I urge my colleagues to remember that 
this week marks a particularly poignant moment. Today, we will dedicate 
a monument to the veterans of the Korean war.
  There are few Americans more deserving of our support than these 
veterans, and the veterans of our wars of the last half-century.
  Yet, the Republican bill cuts $250 million from veterans medical care 
and zeroes-out funding for a replacement VA hospital in Northern 
California that was to service a veterans population of over 400,000 
men and women. These cuts are unwise and break a promise that Congress 
made to Northern California veterans 4 years ago.
  Without adequate support, the VA will simply be unable to meet the 
increasing demand for health services as our veterans population ages.
  Once again, the Republican's have enacted wholesale change that will 
significantly decrease the quality of life for millions of Americans.
  The Republicans profess to have our long-term interests at stake, but 
their actions--in this case--speak loudly and clearly.
  This bill not only risks the health of our veterans, but the health 
and safety of all Americans.
  Unable to eliminate the EPA, my Republican colleagues have done their 
level best to cripple this agency and eviscerate programs that ensure 
every American has access to safe drinking water, clean air, and a 
toxic-free environment.
  This bill cuts the EPA budget by one-third, hazardous waste cleanup 
programs by 30 percent, and funds for wastewater treatment facilities 
by 25 percent.
  Perhaps most devastating is the legislative language in this bill 
that would prohibit the EPA from taking action to clean our 
environment. These include restrictions on the EPA's ability to 
regulate sewer systems, wetlands, refineries, oil and gas 
manufacturing, radon in water, pesticides in processed food, lead paint 
and water pollution.
  Some very important programs--such as the Sacramento River Pollutant 
Control Program--have been funded in this bill. With this funding, 
Sacramento County will be able to complete the process of identifying 
which pollutants exceed water quality standards. Once this is 
accomplished, the county can develop a feasible, cost-effective plan to 
address the problem of pollution in the Sacramento River.
  While this critical program has been funded, hundreds of others 
around the country have not.
  The Sacramento River Pollutant Control Program is a step in the right 
direction. But it does not begin to make up for the hundreds of steps 
back in this bill.
  All of us have been asked to make sacrifices to help balance the 
Federal budget. We are prepared to make those sacrifices. But no one--
not one American--should have to sacrifice decent living conditions or 
a clean environment to finance a tax-break for Republican special 
interests.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong 
opposition to H.R. 2099, the Department of Veterans' Affairs [VA], 
Housing and Urban Development [HUD] and Independent Agencies 
appropriations bill. This short-sighted legislation is a devastating 
attack on low-income Americans, seniors, veterans and disabled 
individuals. It drastically cuts worthwhile housing programs, does not 
provide adequate funding for veterans' programs, completely eliminates 
AmeriCorps, and is one of the most blatant attacks I have ever seen on 
our most comprehensive environmental laws. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to reject this bill.
  First, with respect to HUD programs, funding levels for the current 
fiscal year do not meet the current demand and will force people to 
live in substandard housing or worse yet get thrown out on the street. 
That's not only bad policy but it's mean.
  Further, I am disappointed that the bill consolidates accounts for 
special needs housing such as assistance for low-income seniors, 
disabled individuals and people with AIDS [HOPWA]. This consolidation 
would have been more tolerable had the funding level been set at the FY 
95 aggregate amount. But it doesn't. In fact, H.R. 2099 reduces this 
funding by 46% compared to FY 95. The measure also eliminates the 
important congregate services program. Simply put this is mean.
  But the Republicans did not stop there. H.R. 2099 reduces funding 
from the current fiscal 

[[Page H 7837]]
year for the modernization of existing public housing projects, 
seriously affecting capital improvement projects at many public housing 
authorities, in my district and across the country. Many of these 
facilities were built nearly 40 years ago and are beginning to fall 
into disrepair. This is mean and bad economics.
  Second, it saddens me to think that AmeriCorps is being abolished. 
This program accomplishes what many in Congress have been calling for: 
federal money directed to local communities without interference from 
Washington. It taps into the desire of many young people to have a 
positive impact on their community by encouraging them to volunteer in 
education, environment, poverty and public safety programs.
  Detractors say that the government shouldn't be in the business of 
supporting charities. AmeriCorps is far from a charity: the 
participants earn scholarship money to further their education. Others 
say that paid volunteers will undermine the spirit of volunteerism in 
the United States. The truth is, these young adults are paid only a 
small stipend. It is foolish to think that the AmeriCorps participants 
are doing this for
 monetary gain. In addition, many charities have fallen on hard times 
and are only too glad to have the help of these ``paid'' volunteers.

  All this, however, disregards the basic idea of AmeriCorps: 
Encouraging national service at the grassroots level. Killing 
AmeriCorps will have a minuscule impact on the effort to balance the 
budget, but it will also kill the enthusiasm the program was designed 
to inspire in young Americans.
  Third, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has long been the 
target of polluters and their allies in Congress. I'll be the first to 
admit that the Agency has often been inflexible in its approach and too 
ready to restore to heavy-handed tactics. At the same time, I believe 
Administrator Carol Browner has instituted many internal reforms which 
have made the Agency more ``user-friendly'' while effectively carrying 
out its obligations to protect our environment and public health. I 
strongly believe that the Administrator has been responsive to 
Congressional mandates and requests. In spite of these actions, the 
bill before us is a vicious attack on the Agency, its mission and its 
personnel. And make no mistake about it, this measure is a threat to 
every American because it will compromise water and air quality, 
prevent hazardous waste cleanups and allow polluters to violate the law 
as long as they let states know they are doing it.
  The cuts in EPA are devastating. The bill provides $2.35 billion less 
than the current fiscal year and $2.5 billion less than requested. 
Compliance and enforcement programs are slashed by nearly $460 million 
below FY 1995 and by $884 million below the request. These cuts will 
prevent the Agency from effectively enforcing the Clean Air and Water 
Acts, Safe Drinking Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
(RCRA), the Community Right-to-Know Act and many other environmental 
statutes. The report accompanying the bill makes it clear to this 
member that these massive cuts are designed to punish the Agency for 
carrying out its duties in a manner which is at odds with the vision of 
some of my colleagues. If members have problems with the direction of 
the Agency or wish to attempt to amend our environmental laws, they 
should utilize the authorization process to effect these changes. H.R. 
2099 is an inappropriate vehicle to attempt to make major policy 
changes.
  The bill makes deep cuts in the Superfund program. I do not believe a 
single member of this body, including this member, would argue that 
Superfund is flawless. I agree with many of my colleagues that we must 
reform this important program to reduce litigation, to direct more 
resources to cleanup and to set some parameters which link cleanup 
standards to future land uses. However, slashing funding by more than 
$400 million below the current level and prohibiting actions at new 
sites is not the best way to accomplish reform. This action is more 
akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face. This action also 
poses a real threat to human health because it
 prohibits the Agency or a contractor at a site to move beyond the 
stage of work in which the entity is engaged at the beginning of the 
fiscal year. Under these restrictions, the Agency or contractor would 
be prohibited from beginning to remediate a site if it was not in that 
phase of the process when the fiscal year begins. This limitation makes 
no sense. The most important goal of Superfund is to physically clean 
up sites and we should do everything we can to ensure that remediation 
moves forward as quickly as possible. If sites are on the cusp of being 
cleaned up but aren't, the American people have no one to blame but the 
Republicans on the Committee who wrote this bill.

  In addition, the bill provides all funding for the program from the 
Treasury rather than from the Superfund which is largely capitalized by 
fees assessed on chemical manufacturers and on petroleum products as 
well as by revenue from settlements with polluters. The Committee has 
done this because some members of this body want to transform Superfund 
from a polluter-pays statute to a taxpayer-pays statute. This 
transformation will take place by doing away with retroactive liability 
and requiring every American to pay to clean up sites contaminated by a 
small number of companies or parties. While it might be appropriate to 
repeal retroactive liability under certain circumstances, this policy 
change must be carefully evaluated through the authorization process. 
The funding arrangement required by this bill effectively makes 
Superfund a public works project in fiscal year 1996. This change is 
designed to let polluters off the hook and will shift the costs of 
cleaning up every Superfund site from those responsible for the 
contamination to the taxpayers.
  Nothing is more important to our survival than clean water. The 
American people in poll after poll have expressed their overwhelming 
support for the Clean Water Act (CWA) and for directing their tax 
dollars to ensuring our nation's waters are clean and safe. 
Unfortunately, this bill falls far short of the expectations of the 
American people. The bill provides $761 million less for water 
infrastructure projects than the current level. As a result, 
communities across the country will not be able to upgrade or build new 
sewage treatment plants. Modern sewage treatment can be credited with 
improving water quality in more communities than virtually any other 
measure. While we have made tremendous progress since the enactment of 
the CWA, the states have estimated that they have in excess of $130 
billion in sewage treatment projects outstanding. Investing in these 
projects makes good environmental, public health and economic sense. 
However, the Committee bill fails to provide adequate federal 
investment in this vital area. My state of Connecticut estimates that 
it will lose $9 million in assistance from the CWA State Revolving 
Fund. As a result, the state will be forced to abandon several major 
sewage treatment plant upgrades or many smaller ones. This is a lose-
lose proposition for my constituents and one with which they shouldn't 
be faced with.
  In addition, the Committee eliminates all funding to support drinking 
water
 treatment grants. Millions of Americans continue to drink, and 
continue to get sick and die from drinking contaminated water. We don't 
know exactly how many Americans become sick each year because many 
people believe they have the stomach flu rather than attribute their 
illness to tainted water. Many of the problems with drinking water 
contamination can be traced to thousands for small water systems which 
serve millions of Americans largely in rural areas. These systems do 
not have the rate base to purchase modern treatment technology or to 
adequately protect source waters. In fiscal year 1995, the Congress 
provided $700 million to capitalize the Safe Drinking Water State 
Revolving Fund, similar to the existing State Revolving Fund, to 
provide assistance to communities to improve and develop water 
treatment systems. This revolving funds would be most beneficial to the 
small systems I mentioned above. Instead of investing in improving the 
health of millions of rural Americans, the committee eliminated all 
funding for this important initiative. This is action that adds insult 
to injury coming on the heals of the Republican rescission package 
which took back more than $1 billion provided for this purpose.

  These accounts support activities which have direct impacts on public 
health and environmental protection. The American people want their 
resources to be spent to improve sewage treatment or to ensure that 
drinking water is free from harmful contaminants such as 
cryptosporidium. Moreover, these accounts provide assistance to 
communities and systems which have great needs, but lack the tax or 
rate base to pay the full costs associated with these needs. Finally, 
this is not a Federal giveaway. States must contribute their own 
dollars and many States, including my State of Connecticut, contribute 
far more than required by law. Federal support helps to ensure that 
every community can have safe water. Moreover, it guarantees that 
communities which invest their own resources do not have those 
investments compromised by communities upstream which cannot, or do 
not, invest in these areas. This is yet another example of the 
counterproductive cuts contained in numerous appropriations bills being 
brought to the floor this year.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this bill is loaded down with 17 ``riders'' 
which prohibit the EPA from enforcing some of the most important 
sections of the Clean Air, Water, Safe Drinking Water and Community 
Right-to-Know Acts. By including these far-reaching provisions, the 
committee wins the award for legislating in an appropriations bill. 
Make no mistake about it, these riders are legislative provisions and 
are not simply spending restrictions. In fact, Chairman Lewis referred 
to these riders as ``legislative provisions'' in a story about this 
bill in today's Congress Daily. Every American is threatened by the 
restrictions imposed in the provisions in question. Under the committee 


[[Page H 7838]]
bill, the EPA will not be able to enforce standards to curb nonpoint 
source pollution, to stem the discharge of raw sewage, to limit arsenic 
and radon in drinking water, or to ensure that communities are fully 
informed about the toxic chemicals which are released in the air.
  I believe these provisions are detrimental to the interests of the 
American people and have been included at the behest of narrow special 
interests. In spite of overwhelming evidence that runoff from city 
streets, parking lots, and feed lots is the largest remaining water 
pollution problem, the bill prohibits EPA from enforcing standards to 
reduce contamination from these sources. Regardless of the fact that 
raw sewage is routinely discharged from storm drains nationwide 
following heavy rains, the Agency is barred from enforcing standards 
which will substantially reduce this public health threat. In a major 
blow to States like mine, which have taken aggressive steps to improve 
air quality, the bill allows questionable vehicle inspection programs 
to be given equal weight with centralized inspection programs. 
Moreover, it prevents the enforcement of certain rules which limit 
toxic chemical emissions into our air. These Clean-Air-Act-related 
provisions are especially egregious for Connecticut which is a dumping 
ground for air pollution generated in Western States. While certain 
States and their Representatives in Congress are decrying the alleged 
burdens imposed by the act and inserting provisions into this bill to 
delay their enforcement, these provisions will force residents in my 
State to endure very real burdens from western polluters.
  I could go on and on about the harmful effects of these riders. I 
could go on to talk about how the bill prohibits the EPA from issuing 
standards designed to limit the amount of arsenic in drinking water. 
That's right Mr. Chairman, arsenic. Suffice it to say, these provisions 
are extremely damaging and represent a calculated attack on 
environmental protection. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment 
of the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Stokes, and the gentleman from New 
York, Mr. Boehlert, to strike each and every rider from the bill. 
Policy changes of this magnitude should be addressed in the authorizing 
committees and in clear view of the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, members should defeat this legislation. While I 
understand the need to balance the budget and reduce the deficit, this 
bill is no answer. This bill would hurt veterans, seniors, disabled 
individuals, and low-income families. Further, it is bad for the 
environment, public health, and the economy. It makes sweeping changes 
in our most fundamental environmental protection laws completely 
outside of the authorization process.
  If the House passes this bill as reported by the committee, we might 
as well do away with authorizing committees and turn everything over to 
the Appropriations Committee. Passing this bill will set a terrible 
procedent.
  Simply stated, this bill is mean, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, during the course of the debate on this 
bill, I have heard several of my colleagues imply that as far as this 
Nation's investment in biomedical research is concerned, we should 
cancel the space station and just dump the money into similar research 
activities at the National Institutes of Health [NIH]. What this kind 
of suggestion tells me is that the nature of NASA's program of 
biomedical research and its collaboration with the NIH is woefully 
misunderstood. I'd like to take this opportunity, therefore, to 
highlight briefly the intellectual underpinning of NASA's program of 
biomedical research and the nature of the collaboration between NASA 
and the NIH.
  On Earth, we are prisoners of gravity. Gravity influences all life on 
Earth. Gravity influences the behavior of everything--from single-
celled organisms to rocks, plants, and ships at sea--on the surface of 
this small blue planet. When we fall, we fall down. We stay attached to 
the chairs in our offices because of the constant pull of gravity. In 
the plant world, roots grown down. Even in our own bodies, our hearts 
have to work harder when we stand than when we're lying down. Try as 
hard as I might, I can't even begin to imagine what life would be like 
on Earth without gravity.
  So, too, gravity has influenced and shaped the development of all 
life on Earth for millions of years, ever since life on Earth began 
some 3\1/2\ billion years ago.
  In space, there is very little gravity. This radically different 
environment is sometimes referred to as ``zero-g,'' or, more 
accurately, microgravity. For researchers in the field of biomedicine, 
this is an essential distinction, for the microgravity environment of 
space allows them to unmask gravity and to see, in many cases, for the 
first time, deeply into the physical, chemical, and biological 
processes which were previously obscured by gravity. Thus, thanks to 
our space program, for the first time in the history of humankind, 
scientists can manipulate gravity by decreasing its force as well as 
increasing it. This allows us to manipulate a primary force in nature 
in a way that promises to lead to radical new scientific discoveries 
about life on Earth.
  This new capacity provides the intellectual underpinning of the 
relationship between NIH and NASA, and is the reason that thousands of 
life and biomedical scientists across the Nation want to conduct a 
portion of their research in space.
  Over the past 2 years, many researchers at the National Institutes of 
Health [NIH] have expressed excitement over discoveries in the field of 
biomedicine. NIH scientists and NASA scientists have worked together on 
these problems since the days of the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo space 
flight programs. Nearly 3 years ago, this partnership was formalized 
between NASA and the NIH for space biomedical research scientists.
  Today, this partnership is thriving. NASA and the NIH have executed 
18 cooperative agreements since 1992 and joint activities have 
included: scientific workshops; ground-based and flight investigations; 
and other specialized activities, such as a spaceline reference system 
developed with the National Library of Medicine [NLM].
  As the world's premier organization in life and biomedical sciences, 
the NIH has access to the world's best biomedical scientists, who need 
a variety of laboratory resources. NASA's biomedical research program 
maintains and develops a rich supply of unique and specialized 
resources, including laboratories and access to the
 weightless environment of space. Thus, cooperation between the two 
agencies strengthens the performance of each and helps to ensure the 
highest possible return on America's investment in biomedical research.

  Cooperation between NASA and the National Institutes of Health has 
expanded rapidly as the research community's understanding of the value 
of orbital research has grown. This cooperation expands access to NASA 
facilities and resources to a broader community of the world's finest 
research scientists. Cooperation between these two premier Federal 
science agencies leverages NASA's unique facilities, including orbital 
facilities, to produce the maximum return on America's investment in 
biomedical research.
  Collaborative partners in space research, NASA and the NIH look 
forward to an expanding level of cooperation as orbital research enters 
the space station era. NIH researchers are expected to use the Space 
Station's next generation life sciences facilities, including the human 
research facility, the gravitational biology facility, and the 
centrifuge facility, in pursuit of national biomedical research goals.
  Let me take this opportunity to share some specific examples of this 
thriving partnership with you.
  Neurolab, NASA's next dedicated life sciences space shuttle mission, 
will carry investigations funded by five different institutes of NIH. 
NIH's Division of Research Grants managed the scientific peer review 
for all neurolab proposals. Neurolab will be launched on the space 
shuttle in March, 1998 and will support research in the brain and 
behavioral sciences.
  The National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders 
[NIDCD] and NASA are co-funding a Center on Vestibular Research and 
Training at the Northwestern University Medical School with research 
sites in Chicago, Il, and Portland, Or. Each agency is funding this 
center at $500,000 a year.
  Dr. Josh Zimmerberg of the NIH National Institute for Child Health 
and Human Development is using NASA-developed bioreactors and NASA-
funded resident technical staff to pursue AIDS research goals under a 
1994-1998 NASA-NIH joint venture.
  NASA and the National Cancer Institute have developed a joint program 
to apply NASA developed digital imaging technology to improve early 
diagnosis for breast cancer. Digital mammography will be more sensitive 
than the current procedures.
  The National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 
Diseases has released a program announcement for supplements to its 
Osteoporosis Centers for research related to space flight.
  The point I'm trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that the NASA-NIH 
relationship is not one of competition--it's one of collaboration. 
Shutting down NASA space research, canceling the international space 
station and handing the money over to the NIH wouldn't solve the 
problem, for the NIH would have no way of getting into space, or of 
using the international space station.
  NASA needs the NIH, Mr. Chairman and part of the NIH certainly needs 
NASA. It is precisely this kind of collaboration which ensures the 
highest return possible on America's investment in biomedical research.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address the section of H.R. 
2099, the fiscal year 1996 VA-HUD Appropriations Bill, that will 
prevent the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] from spending 
any further taxpayer dollars for work on Flood Insur- 
 
[[Page H 7839]]

ance Rate Maps [FIRM] for the City of Stockton and San Joaquin County, 
CA. I have worked with this appropriations subcommittee to see that 
language is included in this bill that would ensure that these 
inaccurate and deficient maps are not prematurely imposed on the 
Stockton metropolitan area. This Congress must ensure that FEMA is a 
partner with the city and county in providing accurate and complete 
information on the risk of flooding and to assist in coordinating the 
completion of improvements to the existing levee system. Such a 
coordinated effort will more rapidly restore an adequate level of flood 
protection and enhance, rather than threaten, the regional and state 
economies.
  Unlike most FEMA floodplain maps for urbanized areas, the proposed 
FIRMs for Stockton do not indicate flood depths. Such information is 
critical to determine insurance premium rates and building code 
requirements. Because FEMA did not provide this information during its 
most recent flood insurance study, the city and county can only 
estimate flood depths, thereby assuming liability for inaccurate 
estimates, in addition to its individual property owners incurring the 
costs of determining the appropriate flood depths. In order to minimize 
this cost to property owners, the city and county have stepped forward 
to fully finance the necessary flood depth study. This necessary study 
is expected to be completed in two years. The legislation we are 
adopting today will suspend FEMA's maps and ensuing process, at least 
for one year, while the study is conducted.
  FEMA's draft maps also contain significant errors. Processing has 
already been delayed by FEMA because of omissions and inclusions that 
were not part of the initial draft. The city and county have already 
hired an engineering firm to review the maps, and numerous other errors 
have been found. Despite the fact that the city and county are moving 
rapidly to review the proposed FIRMs, the 90-day appeal period allowed 
by FEMA is insufficient time considering the vast area that has been 
remapped. My provision contained in the appropriations bill is intended 
to prevent the appeal period from expiring while more accurate data is 
collected and eventually provided to FEMA.
  Mr. Chairman, FEMA has praised the city and county for the initiative 
they have exercised to respond to these maps and the potential for 
future flooding. Since being notified last November, that nearly the 
entire metropolitan area was being redesignated as a floodplain, the 
local governments have already
 established a joint powers authority [JPA], retained engineering and 
public finance consultants, and appropriated more than $2 million. The 
city and county JPA plans to construct the needed flood protection 
improvements without federal financial assistance in order to expedite 
completion of the project. The JPA has already established a fast-track 
schedule that begins construction in May 1996 and expects completion 
before the end of 1998. We must now ensure that FEMA's administrative 
actions assist rather than impede this effort.

  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, as it comes to the floor of the House today 
this bill is not only an abuse of the legislative process but a threat 
to the quality of America's air and water, the safety of America's food 
supply, and the health of all Americans.
  This bill is striking evidence that the new Republican majority in 
the House is intent on carrying out a sneak attack on public health, on 
environmental protection, and on our public lands. Following the 
unfortunate example of James Watt, they are distorting the normal 
legislative process around here, acting against House rules by using 
the appropriations process to rewrite law and reshape policy, so that 
they can achieve, by stealth, objectives that lack real public support.
  We saw the start of this pattern with the first rescissions bill, 
with its pages of legislative language waiving environmental and forest 
management laws, language that under the normal rules of the House 
should not have been in any bill of that kind.
  We saw it again in the Interior appropriations bill, with its 
provisions to dissolve the National Biological Service, transfer its 
functions to the U.S. Geological Service and its provisions to 
essentially eliminate the Mojave National Preserve in California as a 
unit of the National Park Service, by a back-door attack instead of a 
straightforward proposal to repeal or amend the California Desert 
Protection Act.
  Now, here it is again, and even worse, in this bill's provisions 
dealing with the Environmental Protection Agency. That part of this 
bill has more riders than the Long Island Railroad. Most of them are 
intended to prevent the government from doing its job in protecting our 
water, our air, our wetlands, our health.
  Just take a look at the passenger count, Mr. Chairman, the number of 
riders on just that one part of this bill. In just seven pages, there 
are 21 anti-environment riders, including the following provisions: 
blocking enforcement of air pollution permits; limiting enforcement of 
stormwater and sanitary sewer provisions in the Water Pollution Control 
Act; handicapping the EPA's ability under the Clean Air Act to regulate 
toxic emissions from certain refineries; putting other limits on 
enforcing environmental laws affecting other parts of the oil and gas 
industry; stopping EPA from taking steps to keep arsenic, radon, or 
other radionuclei out of our drinking water; limiting the EPA's efforts 
to control toxic releases from cement kilns and other incinerators; 
restricting the gathering and publishing of information about the use 
of chemicals; restricting the protection of the country's wetlands;
 blocking efforts to encourage car-pooling; restricting efforts to 
improve water quality in the Great Lakes; and, undermining the 
regulation of pesticides in food.

  Mr. Chairman, the pattern could not be clearer. Just take a look at 
it, page after page of regressive, antienvironmental and underhanded 
provisions aimed at handcuffing efforts to protect our food supply, 
keep our air and water clean, protect vital wetlands, all things vital 
to our natural systems all over the country.
  It's no wonder, Mr. Chairman, that Carol Browner, the EPA 
Administrator, has concluded that we are seeing ``an organized, 
concerned effort to undermine public health and safety and the 
environment.'' If anything, Carol Browner understates the situation.
  The American people need to know what is going on. They need to know 
that this new Republican majority is determined to undermine the 
progress we have made in the last several decades in protecting our 
environment, progress that the American people are proud of and want to 
see continued. They need to know that we are in the midst of a full-
fledged attack on the safeguards of the water we drink and the air we 
breathe. They need to know, because when they do know, they will reject 
this assault on public health, public safety, and the public lands.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people know that we need to do more, not 
less, in this area. For instance, two new studies this year tell us 
that 53 million Americans are drinking tap water that is below 
standards. What is the response of the new majority in this Congress to 
this? To do more to clean up the Nation's water? No. The Republican 
response is to come up with eight different legislative riders to 
undermine the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act! Hard to 
imagine.
  This Republican sneak attack on the environment should not and will 
not go unopposed. The American people did not vote last November to 
roll back 25 years of environmental progress. They did not vote for 
more pollution, or for backhanded legislative shenanigans to undercut 
environmental standards just to satisfy the greed and the access paid 
for by many industrial polluters' campaign contributions.
  So, Mr. Chairman, during the Committee's consideration of this bill, 
I joined in an effort to remove the numerous provisions intended to 
cripple the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to perform 
its duties. Unfortunately, that effort was unsuccessful, as was my own 
effort to amend the bill by removing language that prohibits protection 
of wetlands.
  Later, Mr. Chairman, there will be a renewed effort to remove these 
and other offensive and improper provisions from the bill. Unless they 
are removed, and the bill is otherwise improved, this bill will not 
deserve the approval of the House.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises to express his thanks 
to the distinguished subcommittee chairman, Mr. Lewis, and the 
distinguished ranking member, Mr. Stokes, for their efforts in bringing 
this bill before us today.
  In particular, this Member wishes to express his thanks to the 
chairman for accommodating the concerns of this Member and many others 
in the manager's amendment, by increasing the bill's funding levels for 
several housing programs for the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development by approximately $300 million with appropriate offsets to 
meet the established budget restraints set for the subcommittee. This 
Congress faces serious fiscal restraints and this measure, with the 
adoption of the manager's amendment, faces those restraints in an 
admirable way.
  This Member is also particularly pleased that H.R. 2099 includes $3 
million in funding for the Indian Housing Loan Guarantee program at 
HUD. This very modest sum will guarantee the private financing of 
nearly $37 million in housing loans for Indian families. As you know, 
Mr. Chairman, there is a severe lack of decent, affordable housing in 
Indian country, due in large part to the lack of private financing in 
Indian country. This program provides a substantial means of bringing 
much needed private financing to Indian country. This very limited 
Federal funding is money well spent, and this Member commends the 
appropriators for including it in this measure.
  This Member would also like to express his appreciation for the 
inclusion in the bill of
 $8.5 
 
[[Page H 7840]]


million for the National Rural Water Association's training and 
technical assistance program which the Members had specifically 
requested of the subcommittee.
  In every State, on-site technical assistance is the backbone of small 
system compliance. Small systems have limited funds to operate and to 
comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act [SDWA]. Providing on-site 
technical assistance has been the most cost-effective way to improve 
drinking water quality in rural areas and to assist small towns with 
SDWA requirements.
  Through technical assistance, small communities work together to 
conduct a statewide, peer-oriented, grassroots assistance program. 
Small towns do not have the engineers, the labs, and the resources of 
large cities to meet Federal requirements. Technical assistance allows 
small communities to help each other outside of the regulatory 
bureaucracy, results in a growing number of small systems moving into 
SDWA compliance, and assures steady improvement and a long term 
solution to small water system public health problems.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill does not provide the funding levels many, 
including this Member, might like to see for many programs. However, at 
a time when difficult choices are necessary, the crafters of this 
measure have attempted to make those choices in a responsible way. For 
that they are to be commended.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the VA-HUD 
appropriations legislation before this House.
  Mr. Chairman, many other Members have made the point that this bill 
goes after HUD funding with a machete instead of a scalpel. I 
understand the need for spending cuts, and I support eliminating 
programs that are wasteful or do not work. However, I would like to 
bring to your attention one HUD program that is efficient, cost-
effective, and extremely necessary--and yet was eliminated by the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Service coordinators were established in 1992 in response to a crisis 
in our Nation's public housing projects. It was at this time that 
financially strapped public housing managers began placing senior 
citizens and non-elderly disabled residents in the same housing 
facilities. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel recently reviewed the 
situation of the early 1990's, and I quote:

       Only a few years ago, frightened seniors couldn't move out 
     fast enough from the city's 14 public housing towers and 
     their muggings, noisy tenants, and other troubles.

  The conflict between the needs and lifestyles of the elderly and 
disabled non-elderly populations in these projects was leading to 
mutual fear and distrust. Some of the younger residents were engaging 
in drug and alcohol abuse. In a few cases, violence even broke out.
  In 1992, Congress passed corrective legislation that authorized and 
appropriated annual funding for service coordinators to bring the 
elderly and disabled residents together and to ensure that the needs of 
all were met. These needs included critical transportation, nutrition, 
psychological counseling, and similar services. The change in the 
projects was dramatic. To quote the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

       Within months, [service coordinators] * * * had made major 
     inroads in easing tensions, helping residents get to know one 
     another and linking those who were sick or abusing alcohol or 
     drugs to the help they needed.

  Mr. Chairman, I am deeply disturbed by the committee's decision not 
to fund these service coordinators. In cities like Milwaukee across the 
nation, service coordinators play a crucial role in maintaining a safe 
and healthy environment for our elderly and disabled public housing 
residents. I strongly urge my colleagues to support reinstatement of 
these funds in the Senate and conference committee.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment printed in House Report 104-206 
is now pending. That amendment shall be considered read, shall be 
debatable for 30 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
subject to a demand for division of the question.
  If that amendment is adopted, the bill, as amended, shall be 
considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  Further consideration of the bill for amendment shall proceed by 
title and each title shall be considered read.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a Member 
who has caused an amendment to be printed in the designated place in 
the Congressoinal Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time during further 
consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded 
vote on any amendment made in order by the resolution.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less 
than 5 minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any 
postponed question that immediately follows another vote by electronic 
device without intervening business, provided that the time for voting 
by electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not 
be less than 15 minutes.


 AMENDMENT MADE IN ORDER BY HOUSE RESOLUTION 201--PRINTED IN PART I OF 
                          HOUSE REPORT 104-206

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment printed in House 
Report 104-206.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment made in order by House Resolution 201, printed in 
     Part 1 of House Report 104-206:
       On page 8, line 9, strike ``$16,713,521,000'' and insert 
     ``$16,777,474,000''.
       On page 8, line 11, strike ``$771,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$789,000,000''.
       On page 8, after line 21, insert the following:


                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.
       On page 20, line 25, strike ``$10,041,589,000'' and insert 
     ``$10,182,359,000''.
       On page 21, lines 18 through 21, strike the proviso and on 
     p. 22, line 4, after the colon insert the following new 
     proviso:

     ``Provided further, That of the amounts earmarked under this 
     head for modernization of existing public housing projects, 
     $15,000,000 shall be used for the Tenant Opportunity 
     Program:''
       On page 22, line 15, strike ``$1,000,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,440,770,000''.
       On page 23, line 7, after ``Housing Act:'' insert the 
     following new proviso:

     ``Provided further, That of the funds earmarked in this 
     appropriations Act for special needs housing, the Secretary 
     may waive any provision of section 202 of the Housing Act of 
     1959 and section 811 of the National Affordable Housing Act 
     (including the provisions governing the terms and conditions 
     of project rental assistance) that the Secretary determines 
     is not necessary to achieve the objectives of these programs, 
     or that otherwise impedes the ability to develop, operate or 
     administer projects assisted under these programs, and may 
     make provision for alternative conditions or terms where 
     appropriate:''
       On page 24, line 1, strike ``$4,941,589,000'' and insert 
     ``$4,641,589,000''.
       On page 28, line 3, strike ``$576,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$676,000,000''.
       On page 30, line 15, strike ``$495,355,000'' and insert 
     ``$505,745,000''.
       On page 32, line 7, strike ``$302,056,000'' and insert 
     ``$308,290,000''.
       On page 32, line 14, after the last comma insert the 
     following:

     ``That any amounts made available in any prior appropriation 
     Act for the cost (as such term is defined in section 502 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974) of guaranteed loans 
     that are obligations of the funds established under section 
     238 or 519 of the National Housing Act that have not been 
     made available for obligation or that are deobligated shall 
     be available to the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development in connection with the making of such guarantees 
     and shall remain available until expended, notwithstanding 
     the expiration of any period of availability otherwise 
     applicable to such amounts: Provided further, That any 
     amounts of negative subsidy resulting in fiscal year 1996 
     from the sales of assigned mortgage notes or insurance 
     actions that exceed the amounts of negative subsidy 
     determined to be generated during such fiscal year, based on 
     the assumptions specified in the President's Budget for such 
     fiscal year, shall be available to the Secretary for the 
     costs of any note sales or insurance actions, without regard 
     to whether the source of the negative subsidy amount is a 
     note sale or insurance action, and the last proviso of this 
     paragraph shall not apply to such amounts so used in 
     connections with insurance actions: Provided further,''
       On page 33, after line 2, insert the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``In addition, for the cost of guarantees for loans, as 
     authorized by sections 238 and 519 of the National Housing 
     Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-3 and 1735c), $69,620,000: 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.''
       On page 33, line 16, strike ``$193,299,000'' and insert 
     ``$197,455,000''.
       On page 34, strike line 12 and all that follows through 
     line 16 on page 35, and redesignate the subsections 
     accordingly.
       On page 39, lines 3, 10, and 16-17, strike the words ``and 
     the cost of any utilities''.
       On page 48, after line 25, insert the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 211. Extension of Multifamily Housing Finance 
     Program.--(a) Section 542(b)(5) 

[[Page H 7841]]
     of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 1707 
     note) is amended by striking ``on not more than 15,000 units 
     over fiscal years 1993 and 1994 and inserting ``on not more 
     than 7,500 units during fiscal year 1996.''
       (b) Section 542(c)(4) of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 1707 note) is amended by 
     striking ``on not to exceed 30,000 units over fiscal years 
     1993, 1994, and 1995'' and inserting ``on not more than 
     10,000 units during fiscal year 1995''.
       Sec. 212. Documentation of Multifamily Refinancings.--
     Notwithstanding the 16th paragraph under the item relating to 
     ``ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS'' in title II of the Departments 
     of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
     Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995 (Public Law 
     103-327; 108 Stat. 2316), the amendments to section 223(b)(7) 
     of the National Housing Act made by the 15th paragraph of 
     such Act shall be effective during fiscal years 1996 and 
     thereafter.
       On page 54, line 17, strike the word ``four'' and insert 
     the word ``five'' in lieu thereof.
       On page 63, line 13, strike all after the comma to the end 
     of the line 16 and insert the following in lieu thereof:
       ``That except for grants made under sec. 1443(a) of the 
     Public Health Service Act, appropriations for programs and 
     projects pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     made available under this heading shall be available only 
     upon enactment of legislation reauthorizing such Act, and 
     appropriations for programs and projects pursuant to other 
     Acts made available under this heading shall be available 
     only upon enactment of legislation specifically authorizing 
     such appropriations.''
       On page 64, line 16, strike the number ``$320,000,000'' and 
     insert the number ``$235,500,000'' in lieu thereof.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] will each be 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment is an 
attempt, working with Members of both sides of the aisle, to deal with 
some very specific problems while returning some funding to several 
accounts.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment restores $10 million for VA health 
professional scholarships, $64 million for VA medical care, $440.7 
million for HUD's special needs housing account, $100 million for 
homeless assistance, and $69.6 million for credit subsidies associated 
with two FHA multifamily loan programs.
  All of the costs associated with increasing these amounts are fully 
offset within the bill. To accomplish this, we have reduced FEMA's 
disaster relief by $85 million, and transferred moneys within salaries 
and expenses associated with the Federal Housing Administration. 
Additionally, we have offset the costs associated with unobligated 
reserves in the section 8 contract renewal account.
  The amendment also strikes two HUD administrative provisions which 
have no immediate budgetary effect in terms of our 1996 bill. We have 
removed provisions relating to minimum rents in public housing as well 
as a suspension of the Brooke amendment which deals with limiting the 
amount of tenant's income which must go for rent.
  These changes were carefully negotiated with the chairs of the 
appropriate authorizing committees and the leadership and leave the 
bill within its 602(b) allocation.
  I urge an affirmative vote. The priorities addressed by these changes 
should meet with your strong and bipartisan support.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the chairman of the 
subcommittee [Mr. Lewis] takes a positive step in beginning to move 
this bill in the right direction. In fact, the areas which he has 
elected to modify, and thus included in this amendment, are the very 
ones that I have advocated in support of since the subcommittee markup 
several weeks ago. Unfortunately, this amendment does not go far 
enough.
  While we can be pleased that an additional $74 million has been added 
to veterans medical care--$64 million to medical care and $10 million 
to the Health Professions Scholarship Program--we still are nearly $200 
million below the President's request in this area. We also still leave 
the general operating expenses and construction accounts deficient.
  The additional moneys in housing programs--as negligible as they 
are--and also the striking of the rent increase provisions for public 
housing residents are a welcome change in this committee's actions 
toward HUD. Once again, the actions by the chairman mirror my 
recommendations to this committee for some of the areas where we could 
do better and an amendment that I was going to offer.
  It is unfortunate, however, that the amount provided in the 
chairman's correcting amendment is insignificant in terms of the 
overall cut to HUD. In fact, HUD still assumes nearly $5 billion in 
cuts, after this amendment. This amendment also does not remove the 
very damaging rent increases to section 8 tenants or any other of the 
harmful legislation.
  I must also note a glaring omission in this amendment. That is the 
complete disregard for the devastation to EPA funding and the pages and 
pages of limitations and riders in this bill. I had hoped that the 
chairman would be more receptive to some consideration of changes in 
these areas. Clearly, the letters from chairmen and ranking members of 
numerous authorizing committees and subcommittees in opposition to the 
EPA riders tells us there needs to be a remedy for these actions. This 
exclusion of EPA from the amendment is a serious signal of the lack of 
regard for environmental concerns. It also reflects a total disregard 
for the functions of the authorizing committees having jurisdiction 
over environmental legislation in the House.
  I hope that as we deliberate this bill today the chairman will be 
more open to other amendments and recommendations that are certain to 
be offered. I know that, if given the opportunity, we could attain both 
savings and provide essential quality of life programs for all 
Americans, as well as protect the health and welfare of our citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the 
cooperation of my ranking member. Even though this is not all that both 
of us may want, at least we are moving in the right direction.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Lazio], the chairman of the subcommittee of the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services that deals with housing, 
and a very effective and cooperative Member in establishing the 
provisions of this bill.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment because it is a responsible reply to the concerns of many 
Members.
  As a member of the Committee on the Budget, I supported our efforts 
to balance the budget. I supported the rescission package that this 
body passed and will hopefully be signed by the President today.
  Though I support reducing the Federal budget deficit, I do not 
support wholesale cuts to programs helping this Nation's most 
vulnerable populations.
  I testified on Tuesday before the Committee on Rules on behalf of my 
amendment to this bill. I am pleased that my concerns and the concerns 
of several of my Republican colleagues have been addressed by the 
manager's amendment to this bill.
  Through this amendment, HUD's budget is returned to the 
postrescission funding level it had for fiscal 1995. The reason I have 
been so adamant over recent weeks to increase the funding for 
particular HUD programs that directly help the most vulnerable 
populations in our communities is that I believe cuts should be 
appropriate to the program.
  The Special Needs Account, which represents section 202 housing for 
the elderly, section 811 housing for the disabled and Housing 
Opportunities for Persons With AIDS, and the homeless is an account 
that we should not cut thoughtlessly.
  By restoring more than $440 million to the Special Needs Housing 
account in this amendment, we support our senior citizens and disabled. 
I think it is tremendously important that we view this in the context 
of what is going on in another part of Washington today, the dedication 
of the Korean Veterans' 

[[Page H 7842]]
Memorial. The generation of Americans who brought this great Nation 
through the Korean war, the Second World War, and the Great Depression 
deserve our support. This issue is what we as a Congress are all about.
  The current housing stock is clearly insufficient to address the 
needs of America's seniors. The average senior trying to get housing 
through this program waits for 25 months and 15 percent of these 
seniors wait more than 4 years for housing. If we fail to help our 
seniors--our parents and our grandparents--we fail all of America. If 
we cannot own up to our responsibility to protect them, what have we 
come to Congress for? This is the role for government, helping those 
who cannot provide for themselves.
  In its original form, this bill would have cut funding for the HOPWA 
program, which provides decent housing for people who are debilitated 
by disease and cannot operate in the marketplace. This community needs 
our help. The result of a 47-percent cut in this program would be to 
increase homelessness and increase the cost of care, requiring in-
patient care and hospital support.
  This amendment returns funding for FHA's multifamily insurance 
programs, which provide jobs and much-needed low- to moderate-income 
housing without long-term Government subsidies.
  While I can appreciate the difficult funding environment that 
Washington is currently facing, I firmly believe that these restored 
funds are a wise and necessary investment of limited resources. These 
critically needed Federal dollars will help many vulnerable low-income 
seniors and disabled persons obtain affordable housing.
  This amendment is about compassion. It is about the proper role of 
Government in protecting the helpless in our society. This is an 
important amendment and one I think makes this bill fair to America's 
defenseless populations.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], a member of the Subcommittee on Housing and 
Community Opportunity of the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I will support this 
amendment. We know the old saying that a journey of a thousand miles 
begins with a single step. Well, this bill is a couple of thousand 
miles short, and this is the single step.
  It is not the fault of the chairman, I believe, of the subcommittee. 
I think left to his own, he would have done better. But given the 
priorities that he had to work with, he has had to bring forward a bill 
that is savage in the negative effect it will have on elderly poor 
people and others.
  They correct the rent increase that they wanted to give to people in 
public housing, but elderly people in assisted housing, elderly people 
in section 8, will get a significant rent increase in this. At the same 
time their Medicare costs will go up, and that is unworthy of us.
  One thing I wanted to address: We are going to be told one part of 
the problem here, one of the reasons HUD has to take such savage deep 
cuts, is that HUD has been badly run. That is true. From 1981 to 1989, 
under the administration of Ronald Reagan, and specifically Secretary 
of HUD Samuel Pierce, HUD was one of the worst run departments in the 
history of the Federal Government.
  When we are at the appropriate point in the full House, I will insert 
into the Record the statement of the Independent Counsel and the 
statement of Samuel Pierce which he issued when he was not indicted, 
and that was part, I think, of the deal, in which he said, ``I fully 
accept responsibility for my role in what occurred at HUD and deeply 
regret the loss of public confidence in HUD that these events may have 
entailed.''
  HUD suffered grievously from the maladministration, the corrupt and 
inefficient administration from 1981 to 1989 under President Reagan. 
Now the poor people are paying the price. It is a classic case of 
blaming the victim, first for the Republican Party to have trashed HUD 
the way it did for 8 years, and now when Secretary Cisneros is building 
on the efforts of Secretary Kemp, Secretary Kemp did the damage 
control, and Secretary Cisneros is trying to move ahead and be 
positive, and we are being told HUD will be cut enormously, elderly 
people's rents will go up, people in need will not be helped, and it is 
partly because of the legacy of absolute corrupt inefficiency that we 
inherited from the Reagan administration.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the housing provisions in 
the manager's amendment. I made no secret of the fact I am concerned 
about the environmental cuts and the housing cuts in this particular 
piece of legislation, but I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that we must 
balance our budget. I supported the budget resolution and I fully 
understand that difficult choices have to be made to achieve our goal 
of balancing the budget by 2002.
  However, as we made the spending reductions needed to move to a 
balanced budget, these cuts must be allocated fairly. Unfortunately, I 
believe that housing programs have taken a disproportionate share of 
the cuts in the VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations bill.
  Here are the facts: The overall funding for this bill is about 14 
percent less than fiscal year 1995.
  However, HUD is receiving a 25-percent cut in its funding.
  Only EPA receives a larger cut in this bill.
  By contrast: The VA receives a 1-percent increase over 1995.
  NASA receives a 4-percent cut from 1995.
  I am not critical of these agencies at all. In fact, I support them, 
but the numbers speak for themselves: HUD is being cut 25 percent from 
the current level. Except for EPA, no other account is receiving more 
than a 6-percent cut from fiscal year 1995.
  Having said that, I support the improvements made in the manager's 
amendment. I want to thank Chairman Lewis for working with Congressman 
Lazio and those of us who believe that the original bill did not 
provide adequate funding for housing for the elderly, disabled, and 
others with special needs; as well as assistance for the homeless.
  I think the manager's amendment is an honest compromise. While 
special needs housing and homeless assistance are still receiving large 
reductions, this amendment does restore over $400 million for special 
needs housing and $100 million for homeless assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, the section 202 program for the construction of housing 
for the elderly is one of the most successful programs operated by HUD. 
It provides affordable housing and support services for our low- and 
moderate-income seniors. There is clearly a shortage of affordable 
housing for the elderly and the disabled. I am pleased that the 
manager's amendment restores half of the original cut.
  I can tell you from personal experience that the section 202 program 
for the elderly works and works well. These developments are boon to 
our low-income elderly and there are waiting lists for these 
developments whenever they can be built.
  Mr. Chairman, I would encourage us all, regardless of where we stand 
on final passage, to support this amendment.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds].
  (Mr. STUDDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the chairman's 
amendment, which would restore $441 million in funding for special 
needs housing programs. These programs include section 202 housing for 
the elderly and section 811 housing for disabled persons, as well as 
housing opportunities for people with AIDS, or HOPWA.
  I would like to say a few words, Mr. Chairman, about the importance 
of the HOPWA program. A few months ago I joined with Members on both 
sides of the aisle in an effort to prevent the elimination of this 
vital program, which provides grants to State and local governments for 
housing and supportive services for low-income individuals living with 
HIV/AIDS.
  In my State of Massachusetts alone, HOPWA provides over $2.5 million 
in formula grants for affordable housing 

[[Page H 7843]]
units, supportive services, and short-term rental assistance for people 
living with AIDS who are in imminent danger of losing their homes.
  Without the funds provided by this amendment, many individuals who 
are fatally ill will be forced to choose between essential medical care 
and paying the rent. Some will wind up in emergency rooms; others will 
literally die in the streets this winter.
  No civilized society can allow that to happen. I commend the chairman 
for offering the amendment and urge its adoption.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce].

                              {time}  1345

  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the 
manager's amendment and commend Chairman Lewis for his outstanding 
leadership, and Mr. Lazio and his Housing Subcommittee staff for their 
tireless work in bringing about this compromise.
  This amendment includes funding to provide greatly needed housing for 
low-income senior citizens, the homeless, and the disabled. Also, 
included is budget authority to meet current multifamily credit needs 
to transition FHA's multifamily to a self-sustaining program.
  Over the past 60 years, FHA multifamily insurance has provided rental 
homes for more than 10 million hard working families, individuals, and 
the elderly. In Ohio alone, the FHA multifamily program has helped 
renovate or build more than 26,000 affordable rental units.
  Mr. Chairman, the need for affordable rental housing is tremendous, 
and in setting our priorities with our limited resources, we must not 
forget our elderly, our vulnerable, our homeless, our disabled, the 
ill, and those most in need. This is responsible legislation, it's the 
proper role of government, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
important perfecting amendment.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  I want to commend the chairman, the ranking member, as well as the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], the gentleman from Connecticut 
[Mr. Shays], the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], and the 
other Members who were instrumental in adding money for AIDS housing 
and housing for the elderly.
  We in New York have a staggering number of people with AIDS who face 
one of three choices. They can live on the streets. That is not very 
acceptable, to die of AIDS on the street. They can live in acute care 
hospitals. That treats them well, but it is extremely expensive, $1,085 
a day, according to the Massachusetts Insurance Rate Setting 
Commission.
  Or they can live in a HOPWA group home at the cost of about $40 to 
$100 a day. It is the humane way to go, and it is also the cheaper way 
to go.
  That is why I am very grateful. I was one of the original authors of 
HOPWA on the housing committee. I am very grateful that the committee 
has made room for HOPWA, but my gratefulness is meaningless compared to 
those who will need this housing and use it. It has been a big success 
in New York.
  I also want to say we are desperately short of 202 housing, and the 
fact that this will increase 202 is another benefit. I urge support of 
the en bloc amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen].
  (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Chairman Lewis' amendment to 
reprioritize some of the housing programs and to add more funding for 
the special needs housing programs which consolidates the housing 
construction programs for people with disabilities, the elderly, and 
AIDS housing. In addition the amendment adds more funding for the 
homeless housing program and the Multifamily Credit Subsidy Program.
  I am pleased to be a part of this compromise agreement reached 
between Chairman Lewis and the chairman of the Housing Subcommittee, 
Mr. Lazio. While I agree that the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development is in drastic need of downsizing and consolidation, I was 
concerned about the reduction in the special needs program.
  By adopting the Lewis amendment we will be sending a clear message to 
the bureaucrats at HUD that Congress is willing to support programs 
that work like the section 202 and section 811 programs. Both of these 
programs have a proven track record and I am pleased that this 
amendment addresses the successes of these two programs.
  This amendment will also address the multifamily credit subsidy 
program. Here again, I believe that we need to find ways to revise the 
operation of the current multifamily programs, so that it can become 
self-sustaining without a federally appropriated subsidy. However, in 
the interim and lacking a new authorization, Congress needs to continue 
this program because if targets the people who are most in need.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to adopt the Lewis amendment and make 
these constructive changes to the VA, HUD, and independent agencies 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I do want to rise in support of this 
manager's amendment. As has been stated, we are attending to the 
seniors, the disabled, and the AIDS sufferers.
  I also wanted to point out that there is clarification necessary here 
because all too often there has been reference made to the fact that we 
are increasing the rental costs and suspending the Brooks amendment. 
That is not true. In this manager's amendment, we are restoring the 
ceiling on the rental levels, not only for public housing tenants, 
which is extremely important, but I would hope that my colleague from 
California, [Ms. Waters] would understand also that the ceiling of 30 
percent is retained not only on public housing but also on the senior 
citizens and the disabled.
  So we are not ravaging the poorest, in terms of their rental costs. I 
think there has been a widespread misunderstanding bout this.
  I also would want to say that as one who worked on the rental housing 
reforms of last year with the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters], 
we are not abandoning that. They are maintained, those reforms are 
maintained in this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say that as the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. 
Pryce] has said, a very important part of this manager's amendment, 
which has thus far been ignored, is the FHA multifamily credit subsidy. 
We are improving that. We are working toward reform. This is an 
essential component of a private-public partnership that is essential 
to meet our multifamily needs.
  Further I would like to clarify for Ms. Waters: I share your concern 
with the increase from 30 to 32 percent for the section 8 Tenant-Based 
Program. However, this does not apply to the Public Housing Program. 
Nor does it apply to 202 elderly or disabled. Moreover, I am pleased 
that the bill does include the public housing rent reforms we worked on 
last year along with Representative Knollenberg.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  I must say that on balance I think it does more good than harm. It is 
basically a pea and shell game, what is played here, in terms of what 
is funded. I think it deals with the short term types of needs, so I 
guess we have to take care of some of that, but only some of them. It 
restores, instead of underfunding, McKinney and FEMA by 50 percent. We 
now only underfund it by 40 percent in this amendment.
  So those are the types of priorities that, in other words, we are 
going to do less in 1996 than we are doing in 1995. While that problem 
persists, it still maintains rent increases for those in some of the 
assisted housing programs. It is really trying to buy votes to secure 
support in terms of those that want to show that they are making 

[[Page H 7844]]
some move improving a bad bill. I commend them for the pressure they 
exerted, but frankly it falls far short of where we have to go.
  It is, I think, an indication of where the priorities are in this new 
Congress that have to be addressed in terms of where the dollars are 
going to end up. The amendment with the underline bill simply provides 
a little more legislate a little bit less than otherwise would be the 
case.
  It tries to basically buy off on the cheap in terms of this bill some 
reluctant supporters. It just does not go far enough, as my colleague 
from Massachusetts said. The journey begins with the first step, but we 
have got many miles to go before we get back to where we belong.
  We have a responsibility, I think a moral responsibility, Mr. 
Chairman, to stand up for those that are vulnerable, those working 
families in our communities that are trying to make it. That is why we 
are here on the floor today, we Democrats, we want to stand up for 
those folks that in fact need our representation. They are not 
represented by the PAC's and the others, but they need our help and 
that of the House.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Nadler].
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's 
amendment that would increase the Special Needs Housing block grant by 
$441 million, providing for the restoration of crucial funding to the 
Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS [HOPWA], section 202, and 
section 811.
  Mr. Chairman, at a time when homelessness has reached crisis 
proportions and when so many very crucial programs that provide 
desperately needed services are being chipped away, one by one, we must 
work to preserve adequate funding for these important housing programs 
which are key to the basic existence of so many Americans.
  The HOPWA program provides community-based, cost-effective housing 
for people living with AIDS and their families.
  AIDS is now the leading killer of Americans between the ages of 25 
and 44. At any given time, one-third to one-half of all Americans with 
AIDS are either homeless or in imminent danger of losing their homes. 
We have a responsibility, not only to respond to this very devastating 
public health crisis, but to provide assistance to those who are 
suffering from AIDS.
  This amendment is cost-efficient and will save funds that would, in 
the absence of the housing and services provided in a HOPWA-funded 
residential facility, result in higher expenditures for hospital or 
emergency room costs. The costs of HOPWA facilities are between one-
tenth and one-twentieth of the costs of hospital or emergency rooms. In 
fact, it is estimated that HOPWA dollars reduce the use of emergency 
health care services by an estimated $47,000 per person, per year.
  Sections 202 and 811 have also proven to be enormously valuable 
programs, which have provided thousands from our growing senior 
population and people with disabilities with affordable housing, 
independence, and security.
  Without these valuable programs so many risk homelessness, and, quite 
possibly, premature death due to exposure to poor nutrition, stress, 
and lack of medical care.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is socially, morally, and fiscally 
responsible. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn].
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to rise in support of the 
manager's amendment today and to thank the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] and so many 
others across the aisle that have worked so hard to come up with this 
compromise. I think it takes a great step in the right direction.
  Mr. Chairman, we are talking about some big numbers, 19.1 to 19.4 
billion. We talk later on in the bill about $600 and $300 million. The 
key though is back in our districts where we know it works. I recently 
visited a facility run by People, Inc., a not-for-profit. It takes 
these funds and makes sure that disabled and handicapped citizens are 
used properly in the right direction.
  I think that when we look back at our directions in our home States 
and towns and districts, we can see that this money works. Seniors, 
homeless vets, and others, it works.
  While there are some criticisms, we know that these big, big number 
we talk about here on the floor and in and out of committees, back in 
our districts where we have a chance to see it right away in action, we 
know that this money is put to its best use. I congratulate all the 
Members who worked for the manager's amendment and urge its support 
later on this afternoon.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  (Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I think that if Jesus 
Christ were watching this particular amendment on the House floor, he 
would look down at us and think that this was a poor attempt to imitate 
his miracle of the loaves and fishes.
  The fact of the matter is that we are trying to play a shell game 
here. We are trying to pretend that we are cutting off an arm and 
sewing back a finger and saying that everybody should be thankful for 
the efforts that have been put into it.
  The reality is that we are cutting this budget, we are cutting the 
housing budget by billions and billions of dollars without a single 
hearing. We go about this by cutting $400 million out of the homeless 
budget. We put $100 million back, bringing it to a $400 million cut, 
and everybody is supposed to kneel down and say, thank you very much.
  The fact of the matter is that, if we are interested in ending 
homelessness in America, we have to invest in building housing for 
folks. This country did not have homeless people in it in the 1960's 
and the 1970's and the like because we built affordable housing. Since 
Ronald Reagan's time, we have cut affordable housing and we have seen 
the rise of homelessness.
  If we are serious about ending these issues, if we are serious about 
doing something about the plight of so many millions of Americans that 
live in public housing, we want to take a snapshot of some politician 
in front of a public housing project, that is great. And we condemn the 
whole thing. Or we are dealing with the fact that the vast majority of 
public housing is very good housing, and we need to continue to invest 
in it.
  But by coming along and chopping it off, what we are going to do is 
go about creating the very public housing disasters that Members so 
adroitly condemn. So let us deal with the problems. Let us support this 
amendment, because it does a little bit more, and we cannot carry the 
votes to kill this whole bill. But let us recognize that what we need 
to do is kill this bill, put the funds into affordable housing. Cut the 
B-2, cut the taxes, not for the rich but for ordinary citizens.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I have been wrestling with this bill for a 
long time and wrestling with what we are about as Members of Congress. 
I know that we have bankrupted this nation because of the kind of 
rhetoric of my colleague from Massachusetts who somehow thinks that if 
we spend more money we help people.
  I think that in a hearing that my subcommittee is going to have in 
Chicago, we are going to have a hearing in Chicago because the Federal 
Government had to take over public housing because it has totally 
failed. A 4-mile stretch, one side a throughway and the other side 4 
miles of public housing, and the poverty rate is 15 percent of the 
official poverty rate.
  So I have come to the general conclusion that 12-year-old girls 
having babies and 14-year-olds selling drugs and 15-year-olds killing 
each other, 18-year-olds who cannot read their diplomas, 24-year-olds 
who have never had a job, 30-year-old grandparents is the legacy of 
this welfare state that must change. We are going to change it.
  But this amendment, the fine work of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Lazio], the fine work of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the 
fine 

[[Page H 7845]]
work of some Members on this side who weighed in and have helped rescue 
a certain part of this bill to restore some funding for senior housing 
that works, for HOPWA that I know works, housing opportunities for 
people with AIDS and for helping those who are disabled to restore some 
money in the homeless is to me a gigantic step in the right direction.
                              {time}  1400

  I do not have all the answers, Mr. Chairman. I just know we have 
failed miserably, and I know it is not going to be solved by a lot more 
money. Hopefully we will get beyond the kind of rhetoric that we just 
heard and start to interact with people to make sure the money we do 
appropriate actually means something and does some good.
  Mr. Chairman, I salute the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
again, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], and Members on both 
sides of the aisle who recognize that we have failed miserably, and we 
need to put a new and complete face on housing.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time to 
me.
  My friend, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], who was 
talking about assisted and public housing, has left the floor. I just 
wanted to point out that I think that most of us recognize that there 
are problems with some assisted and public housing, as the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] said on the floor, and that there are 
troubled housing authorities. These constantly are held up as the basis 
for not continuing housing program.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that in my community, I would 
welcome the Congress to focus on the programs that are working very 
well. We have public housing that is 40 and 50 years old, that is being 
renewed in terms of contracts that represent some of the best quality 
housing for our low-income members of the community and working 
families, and it is serving its purpose. To be sure, any time we have 
that kind of concentration in terms of public housing--in some areas 
miles of low-income high rises--most of us recognize those political 
decisions that concentrate these tremendous numbers of low-income 
individuals in housing projects in large urban centers, and across the 
country. Such planning, such architecture causes a big problem--a very 
big problem.
  However, Mr. Chairman, I think that this particular bill is denying 
modernization and operating funds for all public housing across the 
board. These policies are going to affect the good, the bad, and the 
indifferent, and I think we need to focus. We do not want to see more 
public housing have the type of plight that has happened in the example 
that has been given by my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut 
[Mr. Shays]. However, that is exactly what is going to happen.
  What is really I think the problem in this bill, Mr. Chairman, is 
that it fails to help us preserve the existing resources of 4.7 million 
public and assisted housing units that we have. We are going to see a 
further deterioration of such housing. The money in the pipeline is 
necessary and useful for maintenance and operating in a fair way, and 
maintaining that housing.
  Mr. STOKES. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much 
the comments made by the gentleman from Minnesota, and they echo my own 
views in terms of that subject.
  I would just say in closing, Mr. Chairman, that while I commend the 
chairman for his effort to improve the bill in this direction, and he 
certainly has improved it to some degree, it certainly has not gone as 
far as is really necessary to try and correct this legislation and make 
it palatable. It is unfortunate that we are in that position; and my 
position, of course, would have to be that until we can clear up these 
other matters in this bill, this is a bill which I would have to 
oppose.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the chairman's en 
bloc amendment. The program funding that is restored in this amendment 
affects individuals who do not have alternative resources. It is 
critical that we approve this amendment to restore at least a minimal 
level of funding for our most vulnerable communities.
  Perhaps we have difficulty imagining ourselves in our seventies, 
eighties, or older. Do we think that because we have reasonable 
resources now, that a major illness, accident, or just a very long life 
could not wipe out our seeming financial security? How can we refuse to 
assume responsibility for minimum care, in this case just providing 
shelter for the elderly, for those living with HIV/AIDS, for the 
disabled, and for the homeless. I don't think any of us can, in good 
faith.
  This amendment restores $441 million for HUD special needs housing 
and in addition, it strikes the provision requiring section 8 rental 
assistance recipients to pay additional utility costs. I have great 
concern with the bill's provision which pegs assistance to the 
marketplace. In Montgomery County, MD, this potentially could result in 
more than 3,500 section 8 recipients being forced to live in areas of 
concentrated poverty.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that this Congress really could accept 
a 49-percent reduction in the McKinney Homeless Assistance Program 
which has been a tremendous benefit to all communities. We still know 
little about how to meet our Nation's increase in the number of 
homeless, but it is a tragedy that must be addressed and we have a 
program that has proved itself over the years. Nor can we turn our 
backs on our seniors and the disabled who must depend on a fixed income 
and many of whom have no where else to turn.
  My county's housing opportunity commission was recently lauded by 
Secretary Cisneros when he said: ``Montgomery County, MD, may have the 
Nation's most comprehensive and balanced local housing program.'' It is 
important to remember that this success is dependent on, and in 
cooperation with, Federal support for ``special need'' housing 
programs. Assistance for such housing is needed in all areas of the 
country and every jurisdiction. No community can carry it alone.
  Another program addressed by the amendment is the Housing 
Opportunities for People With AIDS [HOPWA] Program, the only Federal 
housing program that specifically addresses the housing needs of people 
with HIV/AIDS. It is estimated that one-third to one-half of all people 
with AIDS are either homeless or on the verge of losing their homes. 
Many people with AIDS are still faced with eviction because of 
discrimination, despite Federal and State antidiscrimination laws. Many 
others lose their homes when they are no longer able to pay their 
mortgage or rent because of illness and lost wages. Still others are 
already homeless when they become ill. Despite these problems, people 
living with HIV/AIDS historically have encountered great obstacles in 
receiving assistance through Federal housing programs.
  HOPWA was created to address this desperate need, giving communities 
the flexibility to develop a broad range of housing options and support 
services to meet their specific needs, consistent with this Congress' 
efforts to provide greater local control.
  Without adequate resources for HOPWA, people with HIV/AIDS will die 
early and without dignity--in emergency rooms, shelters, or worse--in 
the streets alone. This amendment ensures that at least a minimal 
amount of funding is available to provide housing for people with HIV/
AIDS to ensure that they can live out the remainder of their lives with 
some level of decency and comfort.
  Mr. Chairman, the cuts that have been chosen for H.R. 2099 are 
inhumane. We can do better than to take from the most vulnerable among 
us. This amendment is a fair and reasonable effort to restore basic 
housing needs, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STOKES. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding to me. I have no further speakers on this side. It is not my 
intention to ask for any more time. Indeed, I would hope that we could 
go to a voice vote on this, because buses are going to the Korean war 
memorial service. I certainly appreciate the cooperation of the ranking 
member in this matter.
  Mr. STOKES. We are pleased to cooperate with the chairman in that 
regard. We do not see a need for a record vote on this particular 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment printed in part 1 of 
House Report 104-206.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment made in order by the rule having been 
agreed to, the Clerk will designate title I.
  The text of title I is as follows:

[[Page H 7846]]


                               H.R. 2099

       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, 1996, and for other purposes, namely:
                                TITLE I

                     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

                    Veterans Benefits Administration


                       compensation and pensions

                     (including transfer 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); $17,649,972,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That not to exceed $25,180,000 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, and in the 
     Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992, (38 U.S.C. chapters 51, 53, 
     and 55) the funding source for which is specifically provided 
     as the ``Compensation and pensions'' appropriation: Provided 
     further, That such sums as may be earned on an actual 
     qualifying patient basis, shall be reimbursed 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 (38 U.S.C. chapter 55): Provided further, That 
     $12,000,000 previously transferred from ``Compensation and 
     pensions'' to ``Medical facilities revolving fund'' shall be 
     transferred to this heading.
                         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), 
     $1,345,300,000, 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) $24,890,000, 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, as amended.
       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, as amended.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct and guaranteed loan programs, $52,138,000, 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, as amended: Provided further, That during 1996, within 
     the resources available, not to exceed $300,000 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, $459,000, 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, $1,000, 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, as 
     amended: Provided further, That these funds are available to 
     subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount of 
     direct loans not to exceed $4,000.
       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, as amended: 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, $377,000, 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 38 U.S.C. chapter 37, subchapter V, as 
     amended, $205,000, 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); 
     $16,713,521,000, 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, 1996, and shall remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 1997.
                    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, 1997, $251,743,000, plus reimbursements.
      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 activities not charged to 
     project cost; and research and development in building 
     construction technology; $63,602,000, plus reimbursements.
                   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, as amended: 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.
     
[[Page H 7847]]


                      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; $821,487,000: Provided, That funds 
     under this heading shall be available to administer the 
     Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training Act: 
     Provided further, That the $25,500,000 earmarked in Public 
     Law 103-327 for the acquisition of automated data processing 
     equipment and services to support the modernization program 
     of the Veterans Benefits Administration is available for any 
     expense authorized to be funded under this heading: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds under this heading (including 
     funds referred to in the preceding proviso) may be obligated 
     or expended for the acquisition of automated data processing 
     equipment and services for Department of Veterans Affairs 
     regional offices to support Stage III of the automated data 
     equipment modernization program of the Veterans Benefits 
     Administration.
                        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, 
     $72,604,000.


                      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, $30,900,000.
                      Construction, Major Projects

                     (including transfer of funds)

       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, $183,455,000, 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 1996, for each approved 
     project shall be obligated (1) by the awarding of a 
     construction documents contract by September 30, 1996, and 
     (2) by the awarding of a construction contract by September 
     30, 1997: 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: 
     Provided further, That of the funds made available under this 
     heading in Public Law 103-327, $7,000,000 shall be 
     transferred to the ``Parking revolving fund''.
                      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, $152,934,000, 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), 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), 
     $47,397,000, 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), $1,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 1998.


                       administrative provisions

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 101. Any appropriation for 1996 for ``Compensation and 
     pensions'', ``Readjustment benefits'', and ``Veterans 
     insurance and indemnities'' may be transferred to any other 
     of the mentioned appropriations.
       Sec. 102. Appropriations available to the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs for 1996 for salaries and expenses shall be 
     available for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
       Sec. 103. 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.
       Sec. 104. 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.
       Sec. 105. Appropriations available to the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 1996 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 1995.
       Sec. 106. Appropriations accounts available to the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 1996 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''.
       Sec. 107. (a) Effective October 1, 1995, section 5505 of 
     title 38, United States Code, as in effect when repealed by 
     section 1201(g)(4)(A) of Public Law 103-446 (108 Stat. 4687), 
     is hereby reenacted and, as so reenacted, is amended by 
     striking out ``September 30, 1992'' in subsection (c) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``September 30, 1996''.
       (b) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 55 of 
     such title is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     item:

``5505. Limitation on compensation payments for certain incompetent 
              veterans.''.

       Sec. 108. Chapter 19 of title 38, United States Code, is 
     amended as follows:
       (1) Section 1920 is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, and for the 
     reimbursement of administrative costs under subsection (c)'' 
     before the period at the end of the second sentence; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c)(1) For each fiscal year for which this subsection is 
     in effect, the Secretary shall, from the National Service 
     Life Insurance Fund, reimburse the `General operating 
     expenses' account of the Department for the amount of 
     administrative costs determined under paragraph (2) for that 
     fiscal year. Such reimbursement shall be made from any 
     surplus earnings for that fiscal year that are available for 
     dividends on such insurance after claims have been paid and 
     actuarially determined reserves have been set aside. However, 
     if the amount of such administrative costs exceeds the amount 
     of such surplus earnings, such reimbursement shall be made 
     only to the extent of such surplus earnings.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall determine the administrative 
     costs to the Department for a fiscal year for which this 
     subsection is in effect which, in the judgment of the 
     Secretary, are properly allocable to the provision of 
     National Service Life Insurance (and to the provision of any 
     total disability income insurance added to the provision of 
     such insurance).
       ``(3) This subsection shall be in effect only with respect 
     to fiscal year 1996.''.
       (2) Section 1923 is amended--

[[Page H 7848]]

       (A) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, and for the 
     reimbursement of administrative costs under subsection (d)'' 
     before the period at the end of the last sentence; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d)(1) For each fiscal year for which this subsection is 
     in effect, the Secretary shall, from the Veterans' Special 
     Life Insurance Fund, reimburse the `General operating 
     expenses' account of the Department for the amount of 
     administrative costs determined under paragraph (2) for that 
     fiscal year. Such reimbursement shall be made from any 
     surplus earnings for that fiscal year that are available for 
     dividends on such insurance after claims have been paid and 
     actuarially determined reserves have been set aside. However, 
     if the amount of such administrative costs exceeds the amount 
     of such surplus earnings, such reimbursement shall be made 
     only to the extent of such surplus earnings.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall determine the administrative 
     costs to the Department for a fiscal year for which this 
     subsection is in effect which, in the judgment of the 
     Secretary, are properly allocable to the provision of 
     Veterans' Special Life Insurance (and to the provision of any 
     total disability income insurance added to the provision of 
     such insurance).
       ``(3) This subsection shall be in effect only with respect 
     to fiscal year 1996.''.
       (3) Section 1955 is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, and for the 
     reimbursement of administrative costs under subsection (c)'' 
     before the period at the end of the first sentence; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c)(1) For each fiscal year for which this subsection is 
     in effect, the Secretary shall, from the United States 
     Government Life Insurance Fund, reimburse the `General 
     operating expenses' account of the Department for the amount 
     of administrative costs determined under paragraph (2) for 
     that fiscal year. Such reimbursement shall be made from any 
     surplus earnings for that fiscal year that are available for 
     dividends on such insurance after claims have been paid and 
     actuarially determined reserves have been set aside. However, 
     if the amount of such administrative costs exceeds the amount 
     of such surplus earnings, such reimbursement shall be made 
     only to the extent of such surplus earnings.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall determine the administrative 
     costs to the Department for a fiscal year for which this 
     subsection is in effect which, in the judgment of the 
     Secretary, are properly allocable to the provision of United 
     States Government Life Insurance (and to the provision of any 
     total disability income insurance added to the provision of 
     such insurance).
       ``(3) This subsection shall be in effect only with respect 
     to fiscal year 1996.''.
       (4) Section 1982 is amended by striking out ``The United 
     States'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Except as provided 
     in sections 1920(c), 1923(d), and 1955(c) of this title, the 
     United States''.
         permission for member to offer amendment out of order

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
amendment No. 34 offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] to 
title I be in order at a later point in the reading of the bill, 
notwithstanding that title I may have been closed.
  This has been agreed upon by both sides of the issue in terms of the 
Members debating it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of 
the subcommittee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. Chairman, the report of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and 
Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations contains 
language that highlights the excellent work conducted by the EPA in the 
use of a helicopter for water quality testing along the New York-New 
Jersey coasts. The EPA established a water quality testing program due 
to the pollution problems experienced that year by New Jersey and New 
York in the beaches which they experienced in 1988. As Members may 
recall, this was front page news which caused people to stay away from 
our beaches. This problem could have done irreparable harm to the 
economy, but with the cooperation of the Federal, State, and local 
governments, a comprehensive plan was implemented to ensure that the 
ocean water quality would never be in the sad shape that we found it in 
1988. Since 1988, we have made steady progress in making our coastal 
waters clean.
  There are two critical elements to the EPA's water quality testing 
program. First is the spotting of floatables in the coastal waters, and 
the second is the actual monitoring and surveying of water quality. In 
both situations, the EPA utilizes a helicopter to conduct its work.
  I want to clarify the committee report language. The committee 
language discusses the spotting and immediate cleanup of floatables, 
but does not specify or mention monitoring and surveying of water 
quality. I ask the subcommittee chairman if the intent of the committee 
language includes the monitoring and surveying of water quality, in 
addition to the spotting of floatables?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, yes, the committee realizes 
that the water quality testing program which has been instrumental in 
solving the coastal water problems which New Jersey experienced in 1987 
and 1988 should continue. As the gentleman stated, this program 
includes spotting of floatables and monitoring and surveying of water 
quality.
  Mr. SAXTON. Reclaiming my time, would the chairman of the 
subcommittee explain what funds are available to continue this program?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. It is the committee's intention that the 
funds come for this program from EPA's environmental program and 
compliance account.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the willingness of the 
chairman of the subcommittee to include this language in the committee 
report. This program is vital to New Jersey and I want to commend the 
gentleman for his excellent work as chairman of the subcommittee.


                  amendment no. 50 offered by mr. obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 50.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey: Page 8, line 9, after the 
     dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by 
     $230,000,000)''.
       Page 16, strike lines 12 through 21.
       Page 20, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $400,000,000)''.
       Page 21, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $200,000,000)''.
       Page 22, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $200,000,000)''.
       Page 70, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,600,000,000)''.
       Page 71, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $400,000,000)''.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
we have a limitation of 1 hour, divided equally on each side, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin controlling part of the time, and I will 
control the other half of the time.
  Mr. OBEY. That is perfectly acceptable to me.
  The CHAIRMAN. On this amendment and all amendments thereto?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lewis] will be recognized for 30 minutes in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply cuts out the money for the space 
station, cuts the deficit by almost half a billion in the process, and 
transfers the rest of the unused money from the station into veterans' 
health care, into housing for the elderly and low-income and disabled, 
and to other science, especially other nonstation NASA science.
  Mr. Chairman, like anybody else, I am thrilled by the history of the 
space program. I was at the launch when Neal Armstrong went to the 
Moon. It was one of the most thrilling experiences of my life and, I 
suspect, that of 

[[Page H 7849]]
every other American who witnessed it. However, these times require 
very tough choices. Some of those choices in this bill and a variety of 
other bills, are being avoided, rather than made. The result, I am 
afraid, is going to be severe constriction of our scientific 
capability, as well as a warping of our national priorities.
  Mr. Chairman, the space station is sold as science, and I suppose, in 
some ways, it is, but there are two kinds of science which are funded 
by Government. One is investigator-initiated science in
 which a scientist gets an idea, he applies for a grant, other 
scientists review that proposal, and, because we have limited funding, 
only the science which is judged to be the very best is actually 
approved for Federal financing. This is, I think, quite different 
science.
  Much of it, though certainly not all of it, Mr. Chairman, is what I 
would call politically generated science. It is, in many ways, a 
political project which has been redesigned countless times. And I do 
not mean to use the word ``political'' in a denigrating way. I happen 
to have great respect for the terms ``politician'' and ``public 
servant.'' Without politics, societies have wars, so I have great 
respect for political decisions.
  However, I think there comes a point when we have to ask by which 
process we will learn the most and gain the most to advance this 
country scientifically. I think in many ways this project, desireable 
though it might be if we had additional resources, I think it is in 
many ways a public works demonstration project. Its supporters will 
talk about it in terms of the scientific payoff it can have. I think 
the question is: What knowledge will we gain through the expenditure of 
money for the station versus what kind of knowledge we will gain if we 
put that money to use in other scientific endeavors.
  Mr. Chairman, the cost of this station is supposed to be, when we 
count up what has been spent and what will be spent, about $94 billion, 
$75 billion yet to be spent. To put that in perspective, that is about 
$4 billion a year; on average, that represents about twice as much as 
we spend annually on cancer research. It is more than we spend in the 
entire NASA or NSF budget, and it will not buy, in my view, 94 billion 
dollars' worth of new information.
  It will finance, to a very large extent, repeated performances of 
functions that we already know how to do. It will finance 73 additional 
shuttle flights, at least, to carry into space very large amounts of 
material and equipment which will be assembled by workers floating 
around the globe. I would describe that as being, say, 90 percent a 
large-scale construction project and 10 percent a science project. My 
percentages may be off, but I think Members get my general drift.
  Mr. Chairman, my concern at the scientific level, and because I have 
responsibility wearing my other hat as a member of the Subcommittee on 
Labor, Health, and Human Services, and Education, where we fund all NIH 
research, for instance, I have great concern that, because of the 
budget squeeze, this station is going to squeeze out other science in 
our Federal budget. We are going to have additional budget cuts next 
year.
  Everybody knows that, no matter what decisions we make this year. I 
think if we keep the station, that over time, because of the declining 
level of Federal spending vis-a-vis previous plans, we will in essence 
obliterate our ability to support a lot of other needed science.
                              {time}  1415

  If I can keep just for the moment on the scientific issue, by passing 
this amendment, I think you help us to save other NASA science, you 
help us to fully fund Mission to Planet Earth, or virtually fully fund 
it at its requested level, and in addition to, I think, improving the 
balance of science that these dollars would produce, you allow us to 
restore $400 million to help the elderly and the disabled get decent 
housing here on Earth and, frankly, those of you who know me, know that 
I would, any time, put decent habitat for people on the face of the 
Earth ahead of habitat for astronauts.
  In addition this amendment would allow us to restore $400 million to 
veterans' health, including correcting the problem which we have in the 
bill which will if not corrected squeeze the benefits of about 12,000 
veterans, many of whom suffer from illness who will have their 
disability payments reduced because of the legislative provisions in 
this bill. This will allow us to try to correct that. It will also, in 
addition, give us a bonus of an additional almost $500 million savings 
on the Federal deficit. It seems to me that this is the rational thing 
to do given our budget squeeze.
  One the veterans' side, for instance. The bill before us delays 
funding for $750 million in medical equipment in our veterans' medical 
centers around the country. This would enable us to meet some of the 
shortfall in the veterans' funding area. I really believe it represents 
a far better balance in expenditures.
  I want to say this to those who have had a strong commitment to the 
station in the past. I understand that and I respect it. If this were 
the world that existed back in the 1960's when President Kennedy first 
began the space program, if we had an economy that was expanding at 
that rate, if we had resources which were expected to expand, if we did 
not have a poverty situation which was increasing, if we did not have a 
degenerating housing situation, if we did not have desperate needs in 
the environmental area, I would not be here offering this. But we have 
in the 1980's seen a huge run up in public debt because of policies 
which I largely opposed but nonetheless they were adopted and rammed 
through here over our objection, and those things have consequences. 
The consequence of those decisions in the early 1980's is that we have 
such a huge overhang of public debt, we are now being forced to make 
choices which squeeze out a good many valuable programs. The choices we 
face here is whether or not we will squeeze this one out or whether we 
will pretend for a while that we can continue it, meanwhile watching it 
every day gobble up other essential pieces of the budget, including 
other pieces of the science budget.
  I respect people who differ with me on this issue, and I know that 
this offers people tough choices, but we are paid to make those tough 
choices. I think we ought to begin on this one today.
  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, first I want to express my appreciation to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin for cooperating relative to the time 
difficulties that we have. While we have much agreement, there is some 
disagreement regarding this amendment.
  It is suggested by way of the author's recommendation that there is 
some cost to go in terms of our space station completion and operation, 
somewhere around $94 million.
  According to NASA's evaluation, the dollar figures really should be 
$26.2 billion including $13.2 billion for final development and 
construction and $13 billion for 10 years of operation.
  Setting that aside, it really is no small bit of irony that we are 
considering an amendment here today that would eliminate space station 
funding. It was just last evening that I had the privilege of being at 
the White House where the President was giving a medal to Comdr. Jim 
Lovell, one of our best known and most talented and successful 
astronauts.
  The effect of this amendment in the final analysis would do two 
things that I would suggest are very, very important for all Members to 
consider: First, the amendment would eliminate space station and 
thereby all those flight operations that relate to space station. It 
would undermine the President's effort to further develop an 
international cooperative effort between friends in Eastern Europe as 
well as with Russia.
  There are those suggesting that if you eliminate space station, then 
in some way that money is suddenly going to become available for any 
number of other priorities. I would suggest the latter is a total 
misconception of what would likely occur.
  It is my view that NASA's support flows around the public's interest 
in man's space flight, the public's interest in station. Indeed, if we 
eliminate those programs, it is my view that NASA would all but be 
eliminated itself. To presume that with the other priorities that we 
see in this bill, such 
 
[[Page H 7850]]

as housing, such as veterans, such as EPA, that suddenly a huge flow of 
dollars would be available for scientific research and other science 
programs, some would suggest is at least a bit naive.
  This amendment would kill space station. In my judgment it would kill 
NASA's total program. Indeed it would terminate our American mission in 
space.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in favor of the Obey 
amendment. This is a summer when all of us are thrilled by recalling 
the adventure of Apollo 13. It was one of the milestones in the 
challenge John Kennedy put to America. We needed the challenge and we 
could afford that challenge. But that was then and this is now.
  Now is a time when we need to make our public housing programs 
better--and this administration is trying. But we need to continue a 
Federal commitment to housing for the most vulnerable people in our 
society.
  Now is not a time when we can renege on our commitment to the men and 
women who fought our wars.
  Now is a time when we have to make genuine efforts to control our 
deficit. We have to be credible and fair in this effort.
  Now is not a time when we can afford the space station. The 
challenges that face us today are very different than the ones that 
confronted us in the 1960's of John Kennedy and Apollo 13.
  There are so many things that trouble me about this bill. It is so 
mean-spirited in so many ways.
  As chairman of the Congressional Urban Caucus, I am distressed at the 
harshly anticity, antipoor, antiveteran, antienvironment aspects of 
this bill.
  How can we make it better? Throw it out and start over again. But Mr. 
Obey's amendment does a good job in pointing out the inequities of the 
bill, as well as its departure from genuine and fair deficit reduction.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Obey amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand].
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment and give my support for full funding of the international 
space station Alpha.
  On the one hand we will hear from opponents that budget cutters have 
cut far too deeply into the NASA budget and that those cuts severely 
imperil the U.S. space program. On the other hand we hear opponents 
cite a flawed GAO study that says the space station is going to cost 
$94 billion and we should just do away with it.
  Well, I believe both arguments are incorrect and wrong.
  The space station represents America's future in the development of 
space. In the Science Committee, under the leadership of Bob Walker and 
Jim Sensenbrenner, we have gone to great lengths to make certain that 
the space station will progress in a responsible, fiscally competent, 
efficient, and on-schedule fashion for the next 7 years.
  If that were not the case I would not support the program.
  In a time when we are scaling back, tightening, and eliminating, some 
ask how we can allocate full funding for the station. The answer, quite 
simply, is that the station is an investment in America's future.
  Are we going to lead the way in space or are we going to watch others 
from the sidelines? Are we going to lead the way in space-based 
research or will our citizens have to wait for medical progress? Are we 
going to lead the way in sending products into space or will we be 
forced to buy services from the other nations who stayed involved with 
the station?
  The space station is very much about America's future. In fact, it is 
a pathway into the future. In the Science Committee, we recognize this 
reality and embrace it. We can see the commercial possibilities sand 
the necessity for America to be competitive.
  We can do this and keep our commitment to balance the budget.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the ranking member of the 
Committee on Science.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] is recognized 
for 7 minutes.
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think beyond question the remarks I make here today 
and the vote that I cast on this amendment will rank amongst the most 
difficult that I have ever had to make.
  I have come to the conclusion that we can no longer sustain a space 
program of the type that I would like to see and which has been 
recommended by all of the experts in this field, at the budget level 
which we are now confronted with, and that as a consequence I will have 
to oppose the space station.
  I have this chart here which will enable me to explain the budgetary 
situation. I have had this chart for a number of years. I used it for 
the last couple of years to try and tell the President that we could 
not continue the space program and the space station at the level of 
his budget. I have now revised it to include the Republican budget as 
well, which I find makes the President's budget look good.
  When I came to Congress, NASA's budget was here. I came in the early 
1960's. The Republican budget at the end of a 5-year period will bring 
us back to less than it was in the early 1960's. The President's budget 
would allow us to do slightly better but not too much.
  Five years ago, President Bush commissioned a report on the future of 
the space program. This was at this point right here on the chart. The 
commission was chaired by the present chairman of Martin Marietta and 
composed of distinguished citizens and scientists.
  At that point the commission recommended that to maintain all of the 
programs NASA was supporting, including the space station, it would be 
necessary to continue this upward curve, up to about here. At this 
point, it would equal about half in terms of GNP what it was over here.
  Instead of following the recommendations of that report, what 
actually happened was just the opposite. We have tried to maintain all 
of those programs in NASA's portfolio with a budget which is less than 
half of what was recommended by that report.
  Here is when the present administrator, Mr. Goldin, came in.
                              {time}  1430

  He was appointed by Mr. Bush, told to streamline NASA, to cut the 
budget, to use all of the necessary techniques, including reductions of 
the bureaucracy, and redesign of programs to achieve the NASA Program 
goals, but at considerably less money.
  Here we are today, and Mr. Goldin has done one of the most 
magnificent jobs that I have ever seen a Government employee do and he 
has maintained the level of the programs and cut the overall budget by 
15 percent.
  Here is where we are. Where do we go from here? In my opinion, we can 
continue to make modest cuts and continue all of these programs, but we 
cannot go as far as the President recommends, which amounts to a 30-
percent cut from where Mr. Goldin started, nor can we do what the 
Republican budget includes, which is a 40-percent cut.
  Mr. Chairman, in other words we are proposing to cut the budget for 
NASA almost in half over a period of years, and to still finish what we 
have done.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the distinguished chairman 
of the subcommittee, a very astute gentleman, recognized in his 
original subcommittee report that they could not do that, so the 
gentleman proposed cutting out a number of major science programs and 
three major installations. The gentleman will have to do that again 
next year, and it will carry 

[[Page H 7851]]
next year, because there is no way to continue with NASA.
  So I am suggesting to all of my colleagues that we need to take a 
fundamental look of where we want to be in space. We are about to see 
the collapse of all of our cooperative efforts, including the space 
station, because we do not now have adequate reserves to guarantee us 
against the unexpected in the remaining 5 years of that program.
  Our allies in Europe, with whom I keep in fairly close touch, 
including this morning, our allies in Japan, our allies in Canada, are 
questioning whether we can continue these programs on this kind of a 
budget trajectory, and they are correct, and they are likely to leave 
the ship in the very near future.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate both 
the interest of the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] in the work 
of NASA and also the gentleman's chart, because it reflects many of the 
frustrations that I share with the gentleman.
  One of our problems has been that NASA's financing begins in our 
Subcommittee on Appropriations. There is no question that funding 
competing with housing and veterans' programs has competed with NASA.
  On the other hand I have argued that the only hope that NASA really 
has to get continued support within the House is the mission in space. 
That is how we developed the broadly based bipartisan support that NASA 
has had so far. Frankly, without space station, I think all of that 
disappears.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I happen to agree with the 
gentleman. I think NASA's programs will begin to unravel if we end the 
space station. On the other hand, we are now headed on a trajectory 
which will leave us at a level of expenditure of two-tenths of 1 
percent of the Gross National Product at that point. Up here we were 
eight-tenths of national GNP.
  Now, we all say we give NASA a high priority. Wonderful program, 
great science, great adventure, very stimulating. And then we give it 
less resources than any other part of the domestic discretionary 
programs; less than any other science; less certainly than nonscience 
aspects of the budget.
  Of course, you can compare it with defense which continues to go up, 
even though we do not have any realistic wars in the near term. We are 
not giving NASA the priority which we all say that it ought to have, 
and it will collapse.
  Mr. Chairman, I told the President this last year. I said, ``Your 
budget this year will survive. The programs could continue, but the 5-
year outlook, it cannot.'' I said, ``I will vote for the space station 
this year, if you will work hard to keep it a half a billion dollars. 
Last year they gave the President more than he asked for; a good sign.
  This year the President did not reexamine the 5-year outlook. I am 
not going to support it under these conditions and I continue to point 
out that we are lying in our teeth if we say space is important and 
then give it this kind of a budget.
  Mr.  Chairman,  I  rise  today to state  my overall dismay 
over the events that have led us to consider this amendment today. In 
1990, then-President Bush brought together the Nation's wisest and most 
knowledgeable experts on the space program to review the future 
direction we should take. At that time the concern centered around 
NASA's ability to sustain major efforts such as the space station and 
the space shuttle program and still carry out its basic missions in 
science and space exploration.
  This panel, called the Augustine Commission, produced a report 
remarkable for its insight and vision. One of the most notable 
recommendations was that the scope and direction of our Nation's space 
program must be accompanied by a stable budget--a budget that at least 
keeps pace with inflation. If we truly have as our objective the 
expansion of human presence in space, the budget must some day reach a 
level approaching about half what it was during the Apollo years 
according to the Augustine report.
  Scarcely had the Augustine report been released than Congress and the 
administration embarked on a fierce competition to cut the NASA budget. 
Over the past 5 years, there seems to be no cut large enough to satisfy 
the budget cutting frenzy in both the Congress and the executive 
branch. The most recent reduction by the White House--a $5 billion cut 
over 5 years--was doubled by the Republican budget resolution. This 
mimics some kind of high stakes poker game in which the losers will be 
not only NASA, but our future generations.
  Over the past 5 years, as this scenario has unfolded, I have agonized 
over how best to call attention to this fantasy that NASA funding is a 
bottomless pit--that we can cut indefinitely and still expect to keep 
major NASA centers open, still keep major programs afloat, and still 
keep the public confidence in our stewardship of NASA.
  Today, I have reluctantly reached the conclusion that this fantasy is 
no longer plausible. I see no juncture this year, nor in the future at 
which leaders in Congress and the White House will reverse this trend 
or reach a consensus on the need for a stable long-term NASA budget. 
Thus I plan today to vote to terminate the space station. This is a 
very painful decision for me--but I have no other morally acceptable 
choice.
  In saying this I want to give my highest accolades to NASA and to 
Administrator Goldin who has struggled to meet the demands of OMB to 
cut back, and his strong voice against the further reductions proposed 
by the Republicans. NASA has made Congress's job vastly easier by 
forging ahead on reforms, by proposing rational ways to reduce spending 
and absorb the cuts levied by OMB and by returning the space program to 
the American people. It is profoundly unfair to ignore the solid work 
already done and replace it with the vague, misguided policy directives 
that masquerade these days for budget cuts--policy directives to go 
forth and privatize, commercialize and so on. These are no more than 
buzz words, indeed buzz words that nobody can even agree on.
  I have been and will remain a strong supporter of the space station. 
But the Republican budget plan and the lack of leadership in the White 
House on space issues leaves me no choice but to point out that NASA 
cannot remain a viable agency and cannot sustain a viable space station 
program within the budgetary envelope that has been put forward by the 
Republicans.
  I tried to make this point last year that the President's own 5-year 
budget plan would not sustain a balanced NASA program as well as the 
space station, but I was obviously unsuccessful in convincing them.
  I fully recognize that the amendment which I will vote for will, if 
passed, put NASA overall in worse shape. The amendment that should be 
considered today is one that will restore the cuts that have been made 
to NASA in this bill and to bring it back to at least the level in the 
President's request in fiscal year 1996 and to maintain stability 
thereafter by keeping pace with inflation. There is no doubt that that 
amendment will fail miserably.
  I will close by restating that my vote today represents my personal 
position and I do not necessarily ask that my colleagues join me. I 
hope, however, that my colleagues in this and future Congresses will 
join me in focussing on this important problem and lending their 
genuine support to the space program.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner].
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Obey 
amendment and in opposition to the misguided priorities represented in 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, the money that we spend on NASA can never be justified 
in the abstract. But where it can be justified is in the spinoffs that 
our investment in the future, which is represented in the NASA budget, 
brings.
  Throughout the civilian space program since 1957, we have seen 
revolutions in telecommunications, revolutions in materials 
development, revolutions in medical techniques, revolutions in the 
development of new types of medications that do a better job in 
treating what ails human beings with fewer side effects.
  Mr. Chairman, those types of spinoffs will end if NASA collapses. And 
make no bones about it, the space station is the linchpin of NASA's 
efforts. We take away the space station, we take away a lot of the 
scientific research that will end up providing a huge improvement in 
the standard of living for every human being on this earth, and not 
just in the United States, but elsewhere as well.
  So let us not eat our seed corn. Let us not turn our back on 
research. Let us continue to support the space station by voting down 
the Obey amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment calls into question the American 
commitment to space. We should not be questioning that. If it is 
adopted, it will 

[[Page H 7852]]
mean that the Congress will have, in effect, thrown away the $17 
billion already spent on the development of the space station, and the 
50,000 pounds of material that have been already produced that will go 
up into orbit.
  It will welch on our international partners: the Russians, the 
European space agency, the Germans, the French, the Canadians, the 
Japanese, and will tell those international partners that America is an 
unreliable partner in any big-ticket expensive scientific investment 
and tell them that the $6 billion that they have spent will be thrown 
away, just as the $17 billion that we have spent.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think that that is the example that we should 
be setting in the Congress of the United States. The $400 million that 
is transferred into HUD does not buy very much housing, but it is done 
at the expense of wrecking a major program that this Congress has 
committed itself to for over 10 years.
  The space station should be kept in the budget. This amendment should 
be defeated. We should not wreck America's future in the development of 
the things that are spun off from what NASA has done.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  (Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, is it really appropriate to be talking about another 
$74 billion investment for a space station when we have 5 million 
children in America who are hungry and this Congress is cutting back on 
nutrition programs and food stamps?
  I do not think that that is a proper or moral tradeoff. We should not 
be doing that.
  Mr. Chairman, the budget that we are dealing with now devastates 
programs for affordable housing. How can low-income people bring up a 
family when they make $6 an hour and are forced to pay 50 or 60 percent 
of their limited incomes for housing? How many more families, how many 
more children, will be made homeless as a result of this budget? That 
is not right.
  Mr. Chairman, the wealthy in our country have the resources to send 
their kids to the finest private schools and the finest colleges, 
colleges which often cost $25,000 a year or more.
  The working class and the middle class of this country do not have 
that luxury. In fact, it is harder and harder for the average American 
family to afford college for their kids.
  Mr. Chairman, how do we tell the working families of this country 
that we are prepared to spend tens of billions more on the space 
station, but we are cutting back drastically on student loans, on Pell 
grants, on upward bound, on the National Service Program; congressional 
decisions which will make it impossible for millions of American kids 
to afford college. Billions more for hardware in space; major cuts in 
education. That does not make sense.
  The Republican budget that we are operating under eliminates LIHEAP. 
Elderly people in Vermont, throughout this country, will go cold when 
the weather becomes 20 below zero. Mr. Chairman, $74 billion more for 
the space station; elderly people in America going cold. Those are 
wrong priorities.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the chairman of the Committee 
on Science.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Obey amendment 
that would kill 40,000 high-technology American jobs and the support of 
that amendment by the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] that would 
somehow make NASA better by taking $2 billion out of its budget this 
year.
  Mr. Chairman, today's decision is about the future. Today's decision 
is about doing something that will be remembered as a step into human 
kind's destiny. Today's decision is about contributing to the never-
ending quest of human exploration. Today's decision is 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. It is easy to dispute, 
even mock, the unknown. Because what we will learn by going to the 
frontier is more about imagination and hope than it is about hard, cold 
fact, the potential of the 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 that must be met first with our limited resources. Invariably, 
throughout history that easy argument has been wrong. Men and women who 
have bought the easy argument have become the defenders of the status 
quo and their dreams have been lost. Nations who have bought the easy 
argument have lost their sense of destiny and declined in both power 
and prestige.

  Mr. Chairman, 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 space station. In that same period we will 
spend at least 12 percent of our total national outlays, or more than 
70 times than what we spend on space station, paying interest on the 
national debt.
  Massive commitment to debt without some 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.
  We will do completely unique scientific work aboard the 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 
that 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 international community which 
will build mutual trust and respect. The payoff is a promise of peace.
  We will cooperate in an international venture that may prove to be 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.'' They want to spend the money in other ways. But they 
would have us give up a lot.
  When we abandon space station, we stop 30 years of progress in human 
space flight. When we abandon space station, we leave the space shuttle 
as a magnificent flying machine without its original mission.
  When we abandon space station, we kill off the last major science 
project being done with international partners and jeopardize the 
future of cooperative efforts.
  When we abandon space station, we abandon American leadership in the 
arena of the future and leave the potential of space to others.
  When we abandon space station, the dream is no longer alive.
  Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues came to Congress to, in some small 
way, touch the future, here is their chance. Somewhere out there, on 
the endless frontier, is the destiny of humankind. We can step toward 
that destiny, or can we step back, away from it. I hope most of us will 
choose to step forward.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues' support for the 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. I yield back the 
balance of my time.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I am, indeed, honored to follow the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Science and his remarks. He 
is right on. He is right on the issue, and I appreciate the work that 
the chairman of the subcommittee on VA, HUD, and independent agencies 
has done on this issue. He has been very fair in allocating these 
funds.
  Mr. Chairman,
   I rise in strong opposition to this very misguided amendment. For 
the most part, the accounts the gentleman from Wisconsin seeks to 

[[Page H 7853]]
increase have already been accommodated in the managers amendment. In 
regard to the VA medical account, this is the only account in the bill 
that has already received an increase over the fiscal year 1995 level.

  The Obey amendment attempts to redirect the priorities set out in 
this bill and I submit to my colleagues that the priorities of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin are far different from those of the majority 
of this House.
  While this amendment makes rather small add backs to several 
accounts, it terminates the international space station program. This 
is a program that represents one of the few areas of this bill where 
Federal tax dollars actually contribute to an investment in this 
Nation's future.
  I am a vigorous supporter of the space station for many reasons. For 
me, and I think for most Americans, America's space program is one of 
the activities undertaken by our Government which is unquestionably 
legitimate.
  And the objectives are far too important to compromise. Forget the 
unparalled knowledge about space itself, forget even the new heights of 
international cooperation and the building of inhabitable structures in 
space.
  The long-duration microgravity capabilities of the space station will 
directly affect research in cell and developmental biology, human 
physiology, biotechnology, fluid physics, combustion science, materials 
science, benchmark physics and the large-scale commercial development 
of space. We cannot afford to forgo the tremendous impact these 
scientific efforts will produce.
  Moreover, the reaching of these objectives through space research is 
exactly the type of activity that Americans expect their Government to 
undertake. This expectation is what separates space station funding 
from Federal spending on paintings and poetry, on museums, publishing, 
broadcasting, farm subsidies, loan guarantees, real estate development, 
and bank bailouts.
  And let me be clear: To those who believe that we can maintain a 
human space program without the space station, don't fool yourselves, 
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.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this misguided amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, later in the debate on this legislation, 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and I will be proposing an 
amendment that will apply the entire savings from the elimination of 
the space station program to deficit reduction.
  But I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] because I do believe that it is a worthwhile 
amendment to support as well. Although I would prefer that all the 
money go to deficit reduction, I believe that the $400 million of 
deficit reduction which is included in the Obey amendment is certainly 
not chopped liver and in future years the elimination of the space 
station will free up tens of billions of dollars for deficit reduction 
and for more cost-effective programs in space and on Earth.
  Let me say right off the bat, I think ``Apollo 13'' is a wonderful 
movie, and I do believe that it is the destiny of humankind to explore 
space, to boldly go where no one has gone before, but I do believe, 
with this expenditure, as with every other expenditure that we 
consider, we have got to look at the numbers and we have got to be 
hard-eyed in our justification for it.
  I marvel at how some of the flintiest, hard-core fiscal conservatives 
in this House get all wobbly and emotional when the subject comes to 
the space station.
  I just urge you to look at the space station with the same hard-eyed 
analytical approach that you do with other spending programs. I believe 
that a critical reason why we have to kill the space station is the 
reason that my friend from California, the former chairman of the 
Committee on Science has laid out. There is no one, I believe, who 
feels more strongly about science and believes more deeply in space 
exploration than the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the ranking 
Democrat on the Committee on Science. He has come to the realization 
that we cannot afford both to continue good science in space and to 
build the space station.
  I concur.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stockman].
  Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time to speak today on space station.
  My friend from New Jersey said we get wobbly and tear up when we talk 
about the space station. That is because I think of the starving 
children around the world who are hungry. We say, how can we feed these 
kids? Well, we are going to feed them one time by transferring the 
money.
  Ladies and gentlemen, the answers to the problems may be by going to 
space. When we go to space, we have a totally new environment in which 
we can solve many problems.
  We are denying our scientists that access to that research if we vote 
to cut the space station. It is wrong. It is misguided, and it is 
shortsighted.
  I am embarrassed to say we cannot even cut the National Endowment for 
the Arts 10 percent, but we are willing to cut our Nation's future.
  Queen Isabella had problems. She had potholes. She had problems. She 
still sought out new worlds.
  We will always have problems, but we will always not have the space 
station.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans].
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I find it ironic that on this day of the 
dedication of the Korean war veterans memorial on The Mall, we will 
shortly be working here with the new Republican majority on the Hill to 
vote to deeply cut veterans' benefits.
  This bill fails to meet the promise we made to our Nation's veterans 
in the areas of medical benefits, education, vocational rehabilitation 
and many other areas. If you do not believe what we Democrats are 
saying about this bill, I believe you should at least listen to the 
major veterans' organizations that strongly oppose it. The American 
Legion believes that the dramatic VA funding reductions called for will 
clearly undermine the commitment of our Nation to its veterans. This 
Nation's contract with its veterans is irrevocable and must never be 
abrogated. The Veterans of Foreign Wars says, ``The designated 
appropriations still fall well short of the funding necessary to 
maintain even the current level of earned entitlements for our 
veterans,'' and it says, ``The cuts cross the line and fall well 
short.'' The Paralyzed Veterans of America is upset gains in VA medical 
care account were achieved only at the expense of other major veterans' 
programs. Vietnam Veterans of America say the cuts ``far exceed what is 
fair and equitable and that it will force the VA to decide between 
equally worthy groups of patients.'' The Disabled Veterans are incensed 
because this bill cuts benefits to some service-connected veterans 
saying, ``The proposal is ill-advised and strikes at the very heart of 
our Nation's obligation to provide compensation to all citizen soldiers 
disabled in the defense of the freedoms we all enjoy.''
  That is a provision that would deny mentally incompetent veterans any 
benefits if their estates are valued at less than $25,000.
  The Obey amendment is important for the veterans of our country. It 
reinstates the cuts made in those mentally incompetent veterans' 
benefits, for example.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up and support the Obey amendment, and 
that will be their effort to stand up for our veterans as well.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall].
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] that we have to make every effort to ensure that 
our taxpayers are getting the most for their tax dollars. I certainly 
agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin that we need to eliminate 
wasteful and unnecessary programs.
  I even go so far as to agree we need to cut back wherever we can, and 
I am willing to have a side-by-side review of 

[[Page H 7854]]
my record of having cutbacks and trying to be frugal with the people's 
money.
  But Americans are not going to be getting the most for their tax 
dollars if they abandon the project that is going to help us have a 
better future. My basic support is for the biomedical thrust in space. 
We are still searching for cures for cancer, diabetes and other 
diseases. Micro-gravity research in space already has had encouraging 
results and has raised our hopes for future medical breakthroughs.
  Of course, there are no guarantees. Jonas Salk had no guarantee. 
Louis Pasteur had no guarantee. Dr. Fleming had no guarantee. There are 
no guarantees. But we have not found these cures here in this 
environment, and we might just find them in the weightless environment 
of space.
  Those Americans whose lives are threatened by disease would argue 
that finding a cure for their illness would be well worth this 
financial investment in the space station. Little children who have 
lost their hair to chemotherapy, tubes in them, veterans of the wars of 
the world wasting away, these are people who have hope in research.
  Who would not be willing to pay 2.2 cents a day in return for this 
investment? Even if we do not eventually find these cures, the 
technological and scientific benefits that will result will justify 
this expenditure.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge you to vote against the Obey amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer].
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
termination of the international space station. Mr. Chairman, there 
have been seven votes in the House to terminate space station since 
1991.
  The space station has survived every vote. We have had a firefight 
every year.
  I urge the Members to oppose this amendment. You cannot be 
responsible and build a house and get to the point of putting the roof 
on it and say now is the time to turn our back on this program. We have 
gone too far to do that.
  If we give up on space station, we give up on human space 
exploration. Do not let the 104th Congress be the Congress depicted in 
another movie much like ``Apollo 13,'' as the Congress that turned its 
back on this very critical program.
  Support the space station. Vote against this amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in bipartisan support of a strong, 
balanced space program, and therefore must join the bipartisan 
opposition to the Obey amendment to terminate the international space 
station.
  Our space program must balance human space flight with key science, 
aeronautics and technology initiatives like the Mission to Planet 
Earth. By killing the space station, we will greatly disrupt this 
balance by effectively ending NASA's human space flight efforts.
  When I came to Congress 2\1/2\ years ago, I was a space station 
skeptic. I was concerned about the program's cost and how it was being 
managed. I was not sure that the program's benefits justified continued 
investment by American taxpayers.
  But NASA's Administrator Dan Goldin has brought the station program 
under control. NASA has streamlined management by selecting a single 
prime contractor, and cut program costs by adding incentives for cost 
performance and penalties for delays.
  Mr. Chairman, I am now persuaded that the program's benefits are 
enormous. Station's unique zero-gravity research environment will allow 
new insights into human health and disease prevention and treatment. 
Station's international nature, especially its Russian involvement, 
will demonstrate that former adversaries can move beyond the cold war 
and into new era of peaceful cooperation.
  Station is an investment in our future. Twenty-six years ago, Neil 
Armstrong took his first step on the Moon--thereby inspiring a whole 
generation of Americans. Now, the space station will finally give us a 
permanent presence in space, and will give the next generation a 
springboard to future human exploration of our universe.
  Mr. Chairman, our country needs a strong and balanced space program. 
The international space station must continue.
                              {time}  1500

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to this 
amendment and rise to speak out in support of our international space 
station.
  NASA has cut its budget 35 percent since fiscal year 1993, saving the 
taxpayers $40 billion. NASA's fiscal 1996 budget is below their fiscal 
year 1992 budget in real dollars.
  Aerospace is the single strongest export sector in the U.S. economy; 
1993 exports topped $40 billion. Station is less than 15 percent of the 
NASA budget, one-seventh of 1 percent of the Federal budget, and costs 
each American taxpayer $9 a year.
  In essence, Mr. Chairman, we have a great program here. It is on 
budget, it is on time, and we have an agency that has been leading the 
charge in doing it smarter, faster, quicker, with less money, and what 
we are trying to do here is congratulate and encourage that Agency by 
kicking them when they are doing a good job.
  This space station, I am convinced, is vital and important for our 
Nation to remain the world's leader in science, technology, as well as 
education, and I speak out very, very strongly in opposition to this 
amendment. I believe our space station is part of our future, it is 
important for our children, and I encourage all our colleagues to vote 
against this amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Houston, TX, Mr. Gene Green.
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
future of our manned space program. This space station is not, as some 
people call it, a pork-barrel program. It is the excitement of our era, 
the international space station.
  Mr. Chairman, I serve on the Committee on Economic and Educational 
Opportunities, and every school I go into and I talk about space and 
space exploration, the children light up whether they are in the 
poorest neighborhoods or the richest neighborhoods. That is the future 
of our country. The opponents of the space station have argued that 
this program costs too much. The truth is that every dollar spent on 
space programs returns at least $2 in direct and indirect benefits. Our 
commitment to America's future today will accelerate breakthroughs in 
technology and engineering that will have immediate, practical 
applications for life on Earth. It will inspire our children, foster 
the next generation of scientists, engineers, and satisfy humanity's 
ancient need to explore and achieve.
  A robust space station program assures our students that they are 
critical to the Nation--that they are the next generation--and that the 
thrill of just beginning starts with them whether they are in 
kindergarten or in the 12th grade. By voting in favor of this space 
station, again the Obey amendment, my colleagues can confirm their 
equipment to the science of learning. I ask my colleagues that they 
base their decision on the art of science and not the art of politics 
of the moment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  (Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, in just a few minutes we 
are going to see a lot of Members leave this floor and go down the 
street to the war memorial for the Korean war veterans, and, while that 
is a commendable program that is far overdue for our Nation's veterans, 
I think it would do us some good to concentrate a little bit on what is 
going on in our Committee on Veterans' Affairs. The veterans of this 
country for the large measure are getting older. When they get older, 
they need more health care, and yet we no longer approach veterans' 
issues as to whether or not they served this 

[[Page H 7855]]
country when the country put the call out, but we say whether or not 
their budget is going to fit into the needs of our country right at the 
moment for the people paying the taxes.
  Well, I think it is important that we have a balance in terms of 
taxes in this country, but I do not think we ought to be taking it out 
of the hide of those veterans that served this country and defended 
this Nation when the call went out, and that is exactly what this bill 
does. We say all the Nation's veterans are held harmless because they 
get the same amount of money this year as they did last year.
  First of all, that is not true; and second, they need more money. 
Anybody that would choose to go into a veteran's hospital versus a 
private hospital in this country today has not visited a veterans' 
hospital.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to recognize that it is only the republicans 
that could come up with this bizarre concept that we need to take money 
out of the space program in order to cut our Nation's veterans' 
programs so that we can turn around and cut our housing programs by $6 
billion.
  As my colleagues know, at some point there has got to be some 
rationale of what it is we are trying to accomplish around here. 
Certainly I would very much like to see out country invest in the 
Advanced Technology Program. The Republicans killed that last night on 
the House floor. To suggest that what we want to do is have a space 
program to increase technologies is a bizarre twist on what the purpose 
of the space program was to begin with.
  For those of my colleagues who may have forgotten we built the space 
program not to create new technologies, we built the space program 
because we were threatened by the Russians that could control space and 
perhaps gain control over this country's security. If we are interested 
in fighting back on the technology front, let us invest in technology. 
Let us not rob the homeless the way this bill does.
  I support the Obey amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward].
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Obey 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I serve on the Committee on Science. I serve on the 
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. I have heard the arguments. I 
have visited a NASA center in Huntsville, AL, and was treated very 
nicely and generously and kindly. But even after that, even after that, 
I feel that we cannot afford to fund the space station. I do not feel 
there will be the payoffs; I do not feel that it is the correct 
decision at this time to make.
  I fully support the shuttle program, and I am afraid when I hear the 
argument that the shuttle program will have to be cut down or 
eliminated if there is no space station. I think there is plenty of 
value in the shuttle program and in the entire space program without 
the space station. It does not require a space station to be a 
productive contributor.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the obey amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman].
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Lewis for yielding this time to me, and I want to speak for my 
allotted time on an issue I think that is important.
  In my decade now, in the House of Representatives, I think the total 
votes on station in this House of Representatives now number 19. We 
have voted over and over and over again about this issue, and during 
the process of the years of those votes we now have invested over $12 
billion in this project, done so in a way with international 
cooperative agreements from 13 nations who themselves have invested 
over $4 billion so far in this project.
  We are halfway home. We have this project under construction. Station 
is bending metal. We will be launching its first components in just a 
couple of years. The program of space station is the program that NASA 
has given us for decades, and that is a program of a future, of less 
pain and suffering, of greater science, of advancements of technology, 
of a stronger economy, and leadership in a global environment. We ought 
not back off our agreements, our investment, our future.
  Mr. Chairman, what we can do today is once more say, and hopefully 
finally, that we are going to keep our agreements, we are going to 
build space station, and we are going to know the process of doing so, 
that like all other investments historically in NASA, this one is going 
to return to the people of our country vastly more than we will spend 
in this appropriations bill.
  Defeat the Obey amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this shortsighted 
amendment. All of us have seen in recent months what has happened in 
the space program, the recent docking between America's space shuttle 
and the Russian space station. It brings new hope for greater 
cooperation in our efforts to understand our planet, our solar system, 
and even our galaxy, but, as nations from around the world are working 
together to establish a space station where we can work together toward 
a better future for our children, this amendment would end, end our 
manned space station program.
  All of us remember what President Ronald Reagan said about the space 
program: ``The future doesn't belong to the fainthearted, it belongs to 
the brave.''
  He was also talking about our space program when he said: ``We'll 
continue our quest in space. There will be more shuttle flights and 
more shuttle crews and, yes, more volunteers, more civilians, more 
teachers in space. Nothing ends here. Our hopes and our journeys 
continue.''
  And I remember President Kennedy talking about the space program when 
he said, ``. . . not because it is easy, because it is hard.''
  Mr. Chairman, if this amendment passes, mankind's dreams of reaching 
out from our world will end. A hope for greater understanding of our 
world and even for new developments in areas such as medicine and 
metallurgy, will end also all because we were unwilling to look ahead, 
invest in the future.
  Let me quote a poem as I close from Alfred Tennyson:

       For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see. Saw 
     the vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be. 
     Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails. 
     Pilots of the purple twilight, dropping down with costly 
     bales.

  My colleagues, today we have the opportunity to make this dream a 
reality. Vote no on the Obey amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is recognized 
for 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, one of the previous speakers in opposition to 
this amendment said that my priorities were wrong. Well, I think I have 
the same priorities as the people who I run into when I visit with them 
in Wausau, or Stevens Point, or Chippewa Falls, or Wisconsin Rapids, or 
Superior, or any other place in my district. My priorities are the 
80,000 displaced American workers who will be cut out of worker 
training programs in the next appropriation bill to come before this 
House. My priorities are the 50,000 kids who are going to get tossed 
out of Head Start programs they would otherwise be able to be taken 
into in the next appropriation bill that is going to come before this 
House. My priority would be the young people who are going to lose 
their college loans in the next appropriation bill to come before this 
House. My priority would be the 600,000 Americans who will lose any 
help whatsoever from their Government to help heat their houses in 
winter and cool them in the summer so you don't have 800 more deaths 
like we had 2 weeks ago. The Clinton administration just released 
emergency fuel assistance money. There will be no emergency fuel 
assistance money next year if the Republican majority has their way on 
the appropriation bill coming before this House next. My priorities 
would be the disabled veterans who are being chiseled on their 
disability benefits, 12,000 of whom will wind up being squeezed so that 
we can make more room in this budget for other priorities. I make no 
apology for putting those folks first.
  My priorities would also be science right here on Earth, at NIH, NSF, 
just 

[[Page H 7856]]
name it: Cancer research, Alzheimer's, heart disease; we have plenty of 
science that we need to support right here on Earth.
                              {time}  1515

  I would also just close by reading one paragraph from the letter I 
received from the Disabled American Veterans. It simply says this: 
America's service-connected disabled veterans and their families are 
deeply disturbed by recent actions taken by the House Committee on 
Appropriations which would terminate compensation payments to certain 
service-connected mentally disabled veterans in order to provide 
additional funding for Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] health care. 
DAV certainly understands the need to put our Nation's financial house 
in order; however, this proposal is ill-advised and strikes at the very 
heart of our Nation's sacred obligation to provide compensation to all 
citizen-soldiers disabled in defense of the freedoms all of us enjoy.''
  I agree with that statement. So I would simply urge you to support 
the Obey amendment. It saves almost half a million dollars on the 
deficit. It helps meet our commitment to veterans, a commitment which 
this bill welches on. This amendment corrects that. It also helps us to 
provide some decent housing for additional Americans who are elderly 
and disabled.
  Mr. Chairman, I make absolutely no apology for those priorities at 
all. Those ought to be the priorities of this entire Congress. I urge 
Members support the Obey amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, as we close this debate on the 
Obey amendment, I think it is very important for all of those who are 
interested and are listening to know that the amount of money that is 
available for NASA is a very small fraction of the total dollars 
available in this bill. We do not begin to put into station, let alone 
NASA, nearly the money we put into veterans programs or housing. NASA's 
programs should probably be in another bill so you would not have these 
kinds of comparisons that really make no sense at all.
  America's greatness has been largely achieved by way of America's 
dreams. It was our willingness to think about a new world, a new future 
for mankind, that led to America in the first place. It was Americans 
seeking out their dreams that allowed us to build the West, the pioneer 
spirit that made the difference not only then, but makes the difference 
today, not just in our minds, but in our hearts as well.
  One great dream for the future lies in space. There is absolutely no 
question there is broadly based support from the public for man's 
exploration in space. What remains is a partnership with friends around 
the world. We are, together, attempting to make breakthrough in space 
that will impact technology and that will create a new opportunity, not 
only for ourselves, but for mankind.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, which would 
destroy space station, and I believe destroy all of NASA's programs.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I 
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey] will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Are there other amendments to title I?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title II.
  The text of title II is as follows:
                                TITLE II

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                            Housing Programs


               annual contributions for assisted housing

       For assistance under the United States Housing Act of 1937, 
     as amended (``the Act'' herein) (42 U.S.C. 1437), not 
     otherwise provided for, $10,041,589,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That none of the funds made 
     available under the head ``Annual contributions for assisted 
     housing'' in this Act or any prior Act shall be expended if 
     such expenditure would cause total fiscal year 1996 
     expenditures to exceed $19,939,311,000: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary shall report to the Committees on 
     Appropriations every 90 days on the implementation of the 
     spending limitation in the preceding proviso: Provided 
     further, That of the total amount provided under this head, 
     $100,000,000 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): 
     Provided further, That of the total amount provided under 
     this head, $2,500,000,000 shall be for modernization of 
     existing public housing projects pursuant to section 14 of 
     the Act (42 U.S.C. 1437l): Provided further, That of the 
     amounts earmarked under this head for modernization of 
     existing public housing projects, $15,000,000 shall be used 
     for the Tenant Opportunity Program: Provided further, That 
     during fiscal year 1996, the Secretary may direct any public 
     housing agency that receives any part of the foregoing 
     amount, to use such amount, or any other amount that has been 
     made available in this or any other prior Act for public 
     housing under this head or for the HOPE VI/Urban 
     Revitalization Demonstration Program, and that has not been 
     obligated by the agency, to demolish, reconfigure, or reduce 
     the density of any public housing project owned by the 
     agency: Provided further, That of the total amount provided 
     under this head, $862,125,000 shall be available for non-
     incremental rental assistance under the section 8 housing 
     voucher program under section 8(o) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1437f(o)): Provided further, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, voucher assistance provided under the 
     preceding proviso may be used in connection with legislation 
     enacted after the effective date of this Act that authorizes 
     assistance for such purpose, as determined by the Secretary: 
     Provided further, That of the total amount provided under 
     this head, $1,000,000,000 shall be for special needs housing: 
     Provided further, That the amount earmarked under the 
     preceding proviso 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, as amended; capital advances, 
     including amendments to capital advance contracts, and 
     project rental assistance, including 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; and 
     housing opportunities for persons with AIDS under title VIII, 
     subtitle D of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 
     Housing Act: Provided further, That the Secretary may use up 
     to $200,000,000 from unobligated carryover balances under 
     this heading as of September 30, 1995, 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 under preservation 
     legislation enacted subsequent to this Act: Provided further, 
     That of the total amount provided under this head, 
     $10,000,000 shall be for the lead-based paint hazard 
     reduction program as authorized under section 1053 of the 
     Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992: 
     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, $4,941,589,000 
     shall be for assistance under the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437) for use in connection with expiring 
     or terminating section 8 subsidy contracts: Provided further, 
     That such amounts shall be merged with funds referenced in 
     section 204 of this title: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may reserve 
     amounts available for the renewal of assistance under section 
     8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 and may use such 
     amounts, upon the termination or expiration of a contract for 
     assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 (other than a contract for tenant-based assistance 
     and notwithstanding section 8(v) of such Act for loan 
     management assistance), to provide voucher assistance under 
     section 8(o) of such Act in the market area for a number of 
     eligible families equal to the number of units covered by the 
     terminated or expired contract, which assistance shall be in 
     accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the 
     Secretary: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, assistance reserved under the preceding 
     proviso may be used in connection with any provision of 
     Federal law enacted after the enactment of this Act that 
     authorizes the use of rental assistance amounts in connection 
     with such terminated or expired contracts: Provided further, 
     That of the total amount provided under this head, 
     $610,575,000 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.

[[Page H 7857]]



                         flexible subsidy fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       From the fund established by section 236(g) of the National 
     Housing Act, as amended, all uncommitted balances of excess 
     rental charges as of September 30, 1995, and any collections 
     during fiscal year 1996 shall be transferred, as authorized 
     under such section, to the fund authorized under Section 201 
     (j) of the Housing and Community Development Amendments of 
     1978, as amended.


                       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 1996 by not 
     more than $2,000,000 in uncommitted balances of 
     authorizations provided for this purpose in appropriations 
     Acts: Provided, That up to $163,000,000 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 1996.
         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), 
     $2,500,000,000.
                  home investment partnerships program

       For the HOME investment partnerships program, as authorized 
     under title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 
     Housing Act (Public Law 101-625), as amended, $1,400,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.
                     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, $12,000,000, 
     notwithstanding section 106(c)(9) and section 106(d)(13), of 
     such Act.


           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 $36,900,000.
                          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 subtitle F of title IV of such 
     Act); and the innovative homeless initiatives demonstration 
     program (as described in sections 2(a)-2(f) of the HUD 
     Demonstration Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-120)), 
     $576,000,000, to remain available until expended.
                   Community Planning and Development


                      community development grants

                     (including transfer of funds)

       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, 1998: 
     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 $19,500,000 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 shall be 
     expended for ``Planning and Management Development'' and 
     ``Administration'' as defined in regulations promulgated by 
     the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
       For the cost of guaranteed loans, $10,500,000, as 
     authorized by section 108 of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1974: 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, 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 $1,000,000,000. In addition, for 
     administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan 
     program, $225,000 which shall be transferred to and merged 
     with the appropriation for departmental salaries and 
     expenses.

                    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, $34,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 1997.

                   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, $30,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     1997.
                     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, $951,988,000, 
     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, and $225,000 shall be provided from the 
     Community Development Grants Program account.


                      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 of funds)

       For carrying out the Federal Housing Enterprise Financial 
     Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, $14,895,000, 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) of such Act.
                     Federal Housing Administration


             fha--mutual mortgage insurance program account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       During fiscal year 1996, 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 
     $110,000,000,000.
       During fiscal year 1996, obligations to make direct loans 
     to carry out the purposes of section 204(g) of the National 
     Housing Act, as amended, shall not exceed $200,000,000: 
     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 departmental 
     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)

       Total loan principal any part of which is to be guaranteed 
     shall not exceed $15,000,000,000: Provided, That during 
     fiscal year 1996, the Secretary shall sell assigned mortgage 
     notes having an unpaid principal balance of up to 
     $2,600,000,000, which notes were originally obligations of 
     the funds established under sections 238 and 519 of the 
     National Housing Act: Provided further, That of the amount 
     appropriated herein, an amount equal to the lesser of 
     $52,000,000 or the excess of net proceeds above the value of 
     holding the loans to maturity, such value established using 
     assumptions specified in the President's fiscal year 1996 
     Budget adjusted for interest rates at the time of the sale, 
     shall become available only after such sale has been 
     completed.
       Gross obligations for the principal amount of direct loans, 
     as authorized by sections 204(g), 207(l), 238(a), and 519(a) 
     of the National Housing Act, shall not exceed $120,000,000; 
     of which not to exceed $100,000,000 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 

[[Page H 7858]]
     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 departmental 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 1996, 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 $110,000,000,000.
       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 departmental salaries and expenses.


                       administrative provisions

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 201. Public Housing. (a) Suspension of Rent Formula.--
     Notwithstanding section 3(a) of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937, as amended, each public housing agency that owns or 
     operates public housing shall establish rental charges for 
     dwelling units in public housing in such amounts as the 
     agency considers appropriate and in accordance with the 
     provision of this section, which shall be effective for 
     fiscal year 1996.
       (b) Minimum Rent.--During fiscal year 1996, public housing 
     agencies shall require that each family occupying a dwelling 
     unit in public housing shall pay an amount for monthly rent 
     that is not less than one of the following amounts:
       (1) An amount equal to the sum of $50 and the cost of any 
     utilities for the unit.
       (2) An amount equal to 32 percent of--
       (A) the basic benefits to an individual for a month under 
     the supplemental security income program under title XVI of 
     the Social Security Act; or
       (B) the amount of assistance allocated for a month to a 
     family of the applicable size under the aid to families with 
     dependent children program under a State plan approved under 
     part A of title IV of the Social Security Act or any 
     successor program.
       (3) An amount based on monthly earnings of a person working 
     30-hour workweeks at a wage equal to the Federal minimum 
     wage, except that this paragraph shall not apply to any 
     disabled family or elderly family.
       (c) Ceiling Rents.--Notwithstanding section 3(a) of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, public housing 
     agencies shall provide that the amount of rent paid by a 
     family occupying a dwelling unit in public housing during 
     fiscal year 1996 does not exceed the maximum monthly rental 
     amount, which shall be established for the dwelling unit by 
     the public housing agency that owns or administers the unit 
     and may not exceed an amount determined by the agency based 
     upon--
       (1) the average, for dwelling units of similar size in 
     public housing developments owned and operated by such 
     agency, of any monthly amount of debt service and operating 
     expenses attributable to such units;
       (2) the reasonable rental value of the unit; or
       (3) the local market rent for comparable units of similar 
     size.
       (d) Demolition and Disposition.--
       (1) Inapplicability of replacement rule.--With respect to 
     any application under section 18 of the United States Housing 
     Act of 1937, as amended, for the demolition or disposition of 
     public housing, including an application submitted under 
     paragraph (3), that is approved during fiscal year 1996, the 
     provisions of subsection (b)(3) of such section shall not 
     apply with respect to--
       (A) the approval of such application; or
       (B) the demolition or disposition of any public housing 
     pursuant to such application.
       (2) Conforming provision.--The requirement under section 
     18(d) of such Act that a public housing agency satisfy the 
     conditions specified in section 18(b)(3) of such Act as a 
     condition of taking action to demolish or dispose of public 
     housing shall not apply with respect to any application under 
     such section 18 approved during such fiscal year.
       (3) Authority to resubmit applications.--Any public housing 
     agency that, before fiscal year 1996, submitted to the 
     Secretary an application under section 18 of such Act for 
     demolition or disposition of public housing may (regardless 
     of whether such application has been approved) at any time 
     during fiscal year 1996 submit an application subject to the 
     provisions of this subsection that covers some or all of the 
     property covered by such previous application and, to the 
     extent the same property is covered by both applications, the 
     Secretary shall treat the latter application as replacing the 
     previous application.
       (e) Applicability.--In accordance with section 201(b)(2) of 
     the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, the 
     provisions of this section shall apply to public housing 
     developed or operated pursuant to a contract between the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and an Indian 
     housing authority.
       Sec. 202. Rental Assistance Under Section 8 of United 
     States Housing Act of 1937. (a) Increase of Family Rental 
     Payment.--Notwithstanding sections 3(a) and 8(o)(2) of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, effective for 
     fiscal year 1996--
       (1) public housing agencies shall increase to 32 percent 
     the percentage of the family's monthly adjusted income used 
     in determining--
       (A) the amount of monthly rent required to be paid by each 
     family who is assisted under the certificate or moderate 
     rehabilitation program under section 8 of such Act; and
       (B) the amount of the monthly assistance payment for each 
     family who is assisted under the voucher program under 
     section 8 of such Act; and
       (2) owners of housing assisted under other programs for 
     rental assistance under section 8 of such Act shall increase 
     to 32 percent the percentage of a family's adjusted monthly 
     income used in determining the rent required to be paid by 
     each family assisted under any such program.
       (b) Minimum Rents.--Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this 
     section or sections 3(a) and 8(o)(2) of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937, as amended, effective for fiscal year 
     1996 and no later than October 30, 1995--
       (1) public housing agencies shall require each family who 
     is assisted under the certificate or moderate rehabilitation 
     program under section 8 of such Act to pay for monthly rent 
     an amount that is not less than the sum of $50 and the cost 
     of any utilities for the unit;
       (2) public housing agencies shall reduce the monthly 
     assistance payment on behalf of each family who is assisted 
     under the voucher program under section 8 of such Act so that 
     the family pays for monthly rent an amount that is not less 
     than the sum of $50 and the cost of any utilities for the 
     unit; and
       (3) owners of housing assisted under other programs for 
     rental assistance under section 8 of such Act shall require 
     each family who is assisted under such program to pay for 
     monthly rent an amount that is not less than the sum of $50 
     and the cost of any utilities for the unit.
       (c) Fair Market Rentals.--The Secretary shall establish 
     fair market rentals for purposes of section 8(c)(1) of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, that shall be 
     effective for fiscal year 1996 and shall be based on the 40th 
     percentile rent of rental distributions of standard quality 
     rental housing units. In establishing such fair market 
     rentals, the Secretary shall consider only the rents for 
     dwelling units occupied by recent movers and may not consider 
     the rents for public housing dwelling units or newly 
     constructed rental dwelling units.
       (d) Annual Adjustments.--Section 8(c)(2)(A) of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
     1437f(c)(2)(A)) is further amended--
       (1) in the third sentence by inserting ``and fiscal year 
     1996'' after ``1995''; and
       (2) in the last sentence by inserting ``and fiscal year 
     1996'' after ``1995''.
       (e) Administrative Fees.--Notwithstanding the second 
     sentence of section 8(q)(1) of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937, as amended, for fiscal year 1996, the portions of 
     the fees for costs incurred by public housing agencies in 
     administering the certificate, voucher, and moderate 
     rehabilitation programs under section 8 shall not exceed 7.0 
     percent of the fair market rental established for a 2-bedroom 
     existing rental dwelling unit in the market area of the 
     public housing agency.
       (f) Delay of Issuance and Reissuance of Vouchers and 
     Certificates.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a 
     public housing agency administering certificate or voucher 
     assistance provided under subsection (b) or (o) of section 8 
     of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, shall 
     delay--
       (1) until October 1, 1996, the initial issuance of any such 
     tenant-based assistance representing incremental assistance 
     allocated in fiscal year 1996; and
       (2) for 6 months, the use of any amounts of such assistance 
     (or the certificate or voucher representing assistance 
     amounts) made available by the termination during fiscal year 
     1996 of such assistance on behalf of any family for any 
     reason, but not later than October 1, 1996.
       Sec. 203. Preferences for Housing Assistance. (a) Public 
     Housing.--
       (1) In general.--During fiscal year 1996, dwelling units in 
     public housing that are available for occupancy shall be made 
     available--
       (A) without regard to the requirements regarding 
     preferences set forth in section 6(c)(4)(A) of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937, as amended; and
       (B) subject to a system of preferences that the public 
     housing agency for the public housing may establish, which 
     shall be based upon local housing needs and priorities, as 
     determined by the agency.
       (2) Applicability.--Paragraph (1)(B) shall not apply to 
     projects or portions of projects designated for occupancy 
     pursuant to section 7(a) of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937, as amended, for which the Secretary has determined that 
     application of such paragraph would result in excessive 
     delays in meeting the housing need of such families. In 
     accordance with section 201(b)(2) of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937, as amended, the provisions of this 
     subsection shall apply to 

[[Page H 7859]]
     public housing developed or operated pursuant to a contract between the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and an Indian 
     housing authority.
       (b) Section 8 Assistance.--During fiscal year 1996, the 
     selection of families for assistance under section 8 of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended--
       (1) shall not be subject to the requirements regarding 
     preferences set forth in sections 8(d)(1)(A) and 8(o)(3)(B) 
     of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended; and
       (2) shall be subject to a system of preferences that may be 
     established by the public housing agency administering such 
     assistance, which shall be based upon local housing needs and 
     priorities, as determined by the agency.
       (c) Conforming Provisions.--Each reference in sections 
     6(o), 7(a)(2), 7(a)(3), 8(d)(2)(A), 8(d)(2)(H), 16(c), and 
     24(e)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as 
     amended, sections 212(a)(3), 217(c)(2)(B), 225(d)(3), 
     455(a)(2)(D)(iii), 522(f)(6)(B), and 522(j)(2)(A) of the 
     Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, section 
     226(b)(6)(B) of the Low-Income Housing Preservation and 
     Resident Homeownership Act of 1990, section 203(g)(2) of the 
     Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978, and 
     section 655 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
     1992, to the preferences under section 6(c)(4)(A), 
     8(d)(1)(A), or 8(o)(3)(B) of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937, as amended, shall be considered, during fiscal year 
     1996, to refer to the applicable preferences established (if 
     any) under the subsections (a)(1)(B) and (b)(2).
       (d) New Construction/Substantial Rehabilitation Housing.--
     During fiscal year 1996, dwelling units in housing 
     constructed or substantially rehabilitated pursuant to 
     assistance provided under section 8(b)(2) of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937, as amended (as such section 
     existed before October 1, 1983) and projects financed under 
     section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (as such section 
     existed before the enactment of the Cranston-Gonzalez 
     National Affordable Housing Act) shall be made available for 
     occupancy without regard to section 545(c) of the Cranston-
     Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act and no other 
     provision of law relating to Federal tenant selection 
     preferences shall apply to such housing.
       (e) Rent Supplements.--During fiscal year 1996, section 
     101(k) of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 shall 
     not be effective.
       Sec. 204. Merger Language for Assistance for the Renewal of 
     Expiring Section 8 of Subsidy Contracts and Annual 
     Contributions for Assisted Housing.--All remaining obligated 
     and unobligated balances in the Renewal of Expiring Section 8 
     Subsidy Contracts account on September 30, 1995, shall 
     immediately thereafter be transferred to and merged with the 
     obligated and unobligated balances, respectively, of the 
     Annual Contributions for Assisted Housing account.
       Sec. 205. Extension of Home Equity Conversion Mortgage 
     Program.--Section 255(g) of the National Housing Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1715z-20(g)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``September 30, 
     1995'' and inserting ``September 30, 1996''; and
       (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``25,000'' and 
     inserting ``30,000''.
       Sec. 206. Debt Forgiveness.--(a) The Secretary of Housing 
     and Urban Development shall cancel the indebtedness of the 
     Hubbard Hospital Authority of Hubbard, Texas, relating to the 
     public facilities loan for Project Number PFL-TEX-215, issued 
     under title II of the Housing Amendments of 1955. Such 
     hospital authority is relieved of all liability to the 
     Government for the outstanding principal balance on such 
     loan, for the amount of accrued interest on such loan, and 
     for any fees and charges payable in connection with such 
     loan.
       (b) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall 
     cancel the indebtedness of the Groveton Texas Hospital 
     Authority relating to the public facilities loan for Project 
     Number TEX-41-PFL0162, issued under title II of the Housing 
     Amendments of 1955. Such hospital authority is relieved of 
     all liability to the Government for the outstanding principal 
     balance on such loan, for the amount of accrued interest on 
     such loan, and for any fees and charges payable in connection 
     with such loan.
       Sec. 207. Delaying Outlays for Public Housing 
     Development.--During fiscal year 1996, a public housing 
     agency or Indian housing authority may slow the rate at which 
     it develops a project that the Secretary has approved under 
     24 C.F.R. Part 941 in order to slow the rate at which such 
     agency or authority takes actions resulting in outlays of 
     amounts appropriated under the head ``Annual contributions 
     for assisted housing'' in this title or any prior 
     appropriation Act, and the Secretary may allow such agency or 
     authority to develop a project at such a slow rate, 
     notwithstanding 24 C.F.R. Sec. 941.405(d).
       Sec. 208. Assessment Collection Dates for Office of Federal 
     Housing Enterprise Oversight.--Section 1316(b) of the Housing 
     and Community Development Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4516(b)) is 
     amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(2) Timing of payment.--The annual assessment shall be 
     payable semiannually for each fiscal year, on October 1st and 
     April 1st.''.
       Sec. 209. Spending Limitations.--(a) None of the funds 
     provided in this Act may be used during fiscal year 1996 to 
     sign, promulgate, implement, or enforce any requirement or 
     regulation relating to the application of the Fair Housing 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 3601, et seq.) to the business of property 
     insurance, or for any activity pertaining to property 
     insurance.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     expended by the Department for the purpose of finalizing the 
     Department's proposed rule dated July 21, 1994 regarding 
     amendments to Regulation X, the Real Estate Settlement 
     Procedures Regulation, or for the purpose of developing or 
     issuing any interpretive rule with respect to any of the four 
     issues denominated in the preamble to the proposed rule.
       (c) None of the funds provided in this Act may be used in 
     fiscal year 1996 for the remuneration of more than seven 
     Assistant Secretaries at the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development, notwithstanding section 4(a) of the Department 
     of Housing and Urban Development Act.
       (d) None of the funds provided in this Act may be used in 
     fiscal year 1996 for the remuneration of more than 94 
     schedule C and non-career senior executive service employees 
     at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
       (e) None of the funds made available in this Act may be 
     used by the Secretary to take, impose, or enforce, or to 
     investigate taking, imposing, or enforcing any action, 
     sanction, or penalty against any State or unit of general 
     local government (or any entity or agency thereof) because of 
     the enactment, enforcement, or effectiveness of any State or 
     local law or regulation requiring the spoken or written use 
     of the English language or declaring English as the official 
     language.
       (f) No part of any appropriation contained in this Act 
     shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not 
     authorized by the Congress.
       Sec. 210. Clarifications.--For purposes of Federal law, the 
     Paul Mirabile Center in San Diego, California, including 
     areas within such Center that are devoted to the delivery of 
     supportive services, has been determined to satisfy the 
     ``continuum of care'' requirements of the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development, and shall be treated as:
       (a) consisting solely of residential units that (i) contain 
     sleeping accommodations and kitchen and bathroom facilities, 
     (ii) are located in a building that is used exclusively to 
     facilitate the transition of homeless individuals (within the 
     meaning of section 103 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11302)) to independent living 
     within 24 months, (iii) are suitable for occupancy, with each 
     cubicle constituting a separate bedroom and residential unit, 
     (iv) are used on other than a transient basis, and (v) shall 
     be originally placed in service on August 1, 1995; and
       (b) property that is entirely residential rental property, 
     namely, a project for residential rental property.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title II?


                    amendment offered by mr. stokes

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, numbered 63.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stokes: Page 22, after 
     ``Secretary:'' on line 14, insert ``Provided further, That if 
     authorizing legislation is not enacted into law by December 
     31, 1995, the amount provided for voucher assistance may be 
     reallocated by the Secretary to public housing modernization, 
     drug elimination grants, and section 8 incremental rental 
     assistance:''

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, the bill provides $862 million for new and 
unauthorized vouchering out activities under the section 8 program. The 
funds provided are contingent upon authorizing language being enacted.
  I have a perfecting amendment that is quite simple. It would insert 
language stating that:

       If authorizing legislation is not enacted into law by 
     December 31, 1995, the amount provided for voucher assistance 
     may be reallocated by the Secretary to public housing, 
     modernization, drug elimination grants, and section 8 
     incremental rental assistance.

  You have to remember that this is a new program totaling $862 million 
being created through an appropriations bill. At the rate we are going 
with our legislative calendar this year, I think my colleagues would 
agree that giving further direction as to how this money should be 
spent in the event that no authorizing legislation is enacted is 
certainly reasonable.
  The sum $862 million is a lot of money to be unobligated by an agency 
that is being reduced by $5 billion. There are millions of persons, 
primarily our elderly, the children, and the poor, who could benefit 
from HUD utilizing this money. Modernization funds are reduced by over 
$1 billion in this bill, and new incremental rental assistance is 
eliminated. Certainly restoring funds to these critical areas is 
warranted.
  Furthermore, our communities and law enforcement officials 
desperately 

[[Page H 7860]]
need all the assistance they can get to help eradicating the drug 
problem in our communities.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good and sensible amendment. I think Members 
on both sides of the aisle would like the committee to address these 
issues on behalf of millions of Americans. I would ask that this 
amendment be considered at this time as perfecting the $862 million 
provision for vouchering out.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
  The question was taken; and on a division, demanded by Mr. Stokes, 
there were--ayes 5, noes 5.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Stokes] will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title II?


           amendment offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, No. 
47.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts: Page 20, 
     line 25, strike ``$10,041,599,000'' and insert 
     ``$10,361,589,000''.
       Page ?4, line 16, strike ``$320,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$0''.
       Page 39, after line 17, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (c) Exemption of Elderly and Disabled Families From Rent 
     Increases.--Subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall not 
     apply with respect to any elderly family or disabled family 
     (as such terms are defined in section 3(b) of such Act) who, 
     on October 1, 1995, is receiving rental assistance under 
     section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 or is 
     occupying a dwelling unit assisted under such action.

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this amendment protects 
our Nation's senior citizens from rent increases that are ordered under 
the bill. This bill would raise the rents on 2.7 million assisted 
housing tenants. The Kennedy-Frank-Stokes amendment simply asks that 
our senior citizens who live in assisted housing today are protected 
against these rent increases.
  About 1 million elderly households will have to pay between $150 and 
$400 more a year in rent, and they simply cannot afford it. These new 
rent increases will affect only the poorest seniors and seniors that 
have no place else to go. The only seniors that are affected by this 
rent increase are by definition seniors on fixed income. The fact is 
that they have no corresponding increase in their fixed income to keep 
up with the rent increases that have been ordered by the bill as it has 
been filed.
  Therefore, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], and I have drafted this amendment to provide 
some small relief to this group of vulnerable Americans, whose rent 
increases will mean them having to choose between food and medicine or 
heat and shelter.
  The cost is small, it is only $77 million. It will provide a little 
bit more security to our seniors, and I hope that the Members on both 
sides of the aisle would vote for its passage.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
   Mr. Chairman, this amendment really goes to the heart of the kind of 
policy differences that the Nation is being presented with at this 
time. This amendment deals with the rents that are charged to some of 
the poorest people in this country. We have programs, subsidized 
housing programs, for older people. We are being asked in this bill to 
raise the percentage of their income from 30 percent to 32 percent of 
their income. Understand that that is not a 2 percent rent increase, 
that is a 6\2/3\ percent increase. Two percent of 30 percent is 6\2/3\ 
percent.
  Under current law, if Social Security pays people a 3-percent cost of 
living increase in December, elderly people's rents would go up by 3 
percent. Some of them are angry at this. They say you are giving with 
one hand and taking with another. Many of us have talked to older 
people, who felt that this policy of their rent going up by the same 
percentage of the cost of living was a serious problem.
  Well, the Republican Party is going to change that. No longer, under 
this bill, if you are an elderly person living in subsidized housing, 
will your rent go up by the same amount as your Social Security. If 
this bill passes, your rent will go up by three times as much in 
percentage as Social Security, because if we get a 3 percent cost of 
living increase, under this bill the rent will then go up in that 1 
year 9\2/3\ percent.
  Now, this is a habit that the Republicans have. The last time they 
were able to control the budget of this House, in 1981, in the Gramm-
Latta bill, the rents that people in subsidized housing, and we are 
talking about elderly people, older people, including some who only 
live on Social Security or Social Security and a small pension, and 
they are living in subsidized housing, and they were in 1981 paying 25 
percent of their rent. Under an amendment named for a Republican 
Senator, Ed Brooke, it was the Brooke amendment, the Republican Party, 
when they had control in 1981, changed that and went from 25 percent to 
30 percent. Now they want to do it again.
  So it is very clear. We now have a pattern. Every time the Republican 
Party is in a position to control the budget of this House, poor, 
elderly people see their rent go up by a significant amount more than 
their income goes up. It will make them two for two. Of course, the 
House budget resolution called for an increase to 35 percent. So one 
assumes that is not their last effort to increase it.
  As I have said before, older people who are familiar with the 
literary history of this country will recognize this, because they are 
familiar with Dick Tracy. There was a character in Dick Tracy known as 
Evil-Eye Fleegle who specialized in whammies. His worse effect on you 
was the triple whammy.
  Now, under the Republican budget, the cost of living increase to be 
paid for Social Security recipients is going to go down. The Republican 
Party's budget says old people get too much money when inflation 
occurs, and their budget resolution, enacted by them, adopted by them, 
calls for a reduction in the cost of living increase later in this 
century.
                              {time}  1530

  So the cost-of-living increase for an order older person living on 
$10,000 a year will go down. That is whammy one.
  Whammy two will be what they do to you on Medicare, when your 
copayments go up and your part B payments go up.
  If you are so poor and you are in such circumstances that you live in 
public housing, you get the triple whammy, because your rent will go 
up. And what the gentleman from Massachusetts is saying is that should 
not happen, that the 30-percent income should stay the same. It does 
not mean the rent, their rents will never go up. The current law says 
their rents will go up with their income. The Republican bill says 
rents will go up more than income.
  Originally it was going to do that to people in public housing, too. 
The managers' amendment fixed that so people who live in public housing 
will now stay at 30 percent, and I am glad. But their friends, 
relatives, their peers who live in a section 8 unit, who live in an 
assisted housing unit, subsidized housing go, who live in 202, their 
rents will go up by three times as much as Social Security. Their rent 
will go up from 30 percent to 32 percent of their income.
  We are not talking about people with substantial amounts of 
discretionary income. We are talking about the elderly poor. Raising 
the rents, raising the percentage of the meager incomes that the 
elderly poor have to pay to finance a tax cut, to finance a B-2 bomber, 
to finance a manned space station, to finance all these other things, 
is, in my judgment, quite wrong. I do not think anything more starkly 
illustrates the different approaches of the two parties.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  I rise very briefly to oppose this amendment. Within this account, we 


[[Page H 7861]]
were very, very sensitive about the question of considering raising 
rents? Should you? When should you? Indeed, this program has been in 
effect for a number of years now.
  There has been one adjustment to that, almost a decade ago. This 
raises the percentage for rental expenses from 30 to 32 percent. The 
recommendation of the House-passed Committee on the Budget was 35 
percent. The committee chose to back off because of some of the 
questions that were raised by other Members who are opposing the 
amendment.
  The real effect is somewhere in the neighborhood of perhaps $12 a 
month. This account is growing so rapidly that if it continues on its 
present pattern, it will push out any number of other very important 
housing programs that affect the very same people that we are talking 
about. It is very important to recognize that there is no free lunch in 
this process. Everybody has to participate.
  The offset that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] 
provides in his amendment would essentially zero emergency assistance 
accounts. We do not have as much money in FEMA in this bill as he 
suggests he uses as an offset. That alone would have easily allowed me 
to ask you to call this amendment out of order, but frankly I thought 
we ought to have the discussion. In fact, the Kennedy amendment would 
eliminate a compromise between what the Committee on the Budget 
recommended and what is necessary to see that this program remains 
whole and viable. He cannot effectively offset it against emergency 
accounts. Indeed, if he did, he would dramatically affect many of the 
same people that he is trying to help by way of his amendment.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this unworkable amendment.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, first, I would have to respond to my distinguished 
chairman's comment with reference to the offset that the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] uses. In the chairman's earlier amendment 
this afternoon, he used the same source of funds. He used about $85 
million out of the same funding. So I think what the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is doing here is proper in the sense that 
he is utilizing the same funding.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STOKES. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, we did use an offset of $50 
million to help housing accounts. That leaves $20 million 
approximately. We are talking about some $300 million under the 
recommendation of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. We 
were attempting to help some of these same people by that former offset 
but also trying to deal with the real world in terms of what is 
actually available in the account.
  Mr. STOKES. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, over 700,000 households 
could experience rent increases that would average over $1,000 
annually. You must remember that millions of elderly who are often 
single disabled women depend on section 8 in order to find decent and 
affordable housing.
  Rent increases would cause great hardship for our elderly who are 
often the least able to bear such expenses. These increases also come 
at a time when our Republican colleagues want to force the elderly to 
pay more for their health care through massive cuts to Medicare.
  Our seniors are being assailed on all fronts. Elderly Americans could 
be forced to move into lower cost housing, much of which is likely to 
be substandard. For those who may fall behind in their rent payments, 
they may find themselves evicted. Many could also become homeless.
  Moreover, Mr. Chairman, these increases come at a time when a new 
study finds that there is a disturbing and growing affordable housing 
shortage in the United States. This shortage has resulted in most poor 
renters having to pay rents that consume a very high percentage of 
their incomes, over 30 percent. In fact, three out of very five poor 
renters, 4.1 million people, paid at least half their incomes for 
housing in 1993.
  How do we expect our seniors, who are on limited and fixed incomes, 
to not only pay more rent but also find decent, affordable housing when 
the supply is diminishing?
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge our colleagues to support the Kennedy-
Frank-Stokes amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support today for the Kennedy-Frank-
Stokes amendment which restores vital funding for HUD low-income 
housing assistance programs for the elderly and disabled. The amendment 
will protect seniors from an unfair and unaffordable rent increase.
  The rent hikes included in this extreme bill could cost seniors in my 
district hundreds of more dollars per year. I don't know about 
everybody's districts, but I know that's a lot of money for seniors in 
my district.
  In my district, the residents of Bella Vista Apartments in New Haven, 
CT, know all too well about rent increases. Last year, Bella Vista 
tenants were asked to pay an additional $35 per month in rent, and now, 
just last week, they were slapped with another rent increase of $45 per 
month. Mr. Chairman, they simply cannot afford another rent increase.
  The tenants of Bella Vista are like seniors all over this country. 
They live on fixed incomes and struggle to make ends meet. They are 
often faced with difficult financial choices--they must choose between 
paying for vital medical services, like prescription drugs, or paying 
for the heating bill in the winter. They do their best, but sometimes 
they need our help. Rent assistance is one way to help.
  This country has a proud tradition of assisting our seniors in their 
retirement. This Government has made a deal with our seniors. We say to 
them: If you work hard all your life and contribute, then we will help 
you when you can work no longer.
  Seniors have kept up their end of the bargain. They worked, they 
saved, and even fought wars to preserve our freedom. But, now 
Republicans in this Congress want to walk away from the deal. They want 
to walk away from Medicare; walk away from Social Security; walk away 
from rent assistance. It's a disgrace.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Kennedy-Frank-Stokes 
amendment, and restore decent, and affordable housing to our seniors.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, this will literally result in nearly a 7 
percent rent increase for those living in assisted housing. And for 
someone living, earning maybe $1,000 a month, $12,000 a year income, 
which is so often what might be the case in terms of these low income, 
fixed income elderly, that literally results in a $20 increase a month 
in terms of their rent, $20 a month over the course of the year. As you 
can begin to understand, we are talking about $240 a year in terms of 
the rent increase.
  Plus, if they get an increase in their Social Security or their 
pensions or the interest income goes up, that also will be subject not 
to 30 percent but to 32 percent. Yet we are saying, if you are in 
public housing, you end up facing about a 30-percent increase.
  This is just the camel's nose under the tent. This is the direction 
that we are going to in fact increase these amounts from these fixed 
incomes. These are the working poor very often, Mr. Chairman, those 
that do have a little income. They need assistance in terms of public 
housing, and what we are doing is pushing them into a level where they 
no longer will be able to meet their own needs with this assistance and 
this public housing.
  This is after not being subjected to any hearings, no review of this 
in any of the committees, no discussion by the public, just come out 
here, put it on the floor. This meets the bottom line in terms of 
budget. But my question is, What happens to the real people in the 
district that I represent, the elderly on fixed incomes that need that 
$5 a week to meet their basic needs?
  They are going to be hurt, and they are going to be hurt badly by 
this kind of amendment and by this process. They deserve better, and we 
can do better in terms of this process and in 

[[Page H 7862]]
terms of what is going on here. These individuals deserve our support. 
This amendment deserves our support.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, Members, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment to eliminate funding for disaster relief programs 
administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. As the Member 
of this body who represents the congressional district that has been 
rocked by the most horrendous of disasters this country has faced, I 
could not sit in my office and watch this assault on the Agency that 
stood as the foundation for the relief efforts following the bombing of 
the Alfred P. Murrah Building on April 19 of this year.
  The response of FEMA to the Oklahoma City bombing is best described 
in this excerpt from the committee report accompanying the underlying 
legislation. I quote:

       On April 19, 1995, at 9:04 a.m., an explosive device 
     contained within a rented truck was detonated outside the 
     Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 
     thereby killing 168 individuals and injuring another 467. 
     Within minutes of this disaster, FEMA personnel were actively 
     engaged in structuring the Federal response which, coupled 
     with the response of the State and local governmental 
     entities, business and charity groups throughout the area and 
     the country, and thousands of Oklahomans and others from 
     throughout the United States, represents perhaps the finest 
     example of public and private cooperation, during a time of 
     crisis as has been observed in many decades. Despite having 
     no specific experience with this type of disaster, well 
     trained personnel dealing with virtually every aspect of 
     disaster response were quickly and efficiently in place and 
     beginning the difficult job of responding to this devastating 
     event. Starting with FEMA's Director and on down the chain of 
     command in FEMA and numerous other departments and agencies, 
     every individual involved with the response to this disaster 
     deserves the sincere appreciation and gratitude of this 
     Committee for a job well done.

  From personal experience, I can say without a doubt that the FEMA 
response to this disaster was virtually flawless. Their treatment of 
the good people of Oklahoma City must be commended by all in this body.
  I ask my colleagues: Can we be assured that without the funds 
targeted by this amendment, would FEMA have the ability to react in the 
manner described in the committee report or that the Nation witnessed 
in regards to Oklahoma City. I would think not.
  Please oppose this ill-advised amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LUCAS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the 
gentleman for his work. Immediately after, and during the process 
since, we have been trying to find the funds to respond to Oklahoma 
City and that disaster. To say the least, one had to actually see what 
occurred there to begin to appreciate the devastating effect it had 
upon your community.
  Above and beyond that, there are similar problems across the country 
that involve disaster relief. To have an amendment that looks good on 
paper but in reality is suggesting that none of the other accounts are 
helping people who are in dire straits is a disservice to the process. 
So the gentleman's support is very much appreciated. I appreciate the 
work the gentleman has been doing for Oklahoma City as well.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LUCAS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, under the original filing 
of this amendment, we took the funds out of FEMA which would have 
affected the accounts that the gentleman is suggesting. After the Lazio 
amendment passed, there were no funds left in FEMA for us to grab, so 
we shifted into the Manned Spaced Flight Program and shifted a small 
amount of money out of that into this program. So the gentlemen are 
talking a lot, but that is not the account that the money comes from. I 
just wanted to straighten it out.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LUCAS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that under the FEMA 
programs that it seemed to me that there was a special appropriation 
that was necessary this year that was passed. So often that happens 
with disaster relief assistance, that notwithstanding the fact that 
there are intentions here to meet other needs, that the Oklahoma issue 
was dealt with through the special rescission bill. Of course it is 
being signed today.
  I would point out that in that instance, over $6 billion was taken 
out of housing programs last year to in fact fulfill the goals that 
were that particular bill, not goals I shared, I might say. But I want 
to be understood that it certainly is not and should not be considered 
as a slight to Oklahoma and other types of disaster assistance 
programs.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's point is very appreciated. 
That is a very valid point. But we must, as I observe the process in 
Oklahoma City, the effective quick way in which the FEMA people 
responded, it is necessary that they be funded so that they have the 
contingency capacity to do in the other parts of the country--heaven 
forbid that something should occur that requires that kind of 
response--the incredible job that they did in Oklahoma City.
  It was amazing to watch the efficiency of FEMA and the State and 
local government. It made me proud to be an Oklahoman and an American.
                              {time}  1545

  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my 
colleague. The adoption of this amendment means that the elderly 
residents with section 8 assistance will not face rent increases that 
may mean the difference between staying in their homes or searching for 
something less expensive. It may also mean the difference between 
buying nutritious meals for a week or paying for medication prescribed 
by their doctor.
  To those of us that are accustomed to having an assured three meals a 
day, warm clothes in time of cold, comfortable clothes in time of heat, 
safe roofs over our heads, we cannot visualize, sometimes, that in 
America we still have not just individuals, children or adults, but 
families that do not have that kind of a comfort. We still have them 
among us.
  In this case here, Mr. Chairman, it may, as I said and repeat, mean 
the difference between a meal, and a choice between having a meal or 
paying for medicines or medications that have been prescribed. The 
dollar amount may not sound like a lot to us. Our range is in the upper 
7- to 11-percent per person field in our society, so that a rental 
increase in terms of medical costs and Medicare premiums does have an 
impact.
  It could be a lot of cash, and it is, indeed, a lot of cash to senior 
citizens. I have visited with them, some are those that grew up in the 
old neighborhood in what we called in San Antonio the West Side, and 
with whom I shared neighborhoods and living conditions. Many of the 
elderly with section 8 assistance waited for years for assisted 
housing. We just do not have that volume of housing. They believed that 
this move was their last.
  Now what our colleagues, the Republicans, are requiring of them is to 
pay more for shelter, unless this amendment pending is adopted. This 
amendment means that we will not be overturning longstanding Federal 
policy of 25 years, which limited a tenant's rent to 25 percent and 
then 30 percent, and I fought bitterly when that increase of 5 percent 
went in, of income for people of limited income. Let me assure my 
colleagues who really do not know what it is to have a very limited 
income, limited income is a very serious and an awesome terror, day in 
and day out, for many of our fellow Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I must ask my colleagues if this is this year's rent or 
increase to 32 percent for section 8, what is going to happen next 
year? When are they looking for more dollars for tax cuts? Will it once 
again come out of the elderly's pockets?
  The manager's amendment deleted the rent increase for public housing 
residents, but not section 8 tenants, who are not wealthier. In 
fairness, Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GONZALEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

[[Page H 7863]]

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman for 
his advocacy of this amendment. I would point out for those who think 
it is not a lot of money, this is $184 million being taken from these 
low-income elderly, as best we can calculate. It is $184 million being 
taken from them and added to their costs.
  Mr. Chairman, these are low-income people, many who qualified as 
being below the 50 percent of the median income that we are taking this 
from. They are taking this from very low-income, hardworking seniors on 
fixed incomes who have no ability to make an adjustment to deal with 
this, and it is a percentage of their income, so it is absolutely 
against any other increase they might get, whatever it might be.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. I thank my colleague, who is very active and has 
distinguished himself in his field, since his arrival to this Congress. 
I want to thank him for adding to this.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to yield to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my 
colleague yielding. I rise only to try to clarify a portion of the 
earlier discussion on the part of the author of this amendment. He 
referred to an earlier Lazio amendment, and at least implied in that 
discussion that he really intended that the offset here be from NASA 
accounts by one way or another.
  The reality is that his amendment that is on file, would take it from 
FEMA accounts. It is a budget-buster in that connection. Literally, 
those FEMA accounts cannot function when they are reduced to zero. I 
wanted to make sure that the membership understood that. I presume that 
the author understood it, but the membership might very well have been 
confused.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the things that I think we need to put out here 
is this goes directly at the elderly. When we look at the elderly, very 
many of them are women. When we look at women over 65 that have a 
pension, there is less than 13 percent of women over 65 who have a 
pension. That is because women who worked in those days worked in jobs 
that were very low income, did not have those kinds of benefits, and 
really are the poorest of the poor.
  Mr. Chairman, we see us coming after them on Medicare, we see us 
coming after them on this. I almost feel like we ought to blow the 
whistle here. We need a piling-on offense. We need black-and-white-
striped referees here, or something. I feel like we are piling on the 
poor, and we are piling on those that can fight back the least. There 
is nothing like taking on little old ladies. This is really taking on 
little old ladies, if Members are going to vote for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think I understood from the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] that the way this would work if we do not 
pass this amendment, if an elderly person is in section 8 and they get 
a 3-percent increase, just to take a thing out of the air, for their 
Social Security, it is possible for their rent to go up 9 percent. I 
would ask the gentleman, is that correct?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, Mr. Chairman, understand that 
under the Republican budget they would only get a 3-percent increase in 
Social Security if the cost of living increase by current standards was 
3.8 percent, because they want to reduce that. However, yes, the 
gentlewoman is correct. The first year this is implemented the increase 
in rent that an elderly resident of subsidized housing will pay will be 
the percentage of Social Security increase plus 6\2/3\ percent of their 
income; so on a 3 percent figure, that would be a 9\2/3\-percent rent 
increase when they only got a 3-percent increase in income.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the gentleman for making that point again, 
because I think that is a very, very essential point. As I say, we are 
talking about a very high percentage of these people being elderly 
women who were discriminated against when they were in the work force, 
who do not have pensions. Maybe they should have had pensions, but they 
worked in jobs that did not give them pensions, or they had spouses 
that did not have pensions that they could inherit. They do not want to 
go home and live with their kids. They are very, very proud people.
  All we have to do is look right now at grocery stores where there are 
concentrations of elderly, and seeing already the very, very high sales 
of pet food among people who do not have pets. There is something going 
on there.
  If we decide to do this so that their rent could be increased, I 
think this is just really piling on, so I salute the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for his amendment. I think all of us ought to think very 
seriously about, yes, we have to do something about the budget; but is 
it fair, at a time when this House hires for the first time a ``Miss 
Manners'' who is going to tell us how to write toasts, that we turn 
around and say to elderly women and elderly citizens that they can have 
their rent increased as much as 9 percent?
  I do not think that people outside the Beltway will appreciate that, 
that we are getting a protocol official for all of us. Maybe they are 
going to tell us in protocol how we tell these elderly people that we 
just had them bear the brunt of the budget, that it was not B-2 bombers 
or other things, it was them who caused it, so ``Have a nice day, we 
are going to raise your rent.'' I hope others will vote for this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] will be postponed.
            amendment offered by mr. frank of massachusetts

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts: Page 20, 
     line 25, insert after the figure ``$10,182,359,000,'' 
     (increase by an additional $331,160,000)''.
       Page 37, strike ``(a)'' in line 23 and all that follows 
     through page 38, line 19.
       Page 71, line 5, strike ``$5,588,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$5,100,000,000''.
       Page 72, line 1, strike ``$2,618,200,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,533,200,000''.

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (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 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, although this was not in 
the Record, I did share a copy with the majority.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the companion to the amendment offered by my 
colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. What he did 
addresses this 30- to 32-percent increase for the elderly. This one 
addresses it for other residents of this kind of housing: families and 
disabled individuals. It is a similar argument.
  The argument is that when we have decided that people are on limited 
income, and certainly the disabled would be, some of the families would 
be, when we are talking about people at the lower end of the spectrum, 
and I want to agree, the majority, and I congratulate the gentleman 
from California, because I think this reflected what he would like to 
do in the manager's amendment, he did relieve this for the poorest of 
the poor, and I acknowledge that. The amendment of the gentleman from 
California, working with the gentleman from New York, the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Housing of the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services, did undo this for the poorest of the poor, the people who 
live in public housing. We now have a situation where people who live 
in public housing 

[[Page H 7864]]
will pay only 30 percent, which is fair, but people who are in 
certificated housing, people who may be a notch or two above, will have 
to go to 32 percent. This will include families, this will include the 
working poor.
  These are the families who are here, working poor people. To tell 
them once again that they will get an increase in their rents of 6\2/3\ 
percent, if they are making $20,000 a year, then the 2-percent increase 
is a $400-a-year increase. I have had my colleagues on the other side 
say that some of us were not appreciative of how important a $500 tax 
cut would be to a middle-income family. If you are making $40,000 or 
$50,000 a year it is very serious. If $500 is a very serious amount of 
money to a family making $50,000, is $400 a year then for a family 
making less than half that not even more serious?
  That is what we are saying to people. We are saying to precisely 
those people on whom we were trying to focus public policy attention, 
people who are above the welfare roles, people we are telling, ``Get 
off the welfare roles and get into a work situation,'' because very few 
will go off of welfare
 into a $100,000 a year job. Many will be in the low-wage jobs. Some 
will be eligible for this sort of housing.

  What we are telling them is getting $18,000, $20,000 a year and 
trying to support a family, we will now, if you are making $20,000 a 
year, raise your rent by $400 a year. Think what the disposable income 
is for a family in that category.
  We are not talking, now, as I said, about welfare cases on the whole. 
The people who are on welfare have probably been protected by the 
manager's amendment, the manager's amendment which protected the people 
on public housing, where we were likely to have a higher welfare 
percentage. We are likelier here to be talking about the working poor, 
because the average incomes of the people in the assisted housing 
projects will be higher on the whole than the public housing. We are 
talking about people who get section 8's.
  What we are saying is, ``You have done nothing wrong, you have worked 
very hard, we know times are tough, and by the way, your rent just went 
up $400, without any increase in income.'' If their income goes up, 
then the rent goes up $400 plus the increase in their income. Why? So 
we can make sure the tax cut extends to people who make $200,000 a 
year.
  My guess is, I have not done the arithmetic, but my guess is if we 
limited the tax cut to the people who are making only $50,000 a year, 
we could afford this amendment. This amendment cannot reach the taxes, 
so I do reduce funds for NASA.

                              {time}  1600

  I would have preferred to take a piece of the B-2 bomber, to take a 
piece of some of the other unnecessary military spending projects to 
deal with the tax cut.
  If and when we get this to conference if people then want to make 
these kind of adjustments, I would be supportive. But we again come to 
a fundamental difference, I think, in approach: Tell working people who 
are making $20,000 a year that as we increase military spending beyond 
what the President has asked, beyond what anybody needs, as we 
subsidize the defense of others.
  I have to say, because these things are relevant, you may have 
noticed that the French were very frustrated. They wanted to send some 
reinforcements into Bosnia but they could not do it without American 
helicopters. How come France does not have enough helicopters to 
transport its own troops? Because the American defense budget has been 
subsidizing it.
  Members who want to continue the American defense budget subsidy of 
the French economy, a very generous act of international cooperation--
``Merci,'' I say, on behalf of the people of France--are going to make 
up for that by telling Americans who make $20,000 a year and live in 
subsidized housing and who work very hard--we are talking now about 
hard-working people--who make $20,000 a year with a couple of kids and 
that are in this kind of housing, they have got a section 8 
certificate, and their rent goes up by 2 percent. There is no reason to 
do that other than, I think, a distorted set of priorities, and I hope 
the amendment is adopted.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Massachusetts is presenting 
a very important amendment.
  Just this week, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities came out 
with a very serious report on ``Unraveling a Consensus.'' That is what 
we are doing here as we proceed through these bills, unraveling a 
consensus that we have had across the aisle, a bipartisan consensus 
that full-time workers should not live in poverty, that that is how we 
wanted people to get off welfare, that we really wanted to encourage 
people to work, that we did not want people on welfare, and that full-
time workers should not be pushed down into poverty.
  So this body proceeded to do certain things, like put in the earned 
income tax credit, which this points out is greatly under attack, that 
helped families working at that level. It also linked Medicare to low-
income families. You did not have to be on welfare to get Medicare. Now 
we are going to block-grant it so they are all going to be at the whim 
of whatever State they are in if there is any at all. We are pulling 
away that chance of getting some medical care.
  There was the issue of child care, trying to help people get out 
there for child care. Well, we are pulling away that pillar from under 
them. Now if we do not pass the gentleman's amendment, we will be 
raising their rent at this level.
  These are working families. Of course one of the other things that we 
piled on these families if you voted for the Republican budget, which I 
did not do, is we are now going to charge single moms 15 percent to 
collect their child support--child support that they are owed. So the 
Government will withhold 15 percent to help pay off the debt.
  When you add each of these pieces together and you look at the level 
of these families that we are talking about here, it all comes 
crumbling down. At a time I thought we had some kind of a consensus 
where we really wanted to reform welfare and say work is not a 4-letter 
word, you are what you do in this country and if you say nothing you 
are nothing, so we want to help everybody be empowered, we want to help 
them go to work, we are now pulling all the stops out from programs 
that were started by President Nixon, carried on by Presidents Reagan 
and Bush and by the Democratic Congress as kind of a consensus as to 
how we get there. We were just getting real close to starting to being 
on that path.
  If you go back and look at the history, it was in 1986, 1990, 1993, 
each of those times, we raised the earned income tax credit. Each of 
those times we talked about how we should increase the subsidy for 
people who were in housing but above the welfare level trying to work 
their way out so there would not be that tremendous line.
  This was really the hand up that, yes, you have a chance. Well, we 
are really cutting the lifeline. You may say, ``Well, this is just one 
little lifeline,'' but if you voted for the Republican budget, you cut 
off that other little lifeline, you are going to take a 15-percent 
chunk out of every single child support payment, that is a lot of 
money. You are going to cut back their EITC and you are going to cut 
probably their child care subsidies they were getting in title XX that 
helped them be able to work. I put this all on top of the fact that we 
all know the purchasing power for the minimum wage is at the lowest it 
has been since World War II.
  If a person has a minimum wage job and they are trying very hard, 
here is what kind of support they are getting from us. These are not 
the people that caused the budget deficit. Why are we unloading on 
them? Why are we causing them to pay for the budget deficit? I think 
those are questions we have to ask ourselves. When people get angry on 
that side of the aisle and yell we are talking about this class warfare 
and everything, you have got to really wonder. It looks like class 
warfare. It begins to look like socialism for the rich as we punish 
everybody who is not rich.
  I just think this is one more area where we are pulling the pins out 
from people who are struggling desperately to get out from poverty, to 
get out from the stigma of being called a welfare recipient. They want 
out. There are people out there working two and three jobs. They feel 
like a squirrel in 

[[Page H 7865]]
the wheel. They run faster and faster and faster, they are exhausted, 
their tongue is hanging out and they do not get out of the bottom of 
the wheel, unless they can have a little help, with some medical care 
for their kids, or maybe some help collecting their child support 
without the Federal Government pulling a chunk out of it, blaming them 
for the deficit or increasing their rents or going after any number of 
other things, the EITC program and other things that were out there.
  I think American people want to help people move in this direction. I 
think they are tired of abuse, but they really want to help people that 
try. If you try, we should help them. That is what this amendment is 
about. I support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, sometimes I wonder what has happened in this country. 
You look back over the last few years and you see these endless attacks 
on the poor of America, a suggestion that somehow the poor are 
responsible for the problems that we face. At one point in our 
country's history we had a war on poverty. Today we have somehow 
evolved to a point where we have a war on the poor. That is what this 
bill attempts to do. It attempts to raise the rents on the most 
vulnerable families in this country.
  I offered an amendment different than the one from the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] to try to isolate the senior citizens out of 
the generalized cuts that are affecting all poor people. I offered that 
not because I think senior citizens are in some elite crowd that ought 
to be protected versus other poor people, but I just think that they 
have a better chance of gaining some support from the Republicans.
  The truth of the matter is that the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] is a more appropriate 
amendment, because it does not single out senior citizens that happen 
to vote. One of the first lessons you learn in politics is that people 
over the age of 90 vote 90 percent of the time and people under the age 
of 25 vote 25 percent of the time.
  The fact of the matter is that what we have is a situation where 
people, rather than pursuing policies that will end up providing this 
country with an educated work force into the future, rather than 
providing an investment in the real technologies that people are so 
concerned about, the technological breakthroughs of biotechnology, vote 
for that, but do not pretend you are voting for a space station for 
those purposes.
  What we are doing in this bill is voting for a space station at the 
expense and on the backs of the poorest people in this country. At the 
same time we are providing an enormous tax break to the wealthiest 
people in the country.
  We sit and cut education programs, we cut back on health care 
programs for our seniors, we cut back on the job training programs that 
will allow us to have the ability to compete with the Germans and the 
Japanese for the high-wage and the high-paying jobs that are going to 
be available to somebody in the future.
  There are going to be millions of jobs created in this world in the 
next 10 years, in biotechnology, in telecommunications, in all sorts of 
fields that are going to require an education and an educated work 
force. Certainly there are going to be a few Americans that can go out 
and pay for it. But since when do we come from a country that only the 
elite are allowed to do well?
  That is why America was started, because people were sick and tired 
of that kind of system, so they came to America. They established a new 
kind of nation, where people were allowed to grow to their full human 
potential, not because of what they were born with but because of what 
they made of their own lives.
  That is what this bill undercuts. It sends a message to the poor and 
the vulnerable of America, that they are the problem and we are going 
to cut their benefits, we are going to cut their housing, we are going 
to go in and strip them of the capability of getting protections from 
the problems that exist in industry in this country, and we are going 
to hang them out to dry so the rest of us can walk down the street and 
feel good about where America is headed.
  It is not the kind of compassionate Nation that looks out for the 
poor, looks out for our seniors, recognizes that a group of senior 
citizens provided this country with the capability of being called the 
richest and most powerful Nation on Earth, because they went through 
World War II, the Great Depression, World War I, the Korean conflict, 
and at the same time created an enormous amount of wealth.
  Many of them did not get rich in the process. They gave their blood 
and their sweat and their tears for America. They gave their lives for 
this country. Now they have a little bit of income. They are living on 
fixed incomes. They are not in public housing, they are in some kind of 
assisted housing.
  The way that hundreds of us go around and visit elderly housing when 
we need a vote at election time, those are the people whose increased 
rents are going to be used to balance the budget of this country. It is 
a shame that we should be taking what the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] earlier today claimed was a $500 tax cut. This is a $500 tax 
increase to the poorest of the poor.
  I ask you to please recognize that we need to invest in those people. 
We need to thank those people, and not condemn them the way that this 
bill does.
  Vote for the Frank amendment. Have some compassion and some caring 
for the vulnerable people of this country.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
pending that I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word, and I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand] 
for purposes of a colloquy.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Chairman, earlier this week, the Committee on 
Science voted out a NASA authorization bill which included a $10 
million line item for spaceports.
  Science, aeronautics, and technology is clearly an area where NASA 
has consistently performed well and thus included an allocation for 
spaceports.
  Spaceports, of course, are the wave of the future. In America we have 
a healthy booster and satellite market, plenty of launch bases, but not 
enough launch facilities. The development of launch facilities 
represents the missing piece of the commercial space puzzle, and 
America must go forward in supporting spaceports.

                              {time} 1615

  In America there are many States, including California, Florida, 
Alaska, New Mexico, Hawaii, Virginia, Colorado, that are involved or 
seek to be involved in the development of spaceports. It is my 
understanding that the Committee on Appropriations has replaced the $10 
million authorization with a $3 million appropriation going exclusively 
to Florida.
  Mr. Chairman, am I correct to assume replenishing this line item will 
now be done through the conference committee?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is generally 
correct.
  There was an authorization of $10 million. That does not 
automatically lead to an appropriation of that total amount, as you 
know. The pressure that was involved in this bill with the tradeoffs 
between veterans and other accounts was that we had to limit some 
accounts; there was only $3 million made available.
  But indeed it is our intention to review these questions, and we look 
forward to the conference committee, and indeed, I have in mind the 
fact that the gentlewoman, and a couple of others, have several 
programs in mind that have locations that would be appropriate.

[[Page H 7866]]

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] for 
the excellent work he has done in this appropriations bill. As 
indicated in debate this afternoon, it is a very, very difficult task 
the gentleman was confronted with.
  Obviously, there are difficult choices when we have these tight 
budgetary times. However, I do have serious concerns about funding for 
native American housing programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it comes as no surprise that many other Members 
of this body share those concerns, including two of my colleagues on 
this side of the aisle, first, the distinguished gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I associate myself with the comments of 
the gentleman from Arizona about Indian housing and the comments I 
expect to be made by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts] expressing 
concerns over the funding level for Indian housing new construction in 
this measure.
  Mr. Chairman, housing in Indian country is among the worst and most 
scarce in the Nation. There exists a great need for new construction, 
as there is a very limited stock of existing housing in Indian country. 
Still, this Member recognizes that we are facing severe fiscal 
constraints and that there is a need to scale back even on needed 
programs like this one. I am concerned about the degree of the cutback 
or the scale-back.
  Funding for the program the last several years has been at $280 
million. The measure before us today provides for only $100 million. 
That is a nearly two-thirds reduction, and I believe it is too severe a 
cut.
  Mr. Chairman, I would encourage the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lewis], the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, and the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the ranking member, to seek to 
increase this funding level at conference.
  Having said that, I also want to say to the chairman and ranking 
member, as well as the members of the subcommittee, that I am 
appreciative of the $3 million in funding for the Indian Housing Loan 
Guarantee Program at HUD. I think this modest sum will leverage up 
substantially and guarantee the private financing of nearly $37 million 
in housing loans for Indian families.
  One of the problems on Indian reservations has been, I think, 
potentially resolved by a change approved by this House in recent 
times; and this money will give us a chance to see if, in fact, we can 
solve this deficiency of loan funds being available to Indian families 
who live on Indian reservations.
  I believe this very limited amount of Federal funding is well spent, 
and it will be seen as well spent. I commend the appropriators for 
including it in this measure.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, while it is true that everyone 
must tighten their belts in order to balance the budget, Native 
Americans, the people who had the first Contract With America, have 
taken a hit which is more than we believe is their fair share.
  We are focused on special needs housing, which is important, but no 
more important than living up to our treaty obligations and honoring 
our special trust relationship with the sovereign Indian Nations of 
this country.
  The need for additional and improved Indian housing is well 
documented. Considerable difficulties impede private financing of 
Indian housing. Indian capital is scarce and frequently there is no 
security for financing.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Lewis of California, and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Hayworth was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, Indian capital is scarce, 
because frequently there is no security for mortgage loans or similar 
financing because titles to most Indian land are held in trust by the 
United States.
  As a member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, I can 
tell you that there are few commercial lenders in Indian country, and 
most lenders are reluctant to extend credit for housing on Indian 
lands. For these reasons, Indians have turned to various Federal 
housing programs for assistance, including those administered by the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, HUD, and the Farmers Home Administration.
  Mr. Chairman, as we proceed in these fiscally lean times, we need to 
do so with careful contemplation and without acting too hastily to cut 
the means which will help the sovereign nations of this country to 
become truly self-sufficient and self-governing.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would ask the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] if the funding level for Native 
American assisted housing in this bill represents the final number?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
question. I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] even 
more for his leadership on this issue and for expressing his concerns 
about this important matter.
  Mr. Chairman, I expect to work with the gentleman from Arizona as we 
go to conference. Where we can find money between accounts, we would 
certainly hope to improve upon this one and I appreciate the 
gentleman's assistance.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lewis] in a colloquy. I would like to address the EPA's Gulf of Mexico 
Program and the concern expressed about it in the committee report.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee report recommends that no funding be 
provided for this program. As you know, I am a strong supporter, in 
fact, the father of the resolution that created the Gulf of Mexico 
Program, along with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin].
  I recognize and share the gentleman's concerns and the committee's 
concern that the EPA may overstep its bounds in implementing the 
program and that the individual States should maintain a stronger 
primary role in it. Since the bill itself does not address the Gulf 
Program, however, it is my understanding that it can receive 
appropriations under this bill.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's understanding 
is correct. The committee is deeply concerned by the EPA's increasing 
role in management of the Gulf of Mexico Program and the potential 
encroachment of its management to the entire gulf watershed.
  It is the committee's intention to put the EPA on notice that it 
should conduct a less intrusive program or face stronger budgetary 
scrutiny in the future. The committee recognizes the values of the Gulf 
of Mexico and believes the program can be meaningful with proper 
management controls.
  Mr. Chairman, I assure the gentleman that we expect the Gulf of 
Mexico Program to be fully funded and I can personally attest that we 
will address this subject in the conference to ensure that our intent 
is clear.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a concern with the subcommittee's actions within 
NASA on an ongoing project, the Consortium for International Earth 
Science Information Network or CIESIN.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am very familiar with the 
gentleman's concerns about NASA's continuing role in the project known 
as CIESIN. The VA-HUD & Independent Agencies Appropriations 
Subcommittee has been very supportive of CIESIN in years past. The 
committee has recognized the project's potential for the 

[[Page H 7867]]
first-rate science of a type that had not previously been adequately 
explored.
  As the gentleman knows, we are having difficulty with this bill in 
terms of enough money to go around and so that is why we face the 
problem that we do at this moment.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, my concern is that the action taken in this 
bill may unduly restrict NASA's ability to provide continuing support 
for CIESIN.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, this bill does not provide $6 
million directly for CIESIN as a part of Mission to Plant Earth. The 
project, in its current form, lacks current authorization.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, am I correct then that the gentleman's bill 
does not interfere with CIESIN's existing contract which would expire 
in 1998? I known that the Committee on Science has just completed 
committee action that includes a provision allowing CIESIN to compete 
for NASA funds in fiscal year 1996 and would the appropriations bill 
preclude that possibility?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the NASA authorization bill 
were to be enacted into law later this year, there is nothing in the 
appropriations bill that prejudices competitive success by CIESIN for 
NASA funding in future requests or for bids of proposal.
  It is not our intention to close the door, but indeed it is an 
authorization matter that is ahead of us.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for the 
committee's explanation. Also, I thank him for his gracious handling of 
our concerns and his kindness in the past.
                  amendment no. 1 offered by mr. klug

  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. KLUG: Page 48, after line 25, 
     insert the following new section:

     SEC. 211. DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR ELIMINATION OF TAKE-ONE-
                   TAKE-ALL REQUIREMENT.

       In order to demonstrate the effects of eliminating the 
     requirement under section 8(t) of the United States Housing 
     Act of 1937, notwithstanding any assistance provided under 
     any program under section 8 of such Act for the multifamily 
     housing project consisting of the dwelling units located at 
     2401-2479 Sommerset Circle, in Madison, Wisconsin, or on 
     behalf of residents in such project, section 8(t) of such Act 
     shall not apply with respect to such project.

  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, this amendment attempts to solve a problem 
involving a section 8 housing project in my home community of Madison, 
WI. Let me say to my colleagues in the room, this does not involve any 
money. And for those who you were not paying attention, let me say one 
more time, this does not involve any money.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a demonstration project for elimination and 
exception for what is essentially known as a current HUD regulation 
called take one, take all. This involves a housing project, a section 
8/Mod Rehab project which in recent years has experienced financial 
problems, a high crime rate and corresponding drug problems.
  The project is going to be foreclosed on in the next several weeks 
and without this waiver, my hometown faces the severe and difficult 
choice of deciding either to make it entirely a for-profit housing 
project, cutting out low-income residents, or to essentially stay with 
the current policy of only allowing section 8 participants, in which 
case we may find ourselves back in the exact same cycle that we are 
trying to get out of.
  Under this policy, take one, take all requires a landlord who takes 
one, who accepts one section 8 tenant to accept all the section 8 
renters.
  This amendment enjoys bipartisan support back in my home State of 
Wisconsin, including Governor Tommy Thompson, Senators Herb Kohl and 
Russ Feingold, who are Democrats, Democrat Dane County Executive Rick 
Phelps, town of Madison Chairman Mike Theisen.
  H.R. 3838, last year's housing bill, contained the repeal of take 
one, take all, but unfortunately though it passed in this body in July 
of last year, almost to the date, it never made it through the Senate.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Lazio] and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], and also the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], for their understanding of the 
situation back in Wisconsin and for being supportive of this effort. 
And also for the gentlewoman from Ohio Ms. Pryce], who in the past has 
tried to fix similar problems in legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, in order, again, for this project to go forward and to 
avoid a situation where we may see many poor families thrown out in the 
street, my home State of Wisconsin will need this waiver. It is my
 understanding that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] will fix 
this problem later in the fall, but unfortunately the financial and 
judicial timelines facing this project will not allow us to take 
advantage of those opportunities under the leadership of the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Lazio] unless we are able to accept this amendment 
today in the House.

  Mr. Chairman, one more time for all of my colleagues who may not have 
been paying attention when we started this discussion, this does not 
involve any money.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I listened with care to the presentation of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] and the special manner in which his 
request has been treated in this appropriations bill.

                              {time}  1630

  Now, what I find very unusual about it is that this really is not a 
matter for the Committee on Appropriations. In fact, as I listened to 
the gentleman concerning how you wished to handle the section 8 
certificates, and I believe you are from Madison, WI, this is really a 
matter for the authorizers. In fact, you could bring a separate bill to 
the floor, and what I find really amazing is that the Committee on 
Rules allowed you to do this and you have been given a special waiver 
to be included in the appropriations bill for a given project when, in 
fact, we cannot even get included in the rule governing the debate on 
this bill major programs, not just a project here or there, but major 
programs that we are being denied the ability to debate, such as the 
drug elimination program which I brought up this morning during the 
debate on the rule.
  So I would like to ask the gentleman how is it that you were given 
this really quite unique opportunity? I think you were one of only two 
such special inclusions in the appropriations bill.
  What presentation did you make to the Committee on Rules and how were 
you able to get this included? I am very curious.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KLUG. You would have to ask the Committee on Rules why they 
decided to allow the merits of this program to prevail in their 
deliberations. But I testified in front of the Committee on Rules 
yesterday, and they though it was an appropriate discussion to have on 
the floor, because what we are really interested in, if the gentlewoman 
will continue to yield for a few more seconds, what I think the 
committee is interested in, as is the Committee on Appropriations 
ultimately, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], is to make sure we 
have an opportunity to change the way we have handled section 8 
projects across the country, and I think, given what the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Lazio] is attempting to do later this fall, it is 
absolutely appropriate to try one demonstration project to see if it 
works to build more momentum to change the authorizing legislation.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Reclaiming my time, I find it interesting your project is 
defined as a demonstration program. We made a special policy in the 
Committee on Appropriations we were not going to allow any 
demonstration programs in the bill. You must feel you really have a lot 
of pull over there at the Committee on Rules because, in fact, your 
proposal here is totally out of step with every other Member of this 
institution but for one other.
  I find it quite interesting. Let me ask you, in the demonstration 
program that you are proposing be included in this appropriation bill, 
is your program 

[[Page H 7868]]
authorized? You mentioned the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] wants 
to do it later in the year. Is your program authorized that you are 
asking for?
  Mr. KLUG. No. It is not authorized.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Let me further ask the gentleman then, what gives you 
special privilege on this floor over any other Member?
  Mr. KLUG. I went to the Committee on Rules, if the gentlewoman will 
yield further, and the Committee on Rules voted to allow my amendment 
to get to the floor. It is no special privilege. It is only the vote of 
the Committee on Rules which, as you know, determines any amendments 
which may be brought to the floor, and earlier today, this House 
supported the rule that came out of the Committee on Rules. So the 
House essentially has already signed off on the opportunity to bring 
this to the floor to be debated.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I think the gentleman should think long and hard about 
what he is doing because you are taking a personal privilege, in a 
sense, going to the Committee on Rules, and obviously your party 
controls that committee, but for a special project in one place in this 
country that is unauthorized. You are being given a special privilege 
when Members here on this floor are being denied the opportunity to 
debate major portions of this bill which apply to everyone.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The next time you want to fight drugs, 
you are going to have to ask a Republican to do it for you. Then maybe 
you will get permission to get your amendment up here.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for that advice.
  The amazing thing is I am not fighting for my district. I am fighting 
for 435 congressional districts. I asked for the opportunity to be 
heard.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentlewoman will yield further, 
you may need three or four Republicans.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Maybe I need a few more. I thank the gentleman for that 
good advice.
  I would just say to the gentleman this is the type of insertion in a 
bill that breaks down camaraderie, and the proposal that I want to 
debate on this floor had bipartisan support in the committee. It is a 
program that has been operating since 1988.
  We are being denied that opportunity, and you are being given special 
privilege. I really think it is wrong of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment offered 
by my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin. I do this without venom or 
vitriol. This is simply not the right place or the right time to be 
dealing with this issue.
  As the gentleman himself pointed out, this subcommittee, ultimately 
in full committee and in other legislation in that jurisdiction, is the 
place to deal with this. Certainly, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. 
Pryce] made that clear in the previous Congress.
  I listened with interest to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, 
chronicle the difficulties in the other body, but I believe a full and 
open debate as to the merits or demerits of this policy is required 
under the jurisdiction rather than in this appropriations process.
  So I simply rise in reluctant opposition.
                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I listened to the gentleman's 
dissertation of the amendment that he has on the floor, and it is my 
appreciation this amendment is all legislation and no appropriation.
  Can the gentleman legislate on an appropriation bill?
  The CHAIRMAN. All points of order are waived against this amendment.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Who waived? Because the gentlewoman from 
Ohio has a great amendment, and her amendment is certainly an 
appropriation and not a legislation and not dealing with legislation 
but appropriation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The House waived all points of order against this 
amendment by adopting the resolution governing consideration of this 
bill.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Are there any other amendments that the 
House waived all points of order other than the gentleman's amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, there were two amendments protected.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Can the gentleman inquire in terms of which 
amendments they are? I mean, because the gentlewoman and I am having 
some confusion.
  The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman will let the Chair answer the 
question, the gentleman can look in the report of the Committee on 
Rules accompanying House Resolution 201.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I am trying to understand the rules. I am 
new here. I do not recall the House, is that rule from the Committee on 
Rules because you said the House waived the rules? I do not recall 
voting on waiving these rules other than through the rules that we 
adopted that I voted against. So you are talking about this rule came 
from the Committee on Rules?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
  When the House adopted the resolution reported by the Committee on 
Rules, the House waived the points of order against the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Which other amendments did we waive?
  The CHAIRMAN. As the Chair has indicated to the gentleman, he can 
find that information in the report.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. You are not privy to that information?
  The CHAIRMAN. Yes, and so is the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Is there further discussion on the amendment?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  I wonder if, given the situation which has been acknowledged, and I 
appreciate the forthrightness of the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Hayworth] with regard to this amendment, I do not disagree with the 
purposes that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] has filed this 
amendment; in fact, I would support the underlying purposes for which 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] has attempted to change some of 
the housing authorization language that is necessary to get his 
amendment in proper order. The fact of the matter is the gentlewoman 
from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] was trying to get an amendment, which I also 
support, to continue a program that has been funded by the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development for 5 years.
  Because the authorizing committee never held a hearing and never 
wrote a bill, that program is no longer authorized. As a result, when 
we tried to just continue funding for a program that already has 
funding, it was denied because a point of order could be raised against 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
  So I wonder whether or not we might, if I sought or if the 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], I say to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], if I could just get your attention for a moment 
and perhaps that of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] as well, 
and it is hard to get the attention of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Lazio] on some of these housing issues. But in any event, I wonder if 
the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] were to ask unanimous consent to 
be able to bring her amendment forward, given the kind of situation we 
are in at the moment, whether or not we might be able to get her 
amendment brought up under UC and have an opportunity to debate the 
drug elimination program as well.
  I would hope that maybe we could find some support by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] for those who perhaps would oppose his 
amendment because of the way it was brought forward who might be 
inclined to support his amendment if the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] could be debated as well. I wonder 
if the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] might have a comment on 
that.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin.

[[Page H 7869]]

  Mr. KLUG. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts, with whom I have 
worked closely over the last several weeks.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I appreciate it very much. I support 
his underlying amendment. I understand that.
  Mr. KLUG. That is a discussion I had with the Committee on Rules. I 
have absolutely no control over what the Committee on Rules did except 
to make my case like other Members. Imagine that, when a member of the 
majority party asks the Committee on Rules for an amendment, it is 
actually approved. Obviously, it never happened any time in the last 4 
years.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I appreciate what the gentleman is 
suggesting. I am not going back to the Committee on Rules. I am 
suggesting if the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] were to use the 
influence that he demonstrated so capably to be able to get this 
amendment included in the bill to begin with, if he could use that same 
kind of influence to allow for a unanimous consent to be made in order 
so that the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] could bring her bill 
forward, her amendment forward, there might be a great deal of 
inclination for people on our side of the asile to support the 
amendment if the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. 
Kaptur] could be made in order and he could use his influence to 
convince people on the other side to not oppose her amendment for the 
purposes of this debate.
  Mr. KLUG. I will be happy to have the discussion with a member of the 
Committee on Rules, but I do not see any on the floor right now.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I do not think we need the Committee on 
Rules to bring it up under unanimous consent. We can ask for unanimous 
consent. I am just asking you to go to work. If somebody opposes it, 
that will answer the question as to whether or not we are going to 
oppose you.
  Mr. KLUG. I have no objections. That is not my not decision.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that we be allowed to bring up the Kaptur amendment with regard to the 
drug elimination program.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am not even sure that is 
appropriate. It certainly does not fit the discussion. For now, I have 
to object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will yield, I just 
wanted to make the point there was some question as to when the 
authorization lapsed. Someone had suggested that authorization for the 
drug elimination program had lapsed a long time earlier. The 
information I received from the very able staff of the minority on the 
housing subcommittee is that, in fact, this was authorized through 
1994.
  The question was whether this had been some previous problem. It is 
the failure of the Congress this year to authorize the drug elimination 
grants that caused the dilemma the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] 
has been caught in. That is, through the end of last year it was 
authorized. So we were not previously appropriating for an unauthorized 
program, and it was the failure of the housing subcommittee to do 
anything this year that resulted in that problem.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. That is correct.
  I would look forward to working with the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Lewis] to see whether we might work out a unanimous consent that 
would comply with the rules of the House to allow the gentlewoman from 
Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] to offer her amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Klug] will be postponed.


          sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order:
  Amendment No. 50 offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]; 
amendment No. 63 offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes]; 
amendment No. 47 offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy]; an unnumbered amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]; amendment No. 3 offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                  amendment no. 50 offered by mr. obey

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the Chair announces that 
he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on 
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 126, 
noes 299, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 587]

                               AYES--126

     Ackerman
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bereuter
     Bishop
     Blute
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Evans
     Fattah
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilleary
     Holden
     Inglis
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Leach
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Nadler
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Ward
     Waters
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--299

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer

[[Page H 7870]]

     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bateman
     Collins (MI)
     Hall (OH)
     Jefferson
     Johnston
     Meyers
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Waxman

                              {time}  1702

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Bateman against.

  Messrs. BROWNBACK, NETHER- CUTT, and ABERCROMBIE changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. FLAKE, GOODLATTE, and GOODLING, and Mrs. MALONEY changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          personal explanation

  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 587, I 
inadvertently voted ``no'' on the Obey amendment and I would like the 
record to reflect that I intended to vote ``yes.''
                 amendment no. 63 offered by mr. stokes

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by division vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187, 
noes 237, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 588]

                               AYES--187

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--237

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bateman
     Collins (MI)
     Dornan
     Gekas
     Hall (OH)
     Jefferson
     Johnston
     Meyers
     Moakley
     Reynolds

                              {time}  1711

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                amendment no. 47 offered by mr. kennedy

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177, 
noes 248, not voting 9, as follows:

[[Page H 7871]]


                             [Roll No 589]

                               AYES--177

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--248

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bateman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Hall (OH)
     Jefferson
     Johnston
     Meyers
     Moakley
     Reynolds

                              {time}  1720

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
            amendment offered by mr. frank of massachusetts

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Frank] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 158, 
noes 265, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 590]

                               AYES--158

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Yates

                               NOES--265

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder

[[Page H 7872]]

     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bateman
     Collins (MI)
     Hall (OH)
     Hinchey
     Jefferson
     Johnston
     Longley
     Meyers
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Skaggs

                             {time}   1727

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Johnston of Florida for, with Mr. Longley against.

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                  amendment no. 3 offered by mr. klug

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 76, 
noes 348, not voting 10, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 591]

                                AYES--76

     Andrews
     Armey
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bunn
     Camp
     Castle
     Chrysler
     Collins (GA)
     Condit
     Danner
     Davis
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Fawell
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fox
     Ganske
     Geren
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Heineman
     Hobson
     Houghton
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Luther
     Manton
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McDade
     McHugh
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Minge
     Molinari
     Morella
     Neumann
     Obey
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sanford
     Solomon
     Spratt
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Torkildsen
     Tucker

                               NOES--348

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bateman
     Collins (MI)
     Hall (OH)
     Jefferson
     Johnston
     Martini
     Meyers
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Yates

                              {time}  1735

  Mr. HINCHEY changed his vote ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  I would like to have a colloquy with my colleague, the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Stokes]. I know that the gentleman and I are very anxious to 
make a contribution to getting our Members out of here as early as 
possible, either tonight, or maybe even early tonight, but also early 
tomorrow, if we need to go over to tomorrow. In connection with that, I 
understand that there has been some effort made to work out time 
limitations on a number of the amendments; is that correct? And if it 
is, I will outline those that I understand.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that we have made 
some offer with reference to having some agreement relative to time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that 
there are a series of six amendments where there are tentatively agreed 
time limitations. They would be amendment No. 64 by the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Stokes]. The time limit would be 10 minutes, divided equally.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
that is correct.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. And amendment No. 65, offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] which strikes 

[[Page H 7873]]
delays, a 10-minute limitation divided equally.
  Mr. STOKES. That is correct.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Item No. 69 by the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Vento] dealing with the homeless, a limitation of 40 minutes.
  Mr. STOKES. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. And item No. 12, Mr. Chairman, the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], 20 minutes, 
10 minutes on each side.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  This is the first I have heard of this limitation, just in this last 
30 seconds. I will have to check with the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Waters] who cosponsored the amendment with me. If we could have a 
minute or two to consult, we will get back to the gentleman.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. In the meantime, Mr. Chairman, let me 
complete my list. Item No. 44, by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Hefley], a 10-minute limitation, 5 minutes on each side.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
that is my understanding.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. And Ms. Kaptur of Ohio, drug elimination, a 
limitation of 20 minutes.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I should mention that there has been an 
indication on item 64, the first item of Mr. Stokes, and item 2, there 
has been some indication that there could be points of order on those 
two items. I think that is a part of the understanding as well.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, if the gentleman could repeat 
that.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. When the amendments are called up.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
understand with reference to the Kennedy amendment, the gentleman would 
agree upon 20 minutes on each side. That would be acceptable to our 
side.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, how about 40 minutes? Twenty 
minutes on each side?
  Mr. STOKES. Twenty on each side, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I will try not to use my time.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, with reference to item 64, do I understand 
that the gentleman is waiving a point of order so we might discuss that 
matter for 10 minutes; is that it?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Which matter is the gentleman referring to?
  Mr. STOKES. Amendment No. 64.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that 
there is a request to reserve the right to a point of order on two of 
the two items, No. 64 and No. 2.
  Mr. STOKES. That is correct.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman wants to 
discuss it, and I will do everything I can to see that that occurs.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
the House accept these time limitations as they have just been 
outlined.
  The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman please restate his unanimous-
consent request?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
all debate on the following amendments and all amendments thereto be 
given specific time limitations as outlined in each of these items:
  On item No. 64, 10 minutes, 5 minutes on each side; 65, 10 minutes, 5 
minutes on each side; 69, 40 minutes, 20 minutes on each side; 12, 40 
minutes, 20 minutes on each side; 44, 10 minutes, 5 minutes on each 
side; and No. 2, 20 minutes, 10 minutes on each side.
  I would state with that that Members have requested the reservation 
of points of order possible on item 64 and item 2.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that, 
if there are rollcalls on these amendments, as we proceed, that they 
would all be rolled over and taken at the end of the discussion.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has that authority. Unanimous consent would 
not be needed for that.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title II?


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, No. 2.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Kaptur:
       Page 26, after line 13, insert the following new item:


             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 the Public and Assisted Housing Drug 
     Elimination Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 11901-11908), and for drug 
     information clearinghouse services authorized by the Drug-
     Free Public Housing Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11921-11925), 
     $290,000,000, to remain available until expended.
       Page 64, line 16, before the last comma insert ``(reduced 
     by $34,500,000)''.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order 
against the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California reserves a point of 
order.
                              {time}  1745

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes, and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lewis] will be recognized for 10 minutes in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first let me say to the chairman of the subcommittee, 
no one could be more cordial or helpful than the gentleman has been in 
committee and in subcommittee as we develop these extremely complex 
bills, with lots of pressure from many outside interests, as we saw in 
that last vote.
  My problem is not with the committee, Mr. Chairman, my problem is 
with the Committee on Rules in our attempts to get a freestanding vote 
on this exceedingly important question of the continuation of the drug 
elimination program in and around our public housing projects, which 
affects almost every single metropolitan area and many smaller towns 
and communities in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong opposition to the rule, because 
my amendment is one of its victims. We all know that there is no 
greater scourge affecting our communities than the drug scourge. It has 
been this way for a while. However, this bill, for the first time since 
1988, completely strikes out all of the money for our drug elimination 
efforts in nearby neighborhoods around public housing.
  The Committee on Rules refused to make in order my amendment, which 
would maintain last year's level of support, which is about $290 
million for drug elimination in 1996, and we did so in a budget-neutral 
way. We transferred money in the amendment from FEMA, the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, so it is budget neutral.
  Let me say again, this program has existed and has been functioning 
since 1988. It has an excellent track record. It has helped every 
community in this country deal with the kind of cancer that is 
spreading throughout our neighborhoods because of these gang leaders 
and drug lords associated with drugs.
  Mr. Chairman, in a few moments the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lewis], our distinguished chairman, will insist on his point of order 
against my amendment. I have a hunch that the Chair will rule that I 
cannot bring up my amendment for a full debate before this body. It is 
my intention to then appeal the Chair's ruling, and a motion will be 
made to table my appeal. I ask my colleagues to please vote no on the 
motion to table the appeal, because in effect, that will be the only 
vote that we have on saving this very worthy initiative.
  I guess my basic question, Mr. Chairman, is why should we pull the 
rug out from under the citizens of our country by taking away the only 
program that exists to fight drugs and crime in some of the most 
fragile neighborhoods in 

[[Page H 7874]]
this Nation? To make matters worse, if my amendment does not prevail, 
what ultimately happens is as this fiscal year winds down and the next 
fiscal year begins, the money that is so-called being saved, and I put 
that word in quotes, the money that would be taken from these very 
worthy initiatives from coast-to-coast, will be frittered away on tax 
breaks that will be given to the privileged few.
  That will not be done in our committee, that will be done over in the 
Committee on Ways and Means. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, there is really 
no savings as a result of what is being done here. We are eliminating 
an exceedingly effective program.
  Mr. Chairman, let me point out that this program, and I said to the 
majority leader just now, it is amazing what happens in politics, I am 
defending a program that was pioneered by Jack Kemp when he was HUD 
Secretary. This has had broad bipartisan support over the years, and 
has really helped our community stem the drug tide, because, as we all 
know, it is not restricted to one neighborhood. The drug lords and
 those that they hire, they move across communities. They move into the 
suburbs, into the city.

  Since 1989 HUD was given a helping hand to hundreds and hundred of 
our mayors in towns and police forces across this country. In my own 
town of Toledo, OH, a medium-size city, our Toledo Police Department 
saw a 20 percent decrease in just 1 year in drug activity in those 
areas that received help from this program. Yet, the appropriations 
bill recommended zero funding, zero funding in this program that is 
doing so much to effectively combat what drug lords and gang violence 
is doing all over this country.
  I literally walked through the streets of Chicago when Congressman 
Charlie Hayes served in this body at a time when there were snipers on 
the roofs of some of the public housing projects in Chicago, projects 
being controlled by drug lords. As a result of this very worthy effort, 
that does not happen, that does not happen to the extent that it used 
to.
  Mr. Chairman, what is really amazing is how we could be abandoning a 
program that has been as universally successful as this one, in giving 
our mayors, our police departments, our citizens the necessary tools to 
fight crime. It seems to me we cannot afford to continue them.
  Let me remind my colleagues, my amendment would pay for itself 
through an offset of $34 million from FEMA's disaster assistance 
account, because this particular program only spends out at the rate of 
7 percent a year, and it seems we have found money for everything from 
the space station to disasters everywhere in the Nation. There could be 
no greater disaster than what is happening in our communities as a 
result of the drug trade.
  One of the reasons I really beg special consideration here, I offered 
an amendment in the full committee on this very subject. We got 
bipartisan support, we came within 5 votes of carrying the amendment, 
there were 16 Members who were not in the committee when we took the 
vote. Any objection that could have existed to the amendment as 
originally offered was worked out.
  We went to the Committee on Rules, we made our presentation, and I 
thought we would be granted the opportunity to offer this amendment. 
The FEMA account has been dipped into for other purposes since we held 
that vote in committee. Thus, it seems to me that for $34 million in 
the next cycle, we have a very worthy proposal that deserves the 
consideration of our colleagues.
  Mr. Chairman, I also have a list here that includes communities 
across the country. Before Members vote on the motion to table the 
appeal, I want them to come up to me and take a look at this list. 
Columbus, OH, gets over $1 million a year. Every community of the 
leadership of this Congress receives help. The community of chairman of 
the Committee on Rules, Albany, NY, receives help in his program. We 
can go coast to coast. Every single district in this country benefits 
from this program.
  I would remind my colleagues from the other side of the aisle that 
this is not a partisan issue. Let me quote what Jack Kemp said in 1991 
when he was visiting a project in one of our Nation's major cities. He 
said, ``Our drug elimination funding represents a substantial 
commitment'' by the then Bush administration, ``to rid public housing 
of the scourge of drugs and drug-related crime. Two years ago the bush 
administration announced a substantial moral and financial commitment 
to return public housing neighborhoods to the families for whom they 
were intended. Today this effort is showing significant results.''
  I agree with Mr. Kemp, Mr. Chairman. We, as Members of this House, 
should do everything possible to help our local communities combat the 
scourge of drugs. I find it the height of lunacy to eliminate an effort 
that has proven itself in city after city just in order to bankroll 
through tax breaks largely the Fortune 500 big daddies that will get 
plenty of good treatment here, come the end of the year.
  My colleagues should know that if my amendment is ruled out of order, 
I will appeal the ruling of the Chair. I strongly urge my colleagues to 
vote no on any subsequent motions to table my appeal of the ruling of 
the Chair.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Fields].
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me, and for all of her efforts she has put into this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment. If we look at the 
problems we have in our public housing system across the country, we 
will find there still exists today, though I think there are Members of 
Congress, based upon the way we are moving in this legislation, who do 
not believe that; but I can tell the Members, coming from a district 
that has a sizeable amount of public housing, there are still problems 
within the public housing system.
  For us to sit here or stand here today and not consider this 
amendment to me would be absolutely unbelievable. We have already cut 
out drug free schools and communities out of our schools. We have taken 
drug education funding out of the school system. Now we are coming to 
the public housing and taking drug prevention programs and elimination 
programs out of it. I just do not understand how that makes sense.
  Mr. Chairman, in Louisiana, for example, this amendment, if it is not 
passed, will cost Louisiana somewhere in the neighborhood of about 
$600,000. We have big housing facilities like the one in New Orleans, 
LA, for example, DESIRE projects. They are working hard every day to 
try to eliminate the drug problem that they have.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], insist 
on his point of order?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] is recognized 
for 10 minutes on the amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my colleague, 
the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], if I though we were eliminating 
programs that are attempting to control the drug problem in public 
housing, I would agree with her. But I do not believe that is the case. 
I know that the gentlewoman will recall that during the rescission 
process, we put sizeable numbers of dollars in the public housing 
modernization accounts. There is $2.5 billion in this bill, another $6 
billion in the pipeline, and are providing the kind of flexibility that 
suggests that these drug elimination efforts should take place through 
public housing modernization.
  The President just signed the rescission bill today. Within that bill 
there is the authorization to carry forward that sort of activity, so I 
feel very, very strongly that while there may be this understanding 
between us, there is certainly no disagreement regarding the importance 
and the priority of drug elimination efforts.
  It is my own view that the Department of Housing has not always 
effectively carried forward efforts that the Congress outlined for them 
to carry forward. We are giving them some new direction in this 
process. We hope to put a different kind of pressure on, and see if it 
works better. These programs work well in some locations and in other 
locations they do not work very well.

[[Page H 7875]]

  Further, Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman, she and I do 
have a very fine working relationship. As she knows, she made a 
personal appeal regarding $10 million that involves a health 
professionals scholarship program, and frankly, I thought the argument 
was logical, and in my amendment earlier today, put that money back in.
  In this case, there is a very specific authorization for an 
appropriations bill here in the rescission package that allows another 
approach in terms of drug elimination within housing modernization. I 
really believe that there is a need to shake this agency, and take 
those agency subheads over there and rattle them a bit. In no way, 
shape, or form would the gentlewoman or I take a position that was in 
opposition to drug elimination grants.


                             point of order

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
against the amendment, because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, and therefore 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman desire to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. I respectfully ask for the 
Chair's ruling on that.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I would like to be heard on the point 
of order, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the provision of the gentlewoman in this 
bill, and I think the point of order is not appropriate, given all of 
the other considerations that have been contained in this rule that is 
before the House of Representatives.
  I would further point out that the gentleman from California suggests 
that the funds for this program could be contained in the HUD 
modernization program. I would just point out to the gentleman that 
that program has been cut fully by 30 percent. To suggest
 that we are going to be able to take money from the drug elimination 
program and take it out of the modernization fund is complete folly, so 
I would object to the point of order based on the fact that this whole 
thing is complete folly on the part of the gentleman from California.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest there is $2.5 
billion for public housing modernization in this bill and there is $6 
billion in the pipeline of unexpended, unobligated funds.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I would just point out that HUD 
modernization funds are much like an aircraft carrier. The fact of the 
matter is there are billions and billions of dollars in the Armed 
Services budget that go for programs that are going to be requiring 
these funds over a period of time. You cannot build bricks and mortar 
overnight. It takes a while. Therefore, the funds end up in the 
pipeline. That is no excuse for taking a shortsighted approach.
  Once again, it demonstrates the fact that the Committee on 
Appropriations is no place to authorize funds, because the Committee on 
Appropriations does not understand how HUD modernization works. HUD 
modernization draws dollars over a long period of time. They see the 
money in the pipeline, they say ``Let's go cut it,'' but the fact of 
the matter is those dollars go to specific projects that need to be 
modernized, and should not be in competition with drug elimination 
funding.

                              {time}  1800

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman may proceed on the point of order.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is what I would like to do. I 
want to say, first of all, that I think that the work that the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] did in helping us to restore the 
health education scholarships for nurses, for occupational therapists, 
and so forth, a $10 million program that has existed since the early 
1980's, was right for America and it was the proper thing to do with 
some of the dollars that were given to our committee when other 
committees worked out their bottom line numbers.
  On this particular one, as I mentioned, I am not blaming the 
gentleman personally for this. I am exceedingly disappointed in the 
Rules Committee based on what happened.
  Mr. McINNIS. Regular order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman must confine her
   remarks to the point of order. Regular order has been demanded.

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, what does that mean?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman's remarks should be relative to the 
point of order rather than the other subject matter being discussed. 
Regular order has been demanded.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I am talking about the point of order; am I 
not?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman must speak to whether or not this is an 
authorized appropriation.
  Ms. KAPUTR. Mr. Chairman, let me say that this program has existed 
since 1988, and when the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] was on the 
floor a little earlier, the gentleman was asking for a demonstration 
project that did not even get in the bill. It was not even in the 
appropriations bill. To me, I am talking about a program that has been 
on the books since 1988, with a track record, and all of the other 
programs in the bill are not authorized either, and yet we are 
appropriating dollars for them.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to know by what criteria the Rules 
Committee decided when things were not authorized what would they put 
in the bill and why I am classified as unauthorized
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is not in a position to state the motivations 
of the Rules Committee. The gentlewoman should confine her remarks to 
the point of order which is before the body.
  Does the gentlewoman wish to further comment on the point of order?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I am a bit befuddled here in trying to 
understand by what criteria in this point of order we are ruled out of 
order, saying we are unauthorized when, in fact, everything else in the 
bill is not authorized either.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has yet to rule.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I have a hunch what the Chair is going to do, Mr. 
Chairman. I have kind of been forewarned, and I am trying to get a 
definition of why we would be excluded. I hope when the Chair rules he 
will so state that reason, especially in relation to other programs in 
the bill that are included but are not authorized.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order.
  Mr. LEWIS. By way of clarification, Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure 
the House understands that the rule states in pertinent part that no 
amendment to a general appropriations bill shall be in order if 
changing existing law.
  The amendment goes to a program whose authorization expired in fiscal 
year 1994. The program is not authorized and, therefore, the point of 
order, and that is what I am asking the Chair to rule upon.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear arguments from Members on the point 
of order. The gentlewoman from North Carolina may proceed.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Chair again to 
further explain the point of order here. The distinction for the clause 
that is written into the language said all of these appropriations are 
subject to authorization, so all of them technically expired. What date 
did they expire?
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman wish to be heard further?
  Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to respond to the 
gentlewoman's question.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, let me make the point. He made the point 
that the reason for the point of order was that bills were expired in 
1994. I am raising the question, then, all of these bills in the 
language, according to the drafting of the legislation are subject to 
authorization. All bills have expired. The question is raised why not a 
point of order, if that is the reason on all of the bills that we have 
here?
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentlewoman making a parliamentary inquiry?
  
[[Page H 7876]]

  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, if I need to, I will have it as a 
parliamentary inquiry. I though I was asking the gentleman from 
California.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will respond to the gentlewoman's question 
when the Chair rules on the point of order.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I was asking the chairman of the 
subcommittee, sir, in all deference.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California wish to be heard 
further on the point of order?
  Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, those items within this bill that have been 
protected by the Rules Committee can go appropriately forward. This is 
an item that has not been protected by the Rules Committee and, 
therefore, is subject to a point of order.
  I might say, Mr. Chairman, that we learned this process during the 
past several sessions that I have been in the Congress.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I desire to be heard on the point of order.
  Some people are sitting here wondering what is going on. Let me tell 
you what is going on. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] came to 
the floor and attempted to have an amendment passed that would allow 
apartment owners to have some section 8 but not all section 8. That was 
not authorized by anybody. He legislated on the appropriation.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, regular order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Regular order is demanded.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, this speaks to the point of order. He went 
to the Committee on Rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Regular order is demanded. The gentlewoman should 
confine her remarks specifically to the point of order, as to whether 
this amendment is authorized. Whatever activity on any other amendment 
is not relevant.
  Ms. WATERS. I think it is relevant.
  The CHAIRMAN. Not in the eyes of the Chair.
  Ms. WATERS. I will try.
  The fact of the matter is it is not authorized because we have had no 
legislation in committee to do any authorizations and so no one else 
has been authorized. But a cute little trick took place and the 
Committee on Rules waived for those they wanted to waive for and they 
are denying an opportunity.
  Whether you say I am speaking to the point of order or not, I am, and 
it is unfair, and I do not expect that from this chairman because he 
usually is fair. I would ask him to withdraw his point of order and let 
the gentlewoman take up this most important measure because she has not 
had an opportunity to have it authorized.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I would like to 
make one or two points as relates to the point of order.
  First of all, I think the gentlewoman's amendment is in order, one, 
because it is not legislating according to the rules of the House on an 
appropriation bill. It is simply providing for an appropriation. It is 
taking money out of title III of this appropriations bill and it is 
putting it in title II of this appropriations bill. Title III of this 
appropriation bill deals with FEMA, so she is simply taking money out 
of FEMA and putting it into the drug elimination portion.
  The last point I would like to make, Mr. Chairman, is that in doing 
that it makes this amendment budget neutral, it does not add any 
additional dollars to the bill, so therefore I think the gentlewoman's 
amendment should be made in order.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, regular order.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Combest). The gentleman's statement was pertinent 
to the point of order.
  Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the point of order? 
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The statutory authority cited in the amendment extends only through 
fiscal 1994. Absent citation to law extending the authorization through 
fiscal 1996, the Chair must sustain the point of order. The fact that 
other waivers have been granted to other amendments is not relevant.
                         parliamentary inquiry

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state it.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, am I correct in understanding that the 
ruling of the Chair would create a situation where we would thus be 
denied an opportunity to have a vote on the direct question of should 
we sustain this program for fiscal year 1996? Is that the net effect?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair's ruling indicates that the amendment is no 
longer before the Committee of the Whole.
  Ms. KAPTUR. So if the Chair recalls earlier today when the chairman 
of the Committee on Rules was on the floor and told me that this was an 
open rule and thus I would have the opportunity to offer my amendment 
and said I would be able to do that, now, it is proven, what he said 
has not happened. I have not been offered the opportunity to have a 
full debate on my amendment here on the floor and be given an up-or-
down vote on it. Is that not correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has interpreted the amendment consistent with 
the rules of the House and the special order.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, tell me would this be in order: We had some 
conversations here with the leadership on the other side of the aisle 
and some of the folks here. What if I were to withdraw my amendment at 
this point perhaps for an hour or two as we are proceeding through the 
remainder of title II, reserving the right to bring it up at the end of 
title II?
  That would give us more time to discuss this with the full committee 
chair. It would give us time to discuss with the majority leader since 
he came over here and talked to us about it.
  Would that be in order at this point?
  The CHAIRMAN. At this point, the amendment is not before the 
committee for withdrawal. If the gentlewoman wants to re-offer an 
amendment at some point, the Chair would have to rule at that time.
  Are there other amendments to title II?
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished gentleman from our 
neighboring State of New York, the chairman of the Banking Subcommittee 
on Housing and Community Opportunity.
  I would like to direct this to the gentleman. As the gentleman is 
aware, I considered offering an amendment to the fiscal year 1996 VA-
HUD appropriations bill to give local officials the flexibility they 
need to select those programs or services most deserving of community 
development block grants. As the gentleman knows, current law burdens 
the CDBG program with archaic rules and regulations, tying the hands of 
local officials and subverting the true intention of block grants. In 
many cases these regulations preclude the award of grants to those 
programs most deserving of support. Especially in an era of limited 
budgets, this Congress should not severely limit the ability of local 
officials to direct these limited funds to the areas of greatest need.
  My amendment was designed to replace section 105(a) of the Housing 
and Community Development Act of 1974. This portion of the act lists 25 
eligible activities, and imposes a bewildering, Byzantine array of 
restrictions and limitations that I believe as a former elected 
official confuses and constricts the use of Federal funds by local 
elected officials most familiar with their urban challenges.
  Mr. Chairman, I fully understand that my proposed amendment would 
have placed legislative language in an appropriations bill. 
Nevertheless I believe it is absolutely essential to cut the 
bureaucratic red tape strangling our communities' ability to respond to 
local problems. However, before I offered the amendment, I had an 
enlightened conversation with the gentleman form New York that I 
believe should be shared with other Members of this House.
  May I ask the same questions of the representative from the Empire 
State?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I 
would be happy to answer his questions.

[[Page H 7877]]

  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. To the gentleman, is the Banking 
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity presently reviewing 
proposals to streamline the CDBG process?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Yes, I would say to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, whom I respect and admire, that I am currently preparing 
a chairman's mark that among other things will attempt to simplify the 
eligible activities under the community development program into 5 
broad program parameters that will include some of the activities noted 
in your withdrawn amendment. We recognize that the Federal Government 
in forming partnerships with the State and local governments must 
develop user-friendly programs that provide as much flexibility as 
possible to coordinate and implement successful community development 
programs that actually meet the real needs of the community. This new 
approach will help communities target funds to help more low and 
moderate income families.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I would ask when the 
gentleman expects to complete this bill?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. The mark should be completed soon. I will be 
happy to discuss details of the community development aspect with the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania and work with him to help satisfy his 
concerns. I expect the subcommittee markup and passage to occur 
sometime during this session.
                              {time}  1815

  I would like to thank the gentleman for taking the time to share this 
valuable information, and I commend him for taking these important 
steps to strengthen and improve the CDBG program.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank the distinguished gentleman 
from California, Mr. Lewis, chairman of this subcommittee on 
appropriations, for allowing me to enter this at this time, and I 
commend the chairman and the committee for providing full funding in 
this bill for the Community Development Block Grant Program at last 
year's level.


                 amendment no. 64 offered by mr. stokes

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
  Amendment offered by Mr. Stokes:

       On page 30, after ``1988,'' on line 6, insert: ``and for 
     the fair housing initiatives program as authorized by the 
     Housing and Community Development Act of 1987,''.

  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The point of order raised against my amendment raises the precise 
question that has been raised here by the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. 
Kaptur] all day long.
  In my case, it is more egregious. I am the ranking minority member of 
this subcommittee. I have sat in hearings for 4 months, day in and day 
out. I have never missed a meeting. I have attended every meeting.
  I bring to the floor today an amendment that I asked the Committee on 
Rules to protect; it was not protected. I was here this morning when 
the chairman of the Committee on Rules said the same thing in my 
presence that he said in the presence of the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. 
Kaptur]. That was that the rule did not prohibit any of us from being 
able to offer amendments to this bill. Yet, I find here I am now 
restricted not only from being able to present the amendment, but being 
limited to 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, before proceeding further, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez].
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise today in strong support of this amendment. It would preserve 
the Fair Housing Initiatives Program [FHIP], an important and cost-
effective tool for fighting housing discrimination in our cities, our 
suburbs, and our rural communities.
  We'd like to think that discrimination in the real estate market is a 
thing of the past, or at least a declining problem. The facts show 
otherwise.
  For instance, the Federal Reserve has reported that Latino and 
African-American mortgage applicants in Boston were 60 percent more 
likely to be turned
 down for a loan than similar white applicants.

  In Chicago, 69 percent of white applicants with marginal credit 
histories got a mortgage. Only 16 percent of minority applicants got 
the loan.
  HUD reports that Latinos and African-Americans have at least a 50 
percent chance of encountering discrimination in housing sales and 
rentals.
  The Fair Housing Initiatives Program is essential for fighting 
against this persistent discrimination. It recruits nonprofit community 
groups to provide education, outreach, enforcement, and counseling 
regarding our Nation's fair housing requirements. Under this program, 
community groups mediate and resolve fair housing disputes; educate and 
train landlords, real estate agents, and mortgage lenders; and work 
with families.
  These are critical activities that the Federal Government simply can 
not pursue on its own. There's too little staff, and too few resources.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very well acquainted with the good work that's 
being done under the Fair Housing Initiatives Program. Through this 
program, a nonprofit group in my district has discovered and helped 
combat a persistent pattern of housing discrimination in south 
Brooklyn.
  Over the years, hundreds of Latino housing residents had been forced 
out of their apartment so that they could be made available for white 
families. Some were harassed, while others were offered cash payments 
to move.
  Where these inducements were inadequate, landlords simply refused to 
make repairs. Complaints of collapsed ceilings, broken windows, rotted 
kitchen cabinets, and leaky pipes were simply ignored. One landlord had 
compiled up to 84 housing code violations in his effort to displace 
minority tenants.
  I am happy to report that after just 6 months, this one grant is 
having dramatic results. The inspector general of the city's housing 
authority has initiated a vigorous investigation of discriminatory 
housing practices. Long-overdue repairs are going forward in apartments 
occupied by non-white tenants.
  This success story is unfolding through one relatively small FHIP 
grant in New York City. Other successes are being replayed all across 
this country. Local advocates and community groups are being empowered 
to stamp out discrimination in their local housing markets.
  FHIP is the kind of initiative that my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle have always praised. I urge every member of this body to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The bill would seriously undermine fair housing efforts by virtually 
abandoning support for community-based, nonprofit fair housing 
activities by zeroing out funding for the Fair Housing Initiatives 
Program [FHIP]. FHIP is an essential element of a Federal-State-private 
partnership to combat the serious problem of housing discrimination. 
Instead, all funds in H.R. 2099 are allocated to the Fair Housing 
Assistance Program [FHAP], also in the Office of Fair Housing. My 
amendment would divide the $30 million allocated in the bill between 
both programs.
  FHIP is a competitive grant program that funds nonprofit 
organizations to enable them to provide education, outreach, 
enforcement, and counseling concerning fair housing matters.
  The activities of FHIP grantees reduce the caseloads of fair housing 
cases at HUD, the Department of Justice, and State fair housing 
agencies by promoting voluntary compliance through work with real 
estate associations, community groups, and advocacy organizations.
  Through the FHIP program, community-oriented local fair housing 
organizations supplement the law enforcement efforts of the Federal, 
State, and local governments in an inexpensive and effective manner.
  Fair housing organizations often work within their communities to 
mediate and resolve fair housing disputes informally. In these cases, 
the dispute is resolved to the satisfaction of the parties, and there 
is no need to file a formal complaint of discrimination.
  FHIP agencies provide training and information to landlords, real 
estate 

[[Page H 7878]]
agents, mortgage lenders, and other members of the real estate 
industry. These efforts reduce discrimination and help avoid fair 
housing violations.
  Fair housing agencies also work with housing consumers to inform them 
of their rights and to help them resolve fair housing disputes. Through 
enforcement efforts, the agencies weed out
 nonmeritorious cases and develop the evidence for strong Federal civil 
rights challenges.

  FHIP funds testing programs, a critical function in identifying and 
resolving discrimination practices in housing markets. Testing 
pinpoints discrimination and gives proof that discrimination occurs. 
You cannot prosecute if you cannot find discrimination. Testing is a 
precision tool for ferreting out real discrimination.
  The Fair Housing Assistance Program [FHAP] has a different mission, 
and different mode of operation from the FHIP Program. FHAP provides 
reimbursement, on a per-case basis, to State and local government 
agencies that handle legal complaints filed by victims of housing 
discrimination.
  Under the Fair Housing Act, HUD has an obligation to accept 
complaints from people who believe their right to fair housing has been 
violated. Through the FHAP program, Congress has provided a mechanism 
for HUD to delegate many of its responsibilities outlined above to 
State or local government agency.
  Only eight States and five localities--some overlapping--are fully 
certified fair housing enforcement agencies. These governmental 
enforcement agencies are generally less than 2 years old. The President 
requested $15 million for FHAP in fiscal year 1996, up from $7.4 
million as a reflection of concerted efforts to increase the number of 
fully certified agencies and to provide technology and training to 
improve the effectiveness of the agencies.
  The subcommittee bill provides $30 million--a four-fold increase over 
current year funding. It is unclear how these funds can be spent given 
the small number of States and localities with certified agencies.
  FHAP funds cannot be seen as substitutes for FHIP grants. Eliminating 
FHIP makes the FHAP program far less effective. Not only do the FHIP 
grants to nonprofits serve a different function, they specifically 
target areas where the State or local government has not established a 
fair housing enforcement agency which would qualify for FHAP funding.
  Nineteen States do not have substantially equivalent certification, 
and therefore, are not eligible to
 participate in the FHAP program. The loss of FHIP funding would 
disproportionately affect the ability of victims of housing 
discrimination to seek redress in these 19 States.

  If FHIP were defunded, most fair housing organizations would go out 
of the fair housing business. Some would go under altogether.
  There is very little charitable or other financing available for this 
type of work.
  Governmental agencies generally do not have the authority to do many 
of the activities FHIP entities perform.
  Even where they have the authority, governmental agencies generally 
have higher operating costs.
  My amendment would allow both programs of this important office to 
continue to perform distinct and much-needed functions. I urge you to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I really had thought that perhaps the chairman of our 
committee would support this amendment. It does not in any way affect 
the scoring, it does not change the money, except that it moves half of 
the $30 million already appropriated from the FHAP program over to the 
FHIP program. This permits these community organizations to continue to 
do such an excellent job in terms of being able to help negotiate and 
mediate fair housing discrimination complaints, to the degree that 
oftentimes lawsuits and time in the courts is avoided by simply being 
able to mediate these programs in the community.
  My amendment would allow both programs of this important office to 
continue to perform distinct, much-needed functions. I would urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.


                             point of order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York persist in his point 
of order?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I am constrained to make a point 
of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing 
law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, 
therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part:

       No amendment to a general appropriation bill shall be in 
     order if changing existing law.

  This amendment goes to a program whose authorization expired in 
fiscal year 1994, as was the case of the last amendment. The program is 
not authorized.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] wish to be 
heard on the point of order?
  Mr. STOKES. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized on the point or 
order.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, the rationale given was that this was not 
authorized. I submit to my colleagues that nothing in HUD was 
authorized. Everything that is before us today has been protected by 
way of a special order from the Committee on Rules, but nothing in HUD 
was authorized.
  And so, Mr. Chairman, I really do not see any difference in terms of 
what I am proposing here and that which is contained in the legislation 
now before this body.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard 
on the point of order. I think all of us have had a sense that there is 
supposed to be a new commitment by this House of Representatives to an 
open process, an open process of an open rule.
  We had a long debate this morning with the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules, about the fact that 
this was not an open rule. This amendment which the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Stokes] offers is an important demonstration of this House's 
commitment to fair lending. There is an enormous body of evidence, 
supported by bank lending, supported by insurance, jobs, and other 
major indicators, that discrimination is alive and well in America.
  This amendment goes toward the cures to that, which has been 
authorized year in and year out by the authorizing committee. What we 
have seen is an abandonment of the basic responsibilities of the 
committee.
  The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman suspend. The gentleman must speak 
to the point of order.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am speaking to the 
point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is whether this amendment is 
authorized at this time.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am speaking directly to 
that. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues might not want to hear the words that 
I am putting out, but the fact of the matter is, I am dealing directly 
with this point of order. I am dealing with the Committee on Rules, I 
am dealing with the Republican attempts to muzzle.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is not addressing the point of order.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. To muzzle this rule so that we are 
disallowed from being able to speak on basic discrimination issues, 
simply because there is no attempt to authorize bills that provide 
protections against discrimination.
  This House ought to be ashamed of what is going on before the 
American people. Shame on this House.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to the point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will confine her remarks to the point 
of order.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the point has been made
   that nothing was authorized. Nothing has been authorized. We have 
not had a piece of legislation proposed by the chairman of the 
subcommittee, by the Republicans, to authorize anything for HUD.

  If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, if nothing has been authorized, 
how then is it that we have Members from the 

[[Page H 7879]]
other side legislating on the appropriation, when, in fact, this side 
offers amendments and we are told we are not authorized? Would someone 
please explain this little move, this little trick, this little 
manipulation that is being used by which they, somehow, let others have 
amendments?
  As I understand it, we have another unauthorized amendment that is 
going to be put before this committee tonight. Will someone explain 
please how they get to do it and we do not get to do it? That is really 
what this discussion is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, people do not mind losing fairly; do not mind being 
voted down. But to simply have a rule that says some can and some 
cannot, it is hard for us to accept. So, what I would like to say, 
somebody needs to explain how it is that the other side can move 
forward with unauthorized amendments and this side cannot. Please 
explain that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. For the reasons stated 
in the Chair's previous ruling, the Chair sustains the point of order.
  Mr. STOKES. Point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio wish to be heard further 
on the point of order?
  Mr. STOKES. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, there has been a great 
deal of discussion about the fact that the point of order rules me out 
of order, because my amendment is not authorized. I would just like to 
cite page 103 of the VA-HUD report and I want to cite the language that 
appears on that page.
  It says:

       Appropriations Not Authorized by law. Pursuant to clause 3 
     of rule XXI of the House of Representatives, the following 
     lists the appropriations in the accompanying bill which are 
     not authorized by law:
       Department of Veterans Affairs: Construction; Major 
     Projects; Transitional Housing Loan Program. Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development: All programs.

  That is the language that appears there. So, Mr. Chairman, it is very 
difficult to understand how this amendment, this important amendment, 
is ruled out of order by virtue of not being authorized.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  For the reasons stated in the Chair's prior ruling, the Chair 
sustains the point of order. The statutory authority cited in the 
amendment extends only through fiscal year 1994. Absent citation to law 
extending the authorization through fiscal year 1996, the Chair must 
sustain the point of order. The fact that other waivers have been 
granted to other unauthorized appropriations is not relevant.
                              {time}  1830


                    amendment offered by mr. hefley

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hefley:
       On page 30, line 15 strike ``951,988,000'' and insert 
     ``839,183,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentleman from Colorado 
[Mr. Hefley] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, HUD's fiscal year 1996 budget is being cut by over 25 
percent, and we are eliminating 36 individual programs, which I 
commend, but, amazingly, the appropriation for HUD's administration and 
management is receiving only a 1 percent cut. We are cutting the 
substance, but we are keeping the bureaucracy, and to me this makes no 
sense. How can we justify this to the American taxpayer?
  My amendment simply asks that HUD's administrative portion of its 
budget take the same cuts as everything else in the budget, 25 percent. 
The Secretary has suggested a plan to reduce HUD's administrative staff 
from 11,000 to 7,500 employees by the year 2000.
  But, Mr. Chairman, that is 2 years and 7,500 employees too late. 
HUD's budget has grown by 400 percent over the last 15 years. Its 
bureaucracy is in lockstep with that figure.
  We finally are in a position to eliminate the cornerstone of the 
welfare state. Throughout the year's appropriation process, amendments 
to cut further funding from such things as the NEA, CPB, and ICC have 
been defeated. Members have argued they should not be crippled further.
  The argument does not hold in this case, because there is no definite 
plan to abolish this department.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hefley amendment.
  The VA-HUD appropriations bill contains $952 million in funding for 
HUD's management and administration. Now, that is $6 million below the 
1995 enacted level.
  The Hefley amendment would further reduce funding for HUD's 
management and administration by $113 million down to $839 million. 
This additional cut is totally reckless.
  HUD has prepared an ambitious but prudent plan to downsize the staff 
by fiscal year 2000 to 7,500 FTE's. Substantial progress has already 
been made to set the agency on a responsible glide path toward this 
target. HUD is already below the 1995 budget level of 11,918 FTE's--
1995 FTE's will be below 11,400, and onboard staff will likely be below 
11,000 by September 30.
  HUD will enter 1996 at a rate over 700 below the 1996 request. Its 
policies will continue to have reductions throughout the year.
  The subcommittee mark itself will force a reduction in FTE's to about 
10,500. The amendment, Mr. Chairman, will require an additional 
reduction of staff of over 1,800 FTE's. This excessive, unwarranted cut 
would certainly be costly. It would require, without a doubt, a 
reduction in force of current employees, and the cost of a RIF is 
substantial. It includes severance pay, unemployment compensation, 
continued health benefits, and accrued leave payment.
  It would also lead to tremendous instability and inefficiency in the 
remaining work force.
  I would hope the Members would vote against the Hefley amendment. I 
object to it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Royce].
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to 
reduce spending for administrative functions in the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development, and let me share with you that it is 
only logical that a smaller department with fewer programs needs less 
money to keep going.
  We are shortly to vote on a bill which will reduce HUD's overall 
budget. We are terminating 36 individual HUD programs. Yet as written, 
this bill cuts the HUD's administrative and management budget by only a 
paltry 1 percent, and that makes no sense.
  If HUD has less to do, as it will, it can do it with less of the 
American taxpayers' hard-earned resources. The amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] calls for a streamlined HUD 
bureaucracy to manage its remaining programs. It reduces spending for 
administrative functions by 25 percent.
  This amendment does nothing to cripple FHA or GNMA or other 
continuing HUD programs. But fewer, trimmed-down programs can be run by 
fewer bureaucrats and should be run by fewer bureaucrats, and I think 
that is simple arithmetic.
  Mr. Chairman we cannot implement this year's budget resolution which 
put us on a glide path toward a balanced budget in 2002 if we do not 
cut spending.
  We cannot cut spending significantly unless we recognize that a 
government that does less needs fewer people to do it.
  Bloated bureaucracy is not the only reason for bloated government, 
but it is certainly part of the problem. We are cutting HUD program 
spending, so let us cut administrative and management budget to match 
those cuts.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I think the attraction for streamlining and reducing bureaucracy 
obviously has a certain ring to it that all of us be tempted to join in 
the chorus. But I would caution the Members that 

[[Page H 7880]]
simply reviewing the budget in terms of reduced dollars, in terms of 
programs, does not necessarily translate into reduced responsibilities 
for a department like HUD.
  I would remind my colleagues they are completely responsible, for 
instance, for administration of the FHA program, for programs like my 
colleague on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services should be 
aware of, of the Real Estate Sales Practices Act. They are responsible 
for a significant amount of oversight responsibilities that deal with 
important programs that serve the private sector in terms of housing as 
well as the secondary regulatory role and in many other areas.
  So, simply cutting out the expertise here, the administrative 
capacity is wrong if there is anything that has been demonstrated, 
incidentally, it is that where we do have failed public housing 
authorities, as have recently been taken over in Chicago, they are 
relying upon HUD today to fill that gap. Fortunately, most housing 
authorities function pretty well, but when they don't the role falls to 
the Federal HUD.
  But the oversight responsibilities for 4.7 million units of public 
housing is substantial for HUD and must not reduce there capacity 
without a change in responsibilities.
  Vote no on the amendment
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, with a minute I cannot say much.
  I do want to share a few facts about how much this department has 
grown over the last number of years.
  Since 1980, we have gone from 54 programs to over 200 programs. HUD 
funding has increased from $12.7 billion in 1980 to $31 billion last 
year. It is one of the fastest growing departments in the Federal 
Government.
  I think the time has come to begin to downsize this department. Jack 
Kemp, the former Secretary of HUD, has agreed that maybe it is time to 
get rid of the Department of Housing and Urban Development altogether.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that eliminating some of these programs is a 
good first step. But I think if we are going to eliminate 
administrative overhead here in the House, and the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Luther] and I recently introduced a bill to reduce some 
of the overhead at the White House, I think it is reasonable to 
eliminate some of the overhead at the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development.
  I think it is a good amendment. I hope Members will join me in 
supporting it.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I can say categorically that this is a matter upon 
which we have not had any hearings whatsoever in terms of the VA-HUD 
Subcommittee. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] is not a member 
of that subcommittee, and we have not had the benefit of anything other 
than the plan which we know is in effect where the Secretary is 
attempting to downsize the program in a reasonable, logical way.
  The plan, to us, makes a lot of sense. We think that this meat ax 
approach, being taken through this amendment, is wrong to Federal 
employees, the persons who are loyal to this country and to the 
Government and to the agency they work for. This is abuse of the worst 
kind.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STOKES. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I just would like to point out to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Hefley] that there was already been a reduction of over 2,000 employees 
at HUD over the course of the last 2 years. There is a commitment and 
plan filed to reduce the number of employees down to 7,500, a reduction 
in force of 6,500 people.
  I think that, again, this is the problem with the appropriators 
getting involved in dealing with authorization issues. We have got to 
have somebody who has some understanding of what is going on at HUD 
before people come in here willy-nilly throwing amendments around when 
they do not know what the heck is actually going on at the agency. 
There are vast reductions taking place. We are getting this department 
under control from the kinds of abuse that took place when the 
Republicans ran HUD and ran the thing into the ground.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the 
distinguished chairman of the VA-HUD Subcommittee.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague 
yielding this time to me.
  I frankly would just like to say, as an aside to my colleague from 
Massachusetts, I have learned a lot from the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Stokes] over the years. I would suggest there is an appropriator who 
knows a lot about HUD. I am just trying to learn the process. But I 
think he is pretty good.
  As a matter of fact, I agree with him on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] has 
expired.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Brownback].
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I rise in strong support of the Hefley amendment.
  I would just like to make a couple of comments in closing of this 
debate. Jack Kemp, the former Secretary of HUD, who I do not think 
anybody would say is any sort of slackard on trying to take care of 
people in these particular situations and empower people rather than 
using bureaucracy, has called for elimination of HUD not because good 
people do not work at HUD. Good people do work at HUD. It is a fairly 
centralized planning model.
  Secretary Cisneros, a very talented gentleman running HUD currently, 
is making the fourth attempt to reinvent HUD's bureaucracy. This is the 
fourth time since 1965 that they are trying to reinvent the HUD 
bureaucracy.
  I think it is just time to say we have been there, done that, tried 
that. We need to send a clear message to the bureaucracy. The 
centralized management system does not work. We need to give power to 
the people. Send this message through by cutting back on the funding to 
HUD, the bureaucracy, not the programs, and that is why I think the 
Hefley amendment is an important step in sending that important signal 
of change forward.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds, the remainder of 
my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that is endorsed by the Council on 
Citizens Against Government Waste.
  What we are talking about is just cutting approximately $113 million 
from the administrative accounts of HUD to correspond with the 25 
percent we cut on the program side of HUD.
  Now, what I would like to see us do is put HUD on a glide path to 
extinction. I would like this to be one of the departments that we do 
away with down the line.
  I think by cutting it 25 percent on both sides this time, in 4 years, 
if we follow that path, we will be out of business.
  I urge support of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I realize my time has expired, but at the 
time that my time expired, I was in the process of attempting to yield 
1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the VA-HUD Subcommittee.
  I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lewis], the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent 
Agencies, be given 1 minute to speak on this issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], but also the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Hefley] for not objecting. I think the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Hefley] knows that I must unfortunately rise to oppose this amendment 
largely because we have made a very, very significant cut in HUD, 
almost 25 percent. We have pushed them to the wall. 

[[Page H 7881]]

  This probably takes us to RIF's, and the data before us would 
indicate that the RIF cost may run as high as $47,000 a year per 
person. We are not sure we would raise any money.
  Our objective is to try to be as sensitive as we can from this point 
forward.
  I understand where the gentleman is coming from. I would hope he 
would continue to support the rest of our efforts to cut back 
government. We have gone a long way with HUD already.
  I would resist and urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  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.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
[Mr. Hefley] will be postponed.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am doing this for a very brief colloquy with my 
colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith], whom I promised we 
would have this an hour ago. He has been very patient. I appreciate it.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, in 1993, my amendment was passed 
on the floor of this House that encouraged greater cooperation between 
NASA and USDA.
  The amendment directed NASA and the Department of Agriculture to work 
together to make better use of NASA's remote-sensing data for 
agriculture. Our space program has resulted in development of remote 
technology that could greatly improve agriculture. Using remote 
sensing, we will be better able to, one, anticipate potential food, 
feed, and fiber shortages or gluts; two, predict impending famines and 
forest infestations and try to prevent or mitigate them; three, provide 
information on condition of crops and croplands; four, assist farmers 
in the application of pesticides, nutrients, water to maximize crop 
yields and protect the environment; and, five, to provide farmers with 
better information to decide what kind of crops to plant to meet market 
demands.
                              {time}  1845

  The amendment supporting that effort was part of the NASA authorizing 
bill in both 1993 and 1994 and had the support of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Brown] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] 
of the Committee on Science, as well as the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
de la Garza] and the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] of the 
Committee on Agriculture.
  As we reduce funding for agricultural programs by $13 billion and 
move towards a free market, it makes sense to use all available 
information and technologies for farmers and ranchers.
  Mr. Chairman, I applaud the effort of the Committee on Appropriations 
in the report language on commercial technology programs. This program 
makes available dollars for allowing NASA-developed technologies for 
commercial use. I hope in some small way that we can also allow 
American agriculture to expand exports to world markets by assuring 
that American farmers and ranchers have the information available 
through NASA technology to predict supply and demand more accurately, 
and we are more able to do that, and I compliment the technology we 
have achieved, and I am hoping that the chair of the subcommittee 
supports that effort.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly do, and I appreciate my colleague bringing 
forward this because it is my intention to see that we make extra 
effort to tap every resource that is available through the work of 
NASA. This includes the research that is taking place both in areas 
like the space station, but also work in other NASA programs. I 
appreciate the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] working on this 
particular issue to assure greater utilization of available remote-
sensing information to be used by the agricultural industry of this 
country and to insure an adequate and wholesome supply of food and 
fiber for our citizens. I and others are interested in making NASA-
based technologies available to farmers and ranchers to provide timely 
information on crop conditions, projected food, feed, and fiber 
production, and on any other available information.
  I would like to tell my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Smith], that I agree and encourage the administration of NASA to 
increase its effort, and will bring this issue up in a conference 
committee to include in the report language specifically addressing the 
issue that the gentleman brought up today.
                    amendment offered by mr. stokes

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stokes:
       Amendment No. 65: Page 41, strike line 1 through ``(2)'' on 
     line 5.
       Page 45, strike line 22 through page 46, line 7.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] will be recognized 
for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will strike legislation that delays 
public housing development funds and the issuance of incremental rental 
assistance. This bill includes two different proposals that delay 
programs of critical importance to low-income individuals and families, 
and to the public housing authorities and landlords that serve them. 
These programs are public housing development funds and incremental 
rental assistance. As it relates to public housing development funds, 
H.R. 2099 includes a provision that would slow the rate at which a 
housing authority develops a project in order to slow the overall rate 
at which development funds are outlaid. This burdensome provision is an 
inept attempt to assist HUD in staying within a newly imposed cap 
included in this bill for the annual contributions to assisted-housing 
account.
  Mr. Chairman, what the committee has done is to include language in 
the bill which imposes a spending limitation on assisted housing. This 
language was added, according to the subcommittee, in order to check 
the growth in this account.
  The Department is going to have a hard-enough time trying to adjust 
to and live within this limitation. It does not need the Congress 
telling it how best to do this. Year after year, HUD has battled to 
meet the development needs that accrue at a rate of about $2 billion 
annually. An estimated $20 billion is needed presently to eliminate 
this backlog.
  This certainly is not an area where a delay in obligation is needed. 
All this delay would do is to skyrocket the backlog even further. The 
1-year delay on the issuance of vouchers and certificates effectively 
eliminates assistance for 1 year, causing great harm just as worst-case 
housing needs are growing and supplies of decent, affordable housing is 
shrinking.
  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, I regret to say that I rise to oppose the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes]. He and I discussed our 
own frustration with what has been going on with HUD accounts across 
the board. We have spent a lot more money year in, year out, over the 
years, and yet it seems in many instances the money that we are 
spending has not really gotten to those people that we want to serve 
the most.
  I am particularly concerned about the accounts that the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] addresses in this case, 
for we are talking about assisted housing. In this bill assisted 
housing has $19,939,000,000. We have put a cap on that spending amount 
and are saying to HUD, ``You'll stay within that limitation because 
this is the account that 

[[Page H 7882]]
has grown way beyond inflation over the years.''
  As we have discussed many times today, HUD spending has increased by 
50 percent over the last 4 years. In assisted housing, at its current 
rate and pattern of growth, by roughly the year 2000, this account will 
have grown to roughly $30 billion. If that is the case, it will 
eliminate other programs that have worked very well. It literally will 
sequeeze out CDBG, homeless assistance, grant programs like public 
housing operating subsidies, and the HOME program.
  We have to get HUD to do more than talk about getting control over 
their own agency. This cap is designed to force them to have very tough 
accounting, make sure they know what is going on in this program during 
the next year. If we do not do that, then all these programs are going 
to suffer.
  It is for that reason, Mr. Chairman, in an attempt to get some 
control over excessive spending and unacceptable growth rates, that we 
want to have the caps remain. So I oppose the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez].
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, of course I rise in strong support of my 
colleague's amendment. These two provisions would strike, make no 
policy sense. They have no budgetary impact, too, that he addresses. At 
their worst they represent an effort to thwart any kind of expansion, 
even the most minimal, in public or section 8 housing in fiscal year 
1996 when those of us that get around, not only in our district but 
throughout the State and the country and meet in those areas of the 
greatest need in our country, know what the pressing need continues to 
be. It gives us a devastating feeling.
  In other words, I want to again commend my colleague's leadership as 
he has through the years given us on the level of the Committee on 
Appropriations. Even when we had more suitable and propitious 
environments as far as what we thought the votes would be, our problems 
were perennial and continue to be as far as appropriations are 
concerned, and despite his preeminent position as chairman, and even 
going against an overwhelming majority of his colleagues on the 
committee, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] has always been in 
favor of what we have diligently had hearings and concluded from those 
hearings throughout the country and in Washington are the crying 
desperate needs of a large segment of our population.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to go back for a moment to address just 
the latter part of my previous argument. Before doing so, however, the 
chairman of the committee did state that he and I have on occasions 
discussed HUD and some of its problems, and indeed we have, and I think 
that we have both discussed those problems from a vantage point of 
wanting to help HUD be able to solve the various problems that confront 
this very important agency. It is just that on this particular issue, 
again, philosophically we disagree on the approach. I am concerned, 
very much concerned, about the micromanagement from Congress in terms 
of this cap.
  But in terms of the 1-year delay, Mr. Chairman, let me also say that 
this delay, even for 1 year, would mean no new incremental assistance 
would be made available to address national needs including demolition, 
relocation, litigation, and demixing of elderly and disabled 
populations. Both of these provisions are budget-neutral and have been 
added only as another attempt to micromanage HUD. By striking these 
provisions, we would remove two very cumbersome
 provisions and be able to keep in place all of the committee's funding 
recommendations.

  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me briefly?
  Mr. STOKES. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. In connection with that what he was just saying:
  In other words, if this amendment fails, there will be no new public 
housing, nor section 8 housing, and the more than 1\1/2\ million 
families on the waiting lists now will continue to wait and wait and 
wait, and perhaps into many years in the foreseeable future because 
remember, distinguished comrade, affordable housing is decreasing, it 
is not increasing.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lewis] for yielding this time to me. I think caps in this case are 
appropriate. Let me tell my colleagues why I say that:
  Last year there was a big article in the Wall Street Journal, many of 
the other newspapers around the country, about Federal investigators 
from HUD who were going around the country illegally frightening 
people, saying that if someone demonstrates, they do not want a certain 
project in their community, why there is a $50,000-a-day fine, 1 year 
in prison. I remember all kinds of stories circulating in the national 
press.
  Now, the critics of these intimidating investigations point out that 
such Government action is encroaching on the constitutional guarantees 
of free speech, assembly, right to protection against Government 
policies, decisions, and actions, and the critics say all neighborhood 
political activity, including filing lawsuits, should be declared safe 
from Government penalty. In others words, there were 34 cases of these 
where HUD was going around intimidating people, groups, and even the 
Civil Liberties Union came on and said to protest at the HUD
 and to Secretary Cisneros because of the HUD free-speech abuses 
surfacing in all the national press.

  This is an outrageous example of an agency run amok when they are so 
egregious in their violations that even the Civil Liberties Union is 
saying that this action cannot be tolerated of an agency. I think it is 
going too far, and I think that is why the caps are important.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I probably will not use those 
2 minutes.
   Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the point that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Roth] has made. There have been serious problems raised 
about the management of HUD and the funds that flow from HUD in local 
communities; Washington, DC, is one, Baltimore is another. There are a 
number of others. We do need to carefully review what we have done in 
the past so that we can correct some of the difficulties in the future. 
I appreciate my colleague from Wisconsin raising the point, for it is 
an important consideration.
   Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention in closing that 2 weeks ago an 
Assistant Secretary at HUD was quoted in a Washington Post editorial as 
saying that funding in the account that we are dealing with here could 
consume the Department entirely if nothing is done to curb spending 
there.
  That editorial and quotation essentially made my point here. Assisted 
housing is important, but it has been growing. It is at $19 billion, 
almost $20 billion now; it will be at least $30 billion by the end of 
this century. This cap is designed to assist and help HUD, and perhaps, 
to put their house in order.
   Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Stokes].
  The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Stokes] will be postponed.
  Are there other amendments to title II?


                     amendment offered by mr. vento

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Vento:

[[Page H 7883]]

       Amendment No. 69: Page 28, line 3, after the dollar amount 
     insert the following ``(increased by $184,000,000)''.
       Page 64, line 16, before the last comma insert ``(reduced 
     by $235,000,000)''.
       Page 66, line 15, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following ``(increased by $30,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under previous agreement, the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Vento] will be recognized for 20 minutes and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment restores full funding to the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency's emergency food and shelter program, a 
program for the homeless. This is an amendment to try and restore the 
moneys to at least the 1995 level as far as we can within the 
authorization of the limits of this bill. It further restores $184 
million to fully fund as near as we can, again, to the HUD McKinney 
Homeless Assistance programs.
  Mr. Chairman, these programs and dollars are desperately needed, and 
I am pleased to have the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the ranking 
member of the committee, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] join me in offering this amendment. I know I have the strong 
support too of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], the ranking 
member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
  Mr. Chairman, these are important programs that deal with the poorest 
of the poor. The fact is that we are taking these dollars out of the 
FEMA accounts. We have just put $6.5 billion into the FEMA accounts. 
They have significant amounts of dollars that are
 unobligated in those accounts. This bill restores or adds an extra 
$320 million.

  What we are concerned about, Mr. Chairman, is dealing with the 
disaster that is occurring right now, today, on the streets of this 
Nation, rather than those that might occur in the future. As the 
Chairman knows, we have serious problems, serious types of issues that 
occur, whether it has been the west coast or the Midwest or in other 
parts of this Nation, and in Florida. We have responded with 
significant amounts of help in terms of disaster assistance. Those 
accounts have significant amounts of unobligated balances.
  We know, Mr. Chairman, that if we reduce the funds for these McKinny 
programs, for these FEMA homeless programs, and I might say work with 
the nonprofits, work with the private sector, work with our State and 
local governments we will be dealing with serious problems that we have 
with regards to people without shelter. In fact, the population of this 
number of people is excess of 600,000 persons.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not know perfectly what the problem is with regard 
to this, why we have this problem, but I do know that our nonprofits, 
for instance, that work with the board of charities, the United Way of 
America, the Salvation Army, the National Council of Churches of 
Christ, the American Red Cross, these nonprofits are working on 
overload. This should be a program that I think all of us should reach 
out to embrace to try and help the nonprofits, to help these local 
communities that are striving to meet the needs of the homeless; those 
families that find themselves, for whatever reason, out on the street.
  Mr. Chairman, these programs are working. The program has stood true 
to its original mandate. It has grown because the nature of our society 
and the problems of the affordability of housing and the social 
disruption that has occurred in this Nation for a variety of reasons 
have persisted.
  Mr. Chairman, over the years, several millions of people have been 
provided assistance. It is not a stable population, it is a population 
that we are addressing, but they continue to grow. We have almost 2,500 
local boards, Mr. Chairman, that need this money. We should not cut 
them off. They will not have the resources if we do not provide it and 
we should vote for the Vento-Kennedy-Stokes amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. This amendment will 
restore $30 million in funding to the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency's Emergency Food and Shelter program to the level of fiscal year 
1995 and would provide an additional $184 million to the HUD McKinney 
Homeless Assistance programs. Under my amendment, offered with Mr. 
Stokes and Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts, these funds would be 
transferred from the FEMA disaster assistance program.
  In many respects, I am advocating transferring funds from a natural 
disaster fund for the future to provide funds for two man-made disaster 
funds that have a dire need for dollars today. At the very least, some 
600,000 Americans, individuals, adults and children, are homeless every 
day. Millions have experienced homelessness and unfortunately, millions 
more teeter on the verge of homelessness.
  The FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter program has been a program for 
over a decade. It is a unique program within the Federal Government 
that in fact is partnered at the national and local levels with boards 
comprised of the major charities: the United Way of America, the 
Salvation Army, the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, 
Catholic Charities USA, the Council of Jewish Federations, Inc., and 
the American Red Cross. These partners are the non-profits that, prior 
to Federal recognition in the late 1980's of the homeless problems 
faced by this country, were there responding to homelessness in our 
cities and towns. They are still there and they are on overload.
  The program has stood true to its original mandate: to supplement and 
expand efforts to provide shelter, food and supportive services to 
homeless, individuals, and to strengthen efforts to create more 
effective and innovative local programs. Over the years, it has served 
millions of people by providing or linking them to appropriate services 
and by preventing families or individuals from becoming homeless.
  Last year, $128.4 million was allocated to 2,489 local boards through 
11,010 local recipient organizations. That funding represents over 100 
million meals; over 4 million nights in shelter; over 663,000 instances 
of rent or mortgage assistance to keep someone in their home; and over 
214,000 instances of utilities assistance. That phenomenal assistance 
would be cut by 23 percent in the next fiscal year without this Vento 
amendment to restore the funds.
  That 23 percent cut would result in almost 24 million less meals, 
close to one million fewer nights of shelter for individuals or 
families with children, over 150,000 less instances of homelessness 
prevention through rent or mortgage assistance, and almost 50,000 fewer 
similar prevention opportunities through utilities payments assistance.
  In my own district, Ramsey County would receive $35,156 fewer 
dollars. Dollars that could help provide over 12,000 meals, 564 nights 
in shelter, 37 rent or mortgage assistance payments, and 23 utilities 
payments in this upcoming year.
  In restoring the $184 million to the HUD homeless programs, we will 
reverse the course taken by the Appropriations Committee that could 
result in approximately 130,000 few Americans being served by the HUD 
homeless assistance programs in the next fiscal year. That could 
literally
 mean an additional 130,000 more Americans abandoned to life on our 
streets, under our bridges or in our parks instead of being brought 
back into their communities as productive citizens.

  During the Clinton administration, the homeless programs at HUD have 
begun to work together in a comprehensive fashion at the national and 
community levels. They have recognized that the problems of 
homelessness are not just associated with a lack of housing and have 
appropriately sought our support services to pair with transitional 
programs. HUD has also recognized that prevention is the key--and that 
can mean jobs and job skills, education opportunities, temporary 
mortgage assistance or substance abuse treatment.
  HUD has asked our Nation's communities to responsibly identify the 
needs of their homeless or near homeless communities and to craft 
comprehensive plans to address those needs. These $184 million in funds 
I would restore today are critical to continuing that effort.
  The numbers of people served by these programs whose funds I would 
restore cannot be ignored by this Congress. In fact, they represent the 
fortunate folks who receive assistance and that are given the 
opportunity to turn their lives around--either before or after a 
homeless experience. The many bills being considered by this Congress 
now, including the appropriations bills and other so-called reform 
efforts, will without question increase the number of homeless 
Americans. The appropriations bill alone slashes our housing budget 
that assists so many of the poorest of the poor--practically a formula 
for increasing homelessness across the country.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members to support this amendment. Put in 
context, restoring these funds will put one small piece of the puzzle 
back for those organizations that serve individuals and families in 
need. These programs and the organizations in community after community 
are facing reduced funds that 

[[Page H 7884]]
will result in reduced quality and quantity of services. Unfortunately, 
they are not facing reduced demand. I ask my colleagues to support this 
amendment and reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, and I rise to oppose the Vento amendment.
  The amendment of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] is designed 
to provide assistance where we are currently providing assistance. He 
would add $184 million to homeless assistance grants and $30 million to 
FEMA's emergency food and shelter grants. The latter was only a $130 
million account in the first place. We cut $30 million out of it. We 
believe it is a good program.
  Mr. Chairman, in terms of the homeless assistance grants, I think it 
should be said that there was a $297 million deferral that came through 
the rescission process. It would be applied to the amount that is 
appropriated in this bill. So we have attempted to use that, combined 
with the appropriated amount, to make this account whole, relative to 
the 1995 year.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact is that while these are difficult times, we 
are concerned about the homeless assistance grants. We wanted to make 
sure that there was funding to allow them to go forward with the 
programs in place, still hoping that those programs would be much more 
effective for the homeless than they had been thus far.
  Mr. Chairman, having said that, the amendment of the gentleman from 
Minnesota takes the money from all of FEMA's emergency assistance. I 
mean literally, he zeroes those accounts. The import that that will 
have on people who are homeless for other reasons is very real. That is 
not the account to take it from.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge the gentleman to recognize that we have 
attempted very seriously to balance these accounts carefully. To zero 
the FEMA accounts in the face of some of those problems that we know 
exist would be a very big mistake for the House. Therefore, Mr. 
Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment of the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Gonzalez].
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis] a question.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I 
will be glad to respond.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to confirm, are not $297 
million that you were speaking of, are not they already obligated?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, no, they are not.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, they are not?
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GONZALEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman will yield to me, I would suggest that 
that is correct, that those dollars have already been appropriated. The 
chairman suggests that somehow releasing and not obligating them and 
counting them for next year would in fact make these programs whole, 
that this program will be substantially below what it was last year, 
even with the dollars I am restoring.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, 
the $297 million was a part of the rescission package which was not 
signed into law until today. We have awarded most of this money. They 
had not been obligated because obviously most of the money had not been 
available prior to the signing of the rescission bill. This funding 
does flow into next year, it supplements the program, and I think it 
makes it whole.
  Frankly, Mr. Chairman, it is not all that we would like to do, but we 
are operating with a limited pool of resources. The gentleman and I 
know very well, if the gentleman looks at Oklahoma City and other 
places, what zeroing FEMA might mean. So this is taking money from the 
wrong place when we have tried in very difficult circumstances to make 
adjustments that at least cause us to get through this year in a 
reasonable way in these accounts.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GONZALEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just point out, we cannot count it twice. It 
will be obligated in this fiscal year. It takes time with the grant and 
application process to, in fact, process this.
  The gentleman says it is a disaster only if it is big enough. But if 
somebody is out of their home, it is a disaster for that individual. 
The point is that the FEMA money we are putting in here and the 
homeless money can be directly used in that way. We are suggesting that 
we avoid not just the natural disasters, but some of the man-made 
disasters that occur with regard to people being homeless.
  Mr. STOKES. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding time to 
me, and I rise in support of the Vento-Kennedy-Stokes amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, all of us are privileged to live in the greatest 
country in the world. I think all of us are proud to live here. But I 
think one thing that must hurt or pain any American is to walk through 
the streets, as I have walked through my city in Cleveland and other 
cities throughout the country, and see people on grates, lying in 
doorways.
  I recall just a few years ago when the homeless problem began to gain 
greater attention, we used to see a single individual in a doorway, a 
single individual on a grate, lying on a lawn. Now we see whole 
families. We see mothers, fathers, and children. Many of them were 
hard-working people. Many of them are dislocated workers and others 
who, by one reason or another, have come upon some very hard luck. In 
many cases, there are mental problems involved. At any rate, it is 
something that certainly ought to pain every American, and in America, 
the richest country in the world, there ought not be any homeless 
people.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill devastates our Nation's efforts to prevent 
homelessness. It guts the McKinney Homeless Assistance Grants Program 
through a massive 40-percent reduction. Homelessness is a devastating 
experience to families, to parents, and children alike. Homelessness 
disrupts virtually every aspect of life, damaging the physical and 
emotional health of family members, interfering with the education of 
children and the development of children, resulting in the devastating 
separation of family members.
  Mr. Chairman, the cuts to HUD overall jeopardize an already fragile 
affordable housing situation in this Nation. Just this week reports 
about the disturbing growing affordable housing shortage in the United 
States has been released. Now we want to add further instability to 
poor people's lives by slashing homeless assistance grants.
  Mr. Chairman, I would strongly urge my colleagues to support the 
Vento amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Stokes].
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Gonzalez].
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento] for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I served as a chairman of this Subcommittee on Housing 
for a few years and took advantage of that to travel from one end of 
the country to the other, from California to New York, and from the 
Canadian border to the Mexican border. We visited the slums and we 
visited the better neighborhoods in our country.
  Mr. Chairman, I will never forget, not only here in the District 
where I witnessed a man frozen to death on the streets downtown, a 
homeless man one cold night, and in New York we had several occurrences 
of that kind. So we went out and had hearings and a result of those 
hearings, we forged the present constellation, so to speak, of laws 
that target this kind of problem. Those were the first hearings we had 
on that matter, and as I said, they were comprehensive, and we tried to 
go from the rural and the remote to the most urban and dense.

[[Page H 7885]]

  Mr. Chairman, homelessness is not just about housing, but about 
supportive services as well. HUD once called it a continuum of care, 
which I thought was, as fancy as it seems, a very appropriate phrase. 
They recently announced $900 million in grants for this year, more than 
800 projects across the country. Unless this amendment passes, these 
funds will be cut by more than one-third.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support restoring funds to the FEMA 
emergency food and shelter program. In my home State, this program has 
been invaluable. If the funds are not restored in Texas, nearly 1.5 
million fewer meals would be served, nearly 66,000 nights in shelters 
would be lost, nearly 3,400 families would not receive assistance.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I Yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Watt], a member of the Subcommittee on Housing and 
Community Opportunity of the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been sitting here and listening to this debate 
on the housing part of this bill for the last 2 to 3 hours, and getting 
more and more distressed, and, to be honest, very saddened by what we 
are engaged in.
  There is not a person in this body who does not own a home. Most of 
us own two homes. We have a home here in Washington and a home in our 
home districts. I am told that some of us have three, and four homes. 
In addition to our Washington home and our district home, we have a 
mountain home and a beach home, and all of us get a tax subsidy for the 
interest that we pay on those homes. Notwithstanding that, we are here 
depriving people, the most vulnerable people, of a place to live.
  Well, I cannot understand what we are doing. I do not understand what 
it is we are trying to achieve. How can we expect to improve our Nation 
and the things that our Nation stands for when a significant number of 
our citizens do not have access to any housing, much less one, two, 
three or four homes?
  How can we expect to achieve our destiny as a nation when many of our 
people are living on the streets? We have got Members of Congress who 
are sleeping in the buildings here, even though they can afford homes. 
We do not let homeless people come into our buildings and sleep here, 
but our Members can get that tax free. And we take advantage of it.
  So what are we doing here? We are passing a bill that cuts $400 
million from public housing operations. That means that the housing 
authorities in my district, which are barely functioning now, cannot do 
an adequate job of maintaining and preventing deterioration of the 
housing stock that we own as the American people.
  We are cutting $1.2 billion in modernization funds so that people 
continue to live in these rotting, terrible housing conditions, in a 
nation that is prospering.
  We are cutting the drug elimination program, wiping it completely off 
the books, at the time when drugs are spreading, and they are 
particularly spreading in public housing and around lower income 
neighborhoods.
  These are the funds that our housing authorities, those in my 
congressional district, have used to try to beef up security and do 
some drug training with the young people in the neighborhood to keep 
them out of drugs and get the police to come in and do joint efforts 
with them, to try to attack this devastating problem. And we are 
cutting out the money for the homeless people, the most vulnerable 
people in America.
  I want to urge my colleagues, please consider what we are doing and 
vote against this bill and in favor of the Vento amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of restoring funds to the McKinney 
homeless programs. We are facing such extreme cuts in housing programs 
in this bill. This is really a mean-hearted bill. It is a callous 
disregard for the pain that people are suffering.
  Further, we are cutting out approximately 40 percent from the 
homeless program itself, a program that effectively serves rural 
communities such as mine, the poorest of the poor, and those Americans 
who are most dependent on these to help them.
  In fact, given the discussion we have had on the point of order, this 
whole bill may not ever be spent, not one dollar may be spent on 
housing because of the clauses in the appropriation. It says all of 
these housing expenditures are subject to the authorization.
  In any event, we should know that we are doing wrong. On any given 
night, at any given time, at any back alley of any city in this 
country, or on any crowded street, or on any gutter, we can find more 
than 700,000 Americans who sleep there and make that their home.
  There is no shame in being homeless. Those people you see have no 
shame. The shame is with us, with us as a society, in allowing 
homelessness to exist in America, an America where we are very 
prosperous. But there is greater shame in having a solution to 
homelessness and failing to respond. We know what we must do, and we 
are failing to do it.
  Homeless programs are working well. They are working well in North 
Carolina, they are working well in Greenville, Charlotte, Wilmington, 
and in Cumberland County, all across this country and other parts of 
this United States. But we if we fail to pass this amendment, we will 
fail more than 150,000 to have a place to call their own.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I would say they are working so well, and I 
would remind my colleagues, all of these homeless funds are matching 
funds. When you cut $100 million, you are cutting $200 million. We are 
cutting back on the local participation at the same time.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me just close by 
stating some have reminded us a careful reading of our Bibles will 
reveal that Mary and Joseph both were homeless. They were faced with a 
situation that was not their choice, but their fate.
  So there are those who indeed are down on their luck. It is not by 
choice, but it is their fate. We should surely be more responsive and 
responsible. We should never let that happen in America. Surely there 
is money, we can find the money.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge us to be responsible and support the 
Vento amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to share with the gentlewoman my own 
concern about the subject area, because I think she expresses very well 
what should be the concern of all of us.
  We have, since I have been in the House, truly seen an explosion in 
the spending for housing, in programs that proliferate in many forms. 
Some have worked very well, and some have not worked so well.
  My concern is this: While housing has increased by 50 percent over 
the last 4 years, since 1990 homeless funding has tripled. There are 
some homeless programs that have worked very well; there are many that 
have not worked at all. You clearly can see across the country, in 
urban center after urban center, growing numbers of people on grates in 
the wintertime sleeping in the cold. All of us have to be concerned 
about that.
  My consternation is the fact that we have spent so much on housing in 
general over the last decade. Yet this problem has come upon us, and we 
have not found a solution. We are helping some individuals, but the 
problem seems to grow.
  That is another reason I feel we need to shake this agency, to 
rethink the way they are using dollars. I am very concerned about this.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the gentleman if he 
thought that the problem is with the agency, or there is a problem 
really with society as well we are facing?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I take the 


[[Page H 7886]]
problem back to those of us who have served in state legislatures who 
may have made some bad judgments about this whole subject area. People 
of very good heart years ago in California were concerned about people 
being institutionalized in mental institutions, and we closed those 
down and suggested that people could go back to their communities and 
receive clinical service. We never kept the promise of clinical 
service.
  A high percentage of the people who are in the streets are people who 
have mental difficulties, people who suffer from various kinds of 
addiction. We need to rethink those past policies to help HUD do a 
better job. I, frankly, think that HUD has failed to think the problem 
through carefully.
  I empathize with the gentlewoman's concern, and because she was 
expressing that concern so well, I wanted to share this exchange.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. If the gentleman will yield further, I want to thank 
the gentleman for acknowledging my position. I would hope my expression 
of concern would penetrate sufficiently that he indeed would support 
the amendment that the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] is 
presenting.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself one minute.
  Mr. Chairman, on the point that my friend and colleague from 
California was making, last term the Speaker appointed me and I chaired 
a task force. As the gentleman may know, I have been working very long 
and hard on this particular problem, and have been associated with it 
since it has been considered by Congress. I would just tell the 
gentleman that the questions he raised are in that report. They are in 
the report that Andrew Cuomo led last year.
  These are good programs. We passed a reauthorization bill to 
consolidate many of the homeless programs. They are working. They are 
programs that are dealing with the problem. And it is not something we 
lay at the feet of any particular administration, it is a social 
problem.
  I would say with regards to the mental illness issue, a question 
posed to me by a sociologist in Arizona I think answers that question. 
The question is how long can a person be on the street and maintain 
their mental well-being and balance? It is a good question.
  I agree with the gentleman, because I worked in the legislature when 
we did the programs in terms of deinstitutionalization. Minnesota is 
proud of having had many institutions for those with disabilities. 
Unfortunately, it has led to a more severe problem in many respects 
with the SLIC programs. The gentleman is exactly correct about the lack 
of funding for those programs.
  Mr.Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. 
Jackson-Lee], who has been a strong advocate, and, although new to the 
Congress, has worked hard on this project.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and 
for his outstanding leadership on this issue, and, as well sharing the 
time for an issue that I think, as I have heard the chairman mention, 
has to be a bipartisan issue.
  I thank the ranking member [Mr. Stokes] for being persistent on the 
question of homelessness. I would say to the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Vento], that as we are suffering under the heat of the summer, 
many citizens are about to take their vacation or they have been on 
their vacation, and they have had the opportunity to enjoy cool weather 
and warm weather.
  However, I would say, that homeless Americans face the condition of 
homelessness, no matter whether it is cool or hot. They do not have an 
opportunity to take a vacation. They suffer under whatever the 
conditions are all year long. Many times they suffer from the intensity 
of the heat or the viciousness of the cold weather.
  I do not know how many people who are housed will be taking a 
vacation to homeless encampments, but I have seen those encampments in 
my city of Houston. I have seen the families, the elderly, the 
individuals in fact who have worked all their life, and, because of 
conditions that they find themselves in, they are now homeless.
  In fact, I would simply say, that I came upon a gentleman who was a 
veteran, who had worked in a steel mill, and he was yet living in a 
homeless condition because he was not able to access his pension or his 
benefits, and he remained there for a long period of time.

                              {time}  1930

  However, he was able to be helped. But the next person living under 
torn sheets in the same encampment could not access any benefits, was 
not suffering from mental illness, in fact had family but had fallen 
upon hard times because there was no employment.
  What you find in the community is that people have come together like 
United Way, like the Coalition for the Homeless and other community 
groups to fight homelessness. They have, in fact, brought people 
together and in using the McKinney Act funds have provided housing for 
the homeless. Why cut these homeless funds by 50 percent, I support the 
Vento amendment, therefore I am withdrawing the Jackson-Lee amendment 
to join in creating an additional $184 million for homeless assistance 
and an additional $30 million for FEMA emergency food and shelter 
program.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] who has been a leading 
advocate of the homeless veterans.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is 
recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, homelessness has been 
created more by government policy than by any fault of the individuals 
that find themselves in that condition. We, through the stroke of the 
pen that will be done by the House of Representatives this evening, 
will create more and more homelessness.
  The notion that we in this committee today will end up striking 40 
percent of the Nation's homeless funds is a fact that every single 
Member should recognize when they vote on the Vento amendment. Cutting 
the money that sustains homeless shelters, that takes families and our 
Nation's veterans and gives them a little hope that maybe somebody 
cares, that maybe their country cares about them enough to bring them 
off of a cold grate in the middle of winter and put them into a shelter 
and give them a hot meal, and we are going to be saying, no, we do not 
care.
  We are going to be turning away people at homeless shelters because 
we do not have the courage to stand up to a tax cut, to stand up 
against these abusive cuts that have taken place to our Nation's 
homeless and housing programs.
  Please vote for the Vento amendment. Vote against homelessness in 
America.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] 
has expired.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Vento] will be postponed.
           amendment offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts:
       Amendment No. 12: Page 46, strike ``(a)'' in line 17 and 
     all that follows through line 23.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement of today, 
the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Kennedy] will be recognized for 
20 minutes, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] will be 
recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.

[[Page H 7887]]

  I first of all want to thank and recognize the tremendous work that 
the gentlewoman from California, [Ms. Waters], in particular, has done 
on this issue. She has been a leader in fighting discrimination in this 
country throughout her entire political career, and she continues it in 
the most distinguished fashion in her work on the Committee on Banking 
and Financial Services and dealing with our Nation's housing ills.
  I also want to thank the chairman; well, I wish he was still 
chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], for the efforts that he 
has made throughout his career but most particularly on this housing 
bill. It has not been a very encouraging series of amendments that we 
have voted on so far today. Nevertheless, he continues to persist and 
we appreciate his efforts.
  This amendment tries to deal with the harmful and damaging provisions 
that are contained in this legislation that sabotages the access of 
minority Americans to ownership of homes in our country by preventing 
HUD from fighting insurance redlining. This amendment has no cost 
associated with it.
  Mr. Chairman, the Speaker of this body often talks about creating an 
``open society'' here in America. I wholeheartedly agree with the 
Speaker in his efforts to achieve this goal, and I share his vision of 
an America of truly equal opportunity where a person achieves according 
to merit.
  But, unfortunately, we do not live in that society. Today we live in 
a society where you, if you happen to be a person of color, you are 60 
percent more likely to be turned down for a home mortgage than a white 
person coming from the same income, the same neighborhood, and with the 
same credit history.
  If you are a person of color, if your home or business is located in 
a predominantly minority area, you are more likely to be denied 
insurance or you will be forced to pay more for the insurance without 
regard to the actual risk associated with the insurance policy.
  I want to repeat that statement because it is very important.
  If you live in an area with a high concentration of minorities, you 
will pay significantly more for insurance even though losses you suffer 
are no different than losses from similar white neighborhoods.
  This, my colleagues, is called discrimination. And in the area of 
housing and property insurance, it is HUD's job to investigate to try 
to resolve and where necessary begin legal action to prevent such 
discrimination.
  But if we do not support this amendment that is before us now, this 
discrimination will go on unchallenged, uncorrected, and unpunished.
  Almost everyone in this body has heard of the American Family 
Insurance case. Management literally punished agents for writing too 
many policies to blacks. But the sad fact is American Family was only 
the most obvious about doing what most insurance companies do.
  Again, the evidence is clear. The National Association of Insurance 
Commissioners did a study of the availability and the price of 
homeowners insurance in 25 metropolitan areas in the 13 largest States. 
The findings were clear:
  Average premiums are higher, and availability more limited, even when 
loss costs are taken into the account, in areas of minority 
concentration.
  An extensive study put out by the Missouri Insurance Commissioner in 
May of this year shows: ``low income minority neighborhoods in both 
Kansas City and St. Louis pay higher premiums but incur lower claims 
than similar white urban areas for all homeowners insurance policies 
sold.''
  Among the 20 largest Missouri homeowner insurers, 5 firms have 
minority market shares of less than one-twentieth of their share of 
white markets.
  The impact of this discrimination is clear. Without access to 
homeowners insurance, people do not have access to homes. Let me quote 
a recent court decision: ``no insurance, no loan; no loan, no house.''
  The fact is that the Republican Party has a tremendous tradition of 
standing up against racial discrimination. It was the Republican Party 
that gave us Abraham Lincoln. It was the Lincoln Republicans that led 
the charge to fight against discrimination in America.
  The Republican tradition needs to come back to life. Instead of 
fighting the ability of HUD to go out and get rid of this cancer of 
racial discrimination, please support the Kennedy-Waters-Stokes 
amendment. Fight any attempt for whatever reasons and rationale the 
Republicans will come up with to end up opposing this amendment, and 
recognize that discrimination in this country needs to be ferreted out.
  That is what this amendment will do. It will allow HUD to do its job 
and allow people to gain stature because of their own individual merit, 
not because of the color of their skin.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. chairman, I, too, would like to thank the ranking 
member of our Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity of the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for his leadership and work that he has 
done in this area. I would like to thank the ranking member of this 
subcommittee, of the Committee on Appropriations, for all that he has 
done over the years in the area of fair housing.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kennedy-Stokes-Waters 
amendment. This amendment would strike legislation contained in this 
appropriations bill which would have a devastating impact on our effort 
to fight discrimination.
  The Fair Housing Act is the law. The courts have ruled that part of 
HUD's responsibility under the Fair Housing Act involves property 
insurance. The language in this bill would strictly prohibit HUD from 
implementing this part of its mission.
  Let's be clear. Legally, HUD's responsibility to enforce fair lending 
supercedes the Federal Government's general noninvolvement in insurance 
matters under the McCarren-Ferguson Act. Since the Fair Housing Act was 
updated in 1988, HUD has investigated, negotiated settlements, and 
represented complianants in cases of property insurance discrimination. 
This amendment would stop HUD in its tracks on this whole range of 
activities.
  Without this amendment:
  Individuals who have been victims of discrimination would be denied 
their basic rights under the Fair Housing Act.
  HUD would have to cease its ongoing investigations at the end of the 
fiscal year. If ongoing settlement negotiations stopped, many of their 
statutes of limitations would expire before new authority for HUD could 
be reinstated.
  Administrative hearings for cases underway would cease.
  Recent cases of discrimination could not be investigated by HUD.
  HUD could not engage in any research or educational activities that 
would clarify solutions to discrimination problems for insurers, 
consumer and community groups, and State regulators.
  HUD would be required to stop any voluntary programs, like those they 
are currently engaged in with the mortgage banking industry.
  Why would this Congress want to prevent one of our primary 
antidiscrimination agencies from enforcing a civil rights law? 
Insurance redlining is a problem, Mr. Chairman. HUD has years of 
experience enforcing the Fair Housing Act. Property insurance 
compliance is part of that law.
  I am deeply offended that this Appropriations
   Committee would, without hearings, without consulting the 
authorizing committee, without any public discussion--place a 
strightjacket on HUD's ability to enforce an important 
antidiscrimination law.

  A few weeks ago, the Banking Committee debated a similar rollback of 
the Fair Housing Act. That discussion was heated, it was emotional, and 
it was intense. At the end of that discussion, after several hours, the 
Banking Committee resoundingly voted to uphold the Fair Housing Act. I 
think it was wrong then to try to take away people's rights without a 
proper airing of the view; without a proper forum. I think it would be 
wrong now.
  I would ask this House to use reason. I would ask that we act with 
fairness. Do not vote to curtail basic civil rights. Support this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that a flier is going around signed by 
two of 

[[Page H 7888]]
the Members of this House, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Knollenberg] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing], and they say 
things such as: Everyone agrees that proper insurance underwriting is 
based solely on factors of economic risk, not on race, not on sex, not 
on ethnicity. They deny that there is any redlining.
  I live in a redlined area. I live in what is known as south central 
Los Angeles. It is not fiction. It is not imaginary. I know that there 
is redlining and there is discrimination.
  Before we completed our debate in the committee on fair housing, at 
one point I asked the chairman of that committee to please provide some 
leadership. I asked the chairman if indeed we were going to sit there 
at 11 at night and undo fair housing laws in this country without any 
airing, without any hearings, without any authorization.
  Let me tell my colleagues something. It was a proud moment because 
the chairman took over and gave some direction. And do my colleagues 
want to know what? Republican Members of that committee said no, this 
is not right.

                              {time}  1945

  We are not going to do it. It is not fair to sit here and dismantle 
fair housing and civil rights laws. Guess what? Because of a bipartisan 
effort, we stopped the madness and we got a grip. We got a handle, and 
it did not happen. I am going to say this evening, I hope reason will 
prevail. I am going to ask that some leadership be provided; not let us 
move into this kind of dismantlement of civil laws in this country.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to mention that there is not any way in this 
legislation that we are undoing the fair housing law. Indeed, the 
States and the country have to be responsive to that law. This item 
that is before us does not relate to that body of law. I understand the 
gentlewoman's point, and the gentlewoman and I sometimes know that both 
of us make our point in excess. Nonetheless, this bill does not relate 
to undermining the fair housing law.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Knollenberg].
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, obviously, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment. I know that the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] and 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] favor another idea, but 
I would ask them to listen to some of the things I want to say. The 
gentlewoman from California has already mentioned some of the things, 
but I think they bear repeating, and I will add some things.
  Mr. Chairman, let me start out by saying that the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development has absolutely no business regulating 
property insurance. This is just another example of the Department's 
tendency to stray into other jurisdictions while failing to address the 
glaring problems in its own core missions.
  To begin with, and first of all, Mr. Chairman, 50 States and the 
District of Columbia already have laws or regulations which prohibit 
unfair insurance discrimination. Let me repeat that, because I think it 
needs to be repeated. All 50 States and the District of Columbia 
already have laws or regulations which prohibit unfair insurance 
discrimination. I think we can all agree that proper insurance 
underwriting should be based solely, and I will repeat this and some 
may not agree, but it should be based on factors of economic risk; I 
will repeat, not on race, not on sex, and not on ethnicity.
  However, the plain fact is that Congress never, never intended for 
HUD to regulate property insurance. The Federal Government, through the 
Fair Housing Act, expressly governs the practices of home sellers, 
landlords, mortgage lenders, and real estate brokers as they relate to 
housing discrimination. It makes no mention of property insurance.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which is the 
linchpin of our current system of insurance regulation, says that 
unless a law, and I am quoting. ``* * * specifically relates to the 
business of insurance, that law shall not be deemed applicable to 
insurance practices.'' On a more practical level, HUD cannot handle 
even the responsibilities it now has, let alone assuming new ones. It 
cannot seem to keep its own house in order. Now it is taking on new 
responsibilities.
  The Department currently has over 150 programs on the books, and the 
entire Department has been listed by the GAO as being, and I am 
quoting, ``at risk'' of waste, fraud, and abuse. This is not a question 
of discrimination. I know that is a very sensitive point, but this is 
not a question of discrimination. It is a question of jurisdiction. 
Unless we think HUD would make a great insurance regulator, Members 
should vote against the amendment. Congress never intended for HUD to 
have the authority to get into the insurance business.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make 
the point to the gentleman that the reason this enforcement is 
contained in HUD is because the Fair Housing Act is contained in HUD. 
The reality is that when we were looking last year at where the best 
organization was, the Justice Department, the Department of Commerce, 
every single Federal agency looks to the HUD testing program for 
direction. It has been singled out time and time again as having by far 
and away the greatest capabilities of any group or organization in 
enforcing fair housing throughout the entire Federal and State 
government. I would suggest to the gentleman that of course there are 
anti-discrimination laws filed in 50 States. That does not mean that 
there is not discrimination. What we have to recognize is simply 
because we pass a law here, and I appreciate the gentleman allowing me 
to continue to speak, but simply because we pass a law here in the 
Congress of the United States does not mean that that law gets 
implemented at the State level.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Reclaiming my time briefly, the gentleman said let 
HUD do its job. That is not HUD's job.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing].
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Kennedy-
Waters amendment to strike section 209. I would like to thank the 
chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], for including this 
important language in the bill at the request of nine members of the 
Illinois delegation.
  Mr. Chairman, there are not too many industries left in our economy 
which are not heavily regulated by the Federal Government, but property 
insurance is one of them. Under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, regulation 
of the insurance industry has been left to the States. This is greatly 
responsible for the stable, reliable insurance system we have today, 
which every American counts on in difficult times.
  Unfortunately, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, an 
agency laden with waste and fraud, has recently decided to go beyond 
its authority by getting the Federal Government involved in regulating 
property insurance. HUD is currently writing regulations aimed at 
addressed the so-called practice of redlining, despite the fact that 
the States are already addressing this issue where needed. HUD has no 
authority to write these regulations, and I strongly support section 
209 of this bill, which will prohibit
 HUD from writing or implementing redline regulations.

  Mr. Chairman, I would remind the body that in the last Congress, 
controlled by the other party, they tried to pass a bill that would 
have allowed HUD to take on this responsibility and could not get the 
job done, and came back with a bill which allowed HUD to collect 
statistics on redlining, and that bill failed in the Senate.
  As if that were not enough, HUD has also awarded hundreds of dollars 
in taxpayers' money to liberal special interest groups to prepare 
studies on so-called redlining practices. HUD is using the questionable 
studies these groups write as a premise for starting investigations 
against the insurance industry, which will probably lead, for all of 
us, to expensive litigation.

[[Page H 7889]]

  Again, all this activity is taking place, despite the fact that HUD 
has no authority in this area. The insurance industry, which every 
American counts on every day of their lives, is a success story in part 
because the Federal Government has kept its hands off.
  The amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Kennedy] and 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters], would reverse this 
historic situation by allowing HUD to start regulating property 
insurance, and would open the door to government management of 
insurance. This Congress will be defined by our efforts to reduce the 
role and influence of the Federal Government. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to vote against bigger government by voting against this 
amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly make the point that when the 
gentleman says that the Federal Government does not have the authority 
or HUD does not have the authority, the fact is that the courts have 
upheld the Fair Housing Act and HUD's role in the Fair Housing Act time 
and time again. The only correction that I can see in the department of 
HUD occurred under Sam Pierce, a Republican, and that has been cleaned 
up since.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I definitely want to get this straight. We are talking 
about enforcement of the Fair Housing Act. That is the act that talks 
about providing housing on an equal, nonracial basis. If people cannot 
get insurance on the property, they cannot get the loan, and so I am 
not quite sure how the gentlemen who keep professing that this has 
nothing to do with equal rights and civil rights, and that HUD has 
nothing to do with insurance because it deals with housing, how they 
think HUD could adequately deal with fair housing when insurers are 
discriminating, and people cannot get housing without insurance, so how 
are they supposed to deal with their job under the Fair Housing Act?
  Mr. Chairman, I do not get it. I cannot understand what this argument 
is all about. If that were the case, why would it even be necessary to 
put this provision in the bill? We are striking a provision, this 
amendment would strike a provision in the bill which prevents HUD from 
using any money to enforce the insurance laws having to do with fair 
housing. Therefore, if it did not have anything to do with housing, 
what is it doing in the housing bill? I do not understand this 
argument.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce].
  (Mr. ROYCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROYCE. I rise in opposition to the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and in the 
interest of time, I'll put my statement in the Record at this time.
  Section 209 is important in preventing HUD from pursuing duplicative 
regulations regarding property insurance. Property insurance 
regulations and authorities are already handled quite extensively in 
every State by State insurance regulators.
  These State regulators recognize that redlining is an intolerable 
practice and they work to insure that all consumers regardless of 
ethnicity have equal access to property insurance. So there is no need 
to have HUD add this unnecessary layer of Federal bureaucracy.
  Section 209 will also send a message that Federal agencies should not 
be promulgating rules or programs beyond the purview they have been 
granted by Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, section 209 goes to the heart of what so many of us 
have come to Congress to do: Cut duplicative Federal programs, maintain 
the authority of our States and most importantly section 209 will keep 
a Federal agency from encroaching on the operations of our small 
businesses.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support section 209 and I would urge my 
colleagues to vote against the Kennedy-Waters amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields].
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman 
from Massachusetts for yielding time to me, and let me thank him for 
all the hard work he has done in the past and is presently doing as it 
relates to fair housing, as well as the other coauthors of this 
amendment, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] and the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
  Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to magnify the point that this amendment 
is right on target, because this bill prohibits HUD from issuing any 
enforcement or rules that would apply to fair housing. I think that is 
simply unbelievable and unconscionable. Let me tell the Members why.
  First of all, this whole Fair Housing Act was passed, this portion of 
the Fair Housing Act that deals with tracking insurance, redlining, was 
passed under the Bush administration in 1989. I think the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] makes a very good point. How can one buy 
a home in America if they do not have mortgage insurance?
  I do not know the last time Members have mortgaged their homes or the 
last time we bought a home in America, but the last time I bought a 
home in America I had to go to the bank. When I walked into the bank, 
before they loaned me the money I had to show that I had insurance on 
the property.
  Banks do not loan money to people who do not have insurance on homes, 
so it just makes practical sense to talk about insurance, protecting 
individuals so they can get insurance on homes, because in a real 
sense, what this debate is all about is actually giving them an 
opportunity to buy the home in the first place.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. Chairman, if you cannot buy a home, if you do not have insurance, 
it makes practical sense that we put this kind of mechanism in the 
bill. It is already in the Fair Housing Act. For us to have the 
audacity to come here on this floor and take it out and be upset with 
my friends, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters], and the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Stokes], because they are trying to provide some equity to this 
legislation, to me it is unbelievable.
  Mr. Chairman, how do we look constituents in the eyes in America? We 
know that redlining exists even in the insurance industry. I have 
people who are in my district, and I have had an insurance agency who 
called me and said, ``I cannot issue insurance in certain ZIP Codes.'' 
What can you do about that?
  Last year we introduced legislation to deal with that issue. 
Everybody knows about American families. Insurance redlining still 
exists today in America and the only way to correct that is by having 
Federal agencies involved in making sure that everybody is treated 
fairly in the insurance business.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the former chairman.
  Mr. STOKES. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts 
for yielding me the time, and let me say that I am proud to be 
associated with the gentleman and with the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Waters] on this very important amendment.
  I rise in strong support of this amendment and congratulate both of 
them for the excellent and outstanding leadership they have given, not 
only in the area of fair housing but against any and all forms of 
discrimination wherever they have found it.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a letter that was written to me by Secretary 
Cisneros. It was written to me in my capacity as the ranking member of 
the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies. It was also 
written to our friend and colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lewis], as chairman of the subcommittee. I want to refer to what he 
says about this amendment.
  He said:

       The fiscal year 1996 VA-HUD-Independent Agencies 
     appropriations bill contains a provision that would bar 
     enforcement by HUD of the Fair Housing Act's prohibition on 
     discrimination for an entire industry. The measure preempts a 
     major civil rights law which has been on the books since 
     1968. I understand Congressman Kennedy intends to offer an 
     amendment that would strike this 

[[Page H 7890]]
     provision, and I wish to express my support for that amendment.

  He also says that:

       Section 209(a) of the bill would bar HUD from fulfilling 
     its obligations under the Fair Housing Act to persons who 
     have been treated unfairly based on race or other prohibited 
     factor in connection with property insurance. The provision 
     would halt HUD investigations, settlement negotiations and 
     legal proceedings already under way in response to previously 
     filed complaints of insurance discrimination.

  He ends his letter by saying:

       Barring enforcement of the Fair Housing Act's prohibition 
     on discrimination in the property insurance business, even 
     for a single year, is a serious retreat from notions of 
     fairness and nondiscrimination that I believe we all share.

  He said:

       I ask you to take swift action to strike from the bill this 
     affront to civil rights.

  I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that anyone here wants to be associated 
with action that is an affront to the civil rights laws of this 
country. I recently saw in the Wall Street Journal an article that says 
home loans to blacks and Hispanics soared last year, though they were 
still turned down more often than whites, according to Federal 
regulators.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we all understand this provision. I hope we 
will support the Kennedy-Waters-Stokes motion to strike.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have listened intently to the debate tonight 
regarding housing and I commend the strong work that the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and our stalwart, the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Waters], have done over the years, and to the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and others, but it is appalling to see how those 
of us on the other side of the aisle want to turn back the clock of 
time on people who have struggled so hard all of these years.
  When we strike at housing laws, we strike at the very heart of 
discrimination. If we want to put the B word, which is bigotry, into 
the record, you go to someone's housing. We work at something that 
keeps them from improving the quality of life, where they live. Not 
being able to get enforcement in housing is a crime. We can have as 
many laws on the book as we want to have, but if we do not have an 
enforcement vehicle, which they have talked about, there is no 
enforcement.
  Mr. Chairman, I worked for 12 years in the Florida legislature in 
trying to be sure that fair housing laws were enforced. They were never 
enforced. They never would have been there if these two people had not 
worked on the Federal level to give us something from the Federal 
level. The States are not going to enforce this and we know it. That is 
why we are passing on this ability to the States.
  What we are really doing is saying we do not want fair housing 
enforcement. We do not care about redlining because we are not 
redlined. We can hold our ears as if we are not hearing what is 
happening out there, but it is out there. I am saying to the Members, 
please, please, support this amendment. Please strike down any falling 
back into the old death throes of segregation and discrimination.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my 
time to the distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I will not try to deal with this business 
about HUD has no business. HUD did not just take over this area of 
responsibility. It is in law, and it was supported by Reagan and Bush. 
Let me just say this to my friends on the other side of the aisle: You 
do not know what it is like to be a person of color, to walk into a 
bank and not be able to get a loan. Even though you look at whites with 
the same income level, the same credit profile who can get loans. You 
do not know what it is like to live in a redlined community and not be 
able to get insurance. I cannot tell you here tonight and make you 
understand that.
  I would simply ask you to get out into America, go into these cities, 
hold some hearings. Do not do this in the dark of night. Do not undo 
and dismantle civil rights laws and fair housing laws that a lot of 
people sacrificed for. Do not take this kind of action simply because 
you have the power to do it. At least be fair about it. Give us a level 
playing field. Let us fight in the open. Let us fight in the hearings. 
Let us bring people out to tell you about racism and discrimination. 
You give us an opportunity to do that, and we will fight you and we 
will win. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  I know full well the intent of the Kennedy amendment and I have not 
just empathy for but great concern about fair housing laws and their 
implementation across the country.
  As they operate presently, the legislation regarding fair housing 
requires that States be responsive to those requirements in place. The 
subject we are dealing with here, though, that relates to insurance 
involves the promulgation of regulations by the Department that exceeds 
their authority and it exceeds the parameters of the fair housing law 
itself.
  Historically insurance laws in this country have been controlled by 
the individual States because of the great variety of circumstances 
within the States. The gentlewoman who just spoke and I served in the 
State legislature together and we worked together to see how best we 
could get our State to deal with these problems in California. I 
remember very specific conversations when I was on the finance and 
insurance committee with the gentlewoman about this problem, and I was 
concerned about this problem. In many other States there has been 
responsiveness. I do not now what has happened in Massachusetts, but I 
would guess that legislature has been sensitive to this problem.
  Insurance laws controlled by the States have existed because of the 
great variety of needs across the country. I personally feel very 
strongly that we should continue to put pressure on the States where we 
see difficulties. But to presume a cookie cutter from the Department of 
Housing in Washington can serve the needs of the entire country, I must 
say, is a mistaken presumption.
  In this case, I strongly support the concern expressed by my 
colleagues here. At the same time I strongly oppose the amendment by 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. I would urge a ``no'' 
vote.
   Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] will be postponed.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, just trying to understand 
where we are, I thought we had an agreement we were going to roll three 
or four votes. I wonder if the Chair could tell me how many votes we 
are at at the moment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would state to the gentleman that it is my 
understanding there are three short colloquies and the House will then 
vote on four ordered rollcall votes.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to engage in 
a colloquy with the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lewis], chairman of the subcommittee.
  I want to first start by thanking the gentleman for his commitment to 
solving our international wastewater problems--the gentleman is 
familiar with those, with the district that I have just south of his 
district that borders Mexico--particularly the cleanup of the New 
River, which is the river that flows north in Mexico, through 

[[Page H 7891]]
Mexicali and ultimately into the United States and travels about 50 
miles north into the Salton Sea.
  As the gentleman knows, it is one of the most polluted waterways in 
North America and the New River carriers millions of gallons of water 
per day of municipal and industrial waste into my district. The 
gentleman has recognized that problem, and has been helping us a lot. 
We thank the gentleman for that.
  On page 54 of the subcommittee report, there is concern expressed 
over EPA's use of subpoenas to collect data from U.S. companies 
operating in Mexico. Those companies are companies that are in the 
Mexicali area. They operate and some of them discharge their waste into 
the New River which flows north into the United States and then into 
the Salton Sea. The report questions the authority of the EPA to serve 
these subpoenas and whether this action may be a violation of NAFTA. 
After following this issue closely, I just wanted to clarify that in 
this instance the EPA was in contact with both the International 
Boundary and Water Commission and the Mexican Environmental Agency 
throughout the operation. Understanding that any toxics dumped in the 
New River in Mexico ultimately ends up in the United States, I am 
supportive and have been supportive of EPA's attempt to solicit 
voluntary submissions by U.S. companies in Mexico. It was following an 
inadequate response to this request that the EPA issued the subpoenas 
in cooperation and consultation with Mexican authorities and the IBWC. 
I would also note at that time the new agencies established under NAFTA 
to assist with the cleanup of the border environment were not yet 
organized. As a result, the EPA worked with the existing international 
agencies to gather general information on chemical discharges as they 
are allowed to do under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
  I agreed with their position in terms of trying to identify who was 
putting this toxic discharge into the New River, but I want to let the 
chairman know that I am in full agreement with his overall conclusion 
that our agencies, especially the EPA, should not overstep their bounds 
in the enforcement of our laws. I want to thank him for this 
opportunity to comment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I 
appreciate very much the clarification of the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Hunter] of the facts involved in this circumstance. I understand 
the complexities involved with international wastewater cleanups. I 
agree with the gentleman that the EPA's action in this instance was in 
the best interests of the residents not only of his district but of our 
State. I look forward to finding a long-term solution to the New River 
problem. I expect any future actions by the EPA to continue to be in 
consultation with the appropriate international agencies.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman. Congratulations on a long and 
successful day on this floor.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. It is a pleasure doing business with the 
gentleman.
  Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and if I 
may, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished 
gentleman from California, the chairman.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I 
would be happy to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman.
  Mr. HEINEMAN. I thank the chairman. I have been working with him and 
his staff on the need for EPA to construct a new consolidated research 
facility in Research Triangle Park, NC. Currently the EPA is scattered 
in 11 separate buildings which are privately owned and in bad shape. I 
personally toured these facilities earlier this year. Studies have 
shown that renovating the existing buildings and signing new leases 
will cost upwards of $400 million.
                              {time}  2015

  We can build a new facility for $232 million, and I have been working 
with the committee in support of this project.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I am more than slightly aware of my 
colleague's support for this project. He has been very persuasive in 
making his point to our committee.
  Today's discussion has indicated the difficulty we are having with 
money between accounts and because of that, the pressure is very, very 
great. The gentleman has, indeed, caused all of us to scratch our heads 
and try to figure out how we can readjust some of these accounts.
  We are going to look further between now and conference, but I commit 
to the gentleman that over the years we are going to make sure that we 
have carefully analyzed the alternatives to see how we can help.
  Mr. HEINEMAN. Why not this year?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. EPA has two other major infrastructure 
projects ongoing, including a new headquarters in D.C. The budget will 
not sustain 3 projects at one time. There is also a problem with 
authorization. The building is only authorized for $159 million. To my 
knowledge, no attempts have been made in past Congresses to address 
this authorization problem. As the gentleman knows, it is against the 
rules of the House to appropriate funds for a project of this kind 
which is not authorized.
  Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have been made aware of this and I have 
discussed this with key members of the authorizing committee, including 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], the ranking member. I am working with them to 
update and increase the authorization for this project.
  If I may address the authorization problem, can the gentleman assume 
that he will work to address the appropriations for the facility in 
fiscal year 1997?
  Mr. LEWIS. I can tell you that the gentleman has had a very 
significant effect in the committee of the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Shuster] as well as with the chairman himself.
  I also know that my colleague, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Lightfoot], is very sensitive to this problem; and we are doing 
everything we can to find a substantial base of funds to see if we 
cannot overcome the difficulty that you are involved with. I recognize 
the need for the facility. I think we should find some way to address 
it.
  GSA could be another option, and I understand that they would like to 
build this facility.
  EPA has made this a very high priority, and the gentleman is 
commended for his thorough work on this project. I just wish I could 
say, yes, now, but indeed the point is, when an individual Member is 
concentrating like this to solve a problem in his district, he indeed 
gets the Congress' attention.
  Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
understanding and agreement.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee chairman, my colleague from 
California, Mr. Lewis and stand to give strong support to the bill, 
H.R. 2099. In particular, I want to support the good reductions in the 
United States EPA's overall operating budget.
  As the gentleman from California knows, we have discussed the 
concerns of the people of Ohio's 18th Congressional District, people in 
the State of Ohio and the people in the Midwest who have suffered 
tremendously under the Clean Air Act and the EPA provisions that 
directly pertained to our area in Ohio.
  The Clean Air Act was a liberal, overzealous, too-far-reaching 
measure when it spoke, in part, to the concerns dealing with acid rain. 
There were some merits to the bill, and there is a need to make sure 
our environment is safe. I want to make that very clear.
  There was a study by NAPA which was a 10-year study at a half a 
billion dollar cost to the taxpayers, stated specifically that, in 
fact, the changes in the Clean Air Act as pertains to acid rain were 
not going to make a difference in cleaning up the environment. This was 
not the problem.
  Still, the full thrust of trying to put our people in the Ohio Valley 
out of work was accomplished in that bill, and I just want to speak a 
little bit about the truth and what that has done to the Ohio Valley to 
the tens of thousands of jobs that have been lost for no reason.
  I want to let the people in the EPA know, Mr. Chairman, that when we 
talk about reducing their overall budget of $2.5 billion and the 
enforcement budget by $129 million, that is a good 

[[Page H 7892]]
start. It is a fine start in my humble opinion, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to remind the people in the EPA that, in 
fact, we are going to be watching for any further problems they want to 
create as a result of reductions, and we are going to be watching how 
they treat people in this country. It is fine to have clean air; we 
want to have that for our children. But we want to point out that one 
should not retaliate against the people of the United States for no 
reason. We want them to know that there are consequences for their 
actions and that people in the Ohio Valley, in the 18th Congressional 
District, have undergone tremendous suffering amongst their families.
  I want to thank the gentleman for his willingness to work with us as 
this process goes on. It is the first time that I can recall, from my 
time in government when I was in Ohio, that somebody has been willing 
to listen and someone is willing to say we have got to use some good 
sense and not just take actions that in the end do not count for 
anything. I want to thank the gentleman for that on behalf of my 
constituents.
  Mr. LEWIS. Well, I must say, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney] has 
been a very, very effective voice in regard to the problems we face 
with EPA. Literally, across the country we have heard voices that were 
expressing concern about unnecessary regulation, but indeed, the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney] has been one of the leading advocates.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should know that my district is probably 
the most smog-impacted district in the country. I have chaired a 
committee in connection with clean air questions in California. I 
authored the law that created the toughest air quality management 
district in all of the country.
  Having said that, I too find this agency in
   excess, regulation upon regulation, not just duplication, but 
useless procedures that get in the way, often, of solving problems. And 
they cost jobs in the meantime. I very much appreciate the gentleman's 
voice in this regard and his help and advice has been very, very 
important in the bill we are considering tonight.

  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, some of my family moved from Ohio to 
California, so I was out there quite a lot, and my grandmother and 
aunts and uncles. My grandmother moved out there, any my aunts and 
uncles are out there currently. I am concerned about them.
  We do have to solve our problem out there and we do have to make it 
clean in the urban centers across this country, but I appreciate the 
fact that you have listened to a segment that did not cause the problem 
and was so unfairly targeted by overzealous bureaucrats. I thank the 
gentleman for that.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I seek recognition to engage the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the subcommittee chairman, in a 
colloquy, but I first want to thank him as chairman of the subcommittee 
producing this appropriations bill for his work on the bill under what 
I know are very difficult circumstances.
  As a military veteran myself, I am particularly sensitive to the 
importance of keeping our promises to our veterans, and I support the 
fiscal year 1996 VA-HUD and Independent Agencies appropriations bill.
  I believe, however, with the gentleman's indulgence, Mr. Chairman, 
there is one aspect of the legislation that should be clarified.
  As the gentleman well knows, I have strongly and consistently 
advocated for the construction of the replacement Veterans 
Administration medical center planned for Travis Air Force Base in 
Solano County in my congressional District. Therefore, I was deeply 
disappointed that budget restrictions, budget realities, forced the 
committee to forgo this and other construction projects.
  As the gentleman well knows, there is a great need for an additional 
medical facility in northern California as a result of the closure of 
the medical center in Martinez, CA, in the aftermath of the 1989 
earthquake that we experienced in northern California.
  Our veterans in northern California should receive medical care 
within their designated catchment area and currently some veterans have 
to drive up to 8 hours to the nearest medical facility.
  Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee, on page 19 of its report, has 
directed the Veterans Administration to develop a cost estimate for an 
outpatient clinic, in lieu of a medical center, in time for the funds 
to be included in this bill at a later stage of consideration.
  The Travis Medical Center would have been constructed adjacent to the 
David Grant Medical Center, a state-of-the-art Air Force hospital. This 
would have permitted a unique joint venture between the VA and the Air 
Force. Services would have been provided for both active duty personnel 
and veterans through a cost-effective medical sharing arrangement.
  In fact, in anticipation of construction of the
   replacement hospital, Federal funds, pursuant to previous 
congressional appropriations, have already been expended at the Travis 
site for both a parking lot and a warehouse.

  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am seeking assurances that the committee 
is committed to including full funding in this bill to build the 
outpatient clinic; that funds previously appropriated for the Veterans 
Administration medical center but not spent can be used for the 
outpatient clinic; that it will be built, in fact, at Travis Air Force 
Base; and that it will be able to share medical technology and other 
essential services in a joint venture with the Air Force hospital.
  Given the number of unserved veterans since the closure of Martinez, 
we need to build, equip, and make operational the proposed outpatient 
clinic as swiftly as possible.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my colleague 
for his tenacity on this issue. Not a day has gone by when he did not 
push me and other members of the committee on this matter. Adequate 
care for the veterans in northern California is clearly a priority for 
him and for the many members of Operation VA.
  I truly regret that budget realities forced us to omit funds for a 
full medical center; however, in response to the gentleman's specific 
questions, I can assure the gentleman that he is going in the right 
direction in the assumptions that he has presented.
  The committee will appropriate all the necessary funds in fiscal year 
1996 for the clinic with the VA's help in identifying the amounts 
needed. Any previously appropriated but unspent funds may be used for 
that clinic. Further, it is the committee's intent that the outpatient 
clinic will be built at Travis Air Force Base and will be able to share 
facilities with David Grant Medical Center.
  Mr. Chairman, I must say that my colleague has been more than 
persistent. The gentleman has developed a base of knowledge and 
understanding of the needs of the people in all those counties in that 
huge territory of California. The gentleman has communicated that well 
to me, and also to people in the Veterans' Administration, as well as 
our committee, and I appreciate it.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the subcommittee Chairman's 
understanding and support in this matter. As the gentleman well knows, 
we are talking about a veteran population that is the equivalent of 
something like 28 or 29 States, so I am glad that we are able to 
provide for them in this bill by construction funding for a modern 
outpatient clinic that will, again, enhance our ability to serve the 
veteran population of northern California.


          sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 44 offered by Mr. Hefley of Colorado; amendment No. 65 
offered by Mr. Stokes of Ohio; amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Vento of 
Minnesota; amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.
                 Amendment No. 44 Offered by Mr. Hefley

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.

[[Page H 7893]]

  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 17-minute vote. Pursuant to the order of the 
House of today, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 
5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device 
will be taken on each amendment on which the Chair has postponed 
further proceedings.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184, 
noes 239, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 592]

                               AYES--184

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Luther
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--239

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Callahan
     Camp
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bateman
     Collins (MI)
     Everett
     Hall (OH)
     Jefferson
     Johnston
     Largent
     Meyers
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Yates

                              {time}  2047

  Mr. SAWYER and Mr. MASCARA changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. DICKEY, STENHOLM, CALVERT, MONTGOMERY, WELDON of Florida, 
BARR, and EWING changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                 amendment no. 65 offered by mr. stokes

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185, 
noes 235, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 593]

                               AYES--185

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                               NOES--235

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert

[[Page H 7894]]

     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bateman
     Collins (MI)
     Hall (OH)
     Heineman
     Jefferson
     Johnston
     Largent
     Meyers
     Moakley
     Moorhead
     Reynolds
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Yates

                              {time}  2055

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Johnston of Florida for, with Mr. Largent against.

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                 amendment no. 69 offered by mr. vento

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the nays 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 160, 
noes 260, not voting 14, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 594]

                               AYES--160

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wyden
     Wynn

                               NOES--260

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bateman
     Collins (MI)
     Fawell
     Hall (OH)
     Hancock
     Jefferson
     Johnston
     Largent
     Meyers
     Moakley
     Pelosi
     Reynolds
     Saxton
     Yates

                              {time}  2101

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Johnston of Florida for, with Mr. Largent against.

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          personal explanation
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 594, I was inadvertently 
delayed while off the floor. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``no.''
        amendment no. 12 offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the request for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy], on which further proceedings 

[[Page H 7895]]
were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 157, 
noes 266, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 595]

                               AYES--157

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                               NOES--266

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bateman
     Collins (MI)
     Hall (OH)
     Jefferson
     Johnston
     Largent
     Meyers
     Moakley
     Obey
     Reynolds
     Yates

                              {time}  2108

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Johnston of Florida for, with Mr. Largent against.

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I take this time to inquire of the distinguished 
chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies as to 
what the plans are for the remaining part of this evening.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STOKES. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
inquiring. I, frankly, did not intend to discuss it before he and I 
could sit down and chat about it, because there is not a deal until the 
gentleman and I have signed off on the deal.
  In the meantime, I have, as the gentleman knows, wanted to get 
through this evening, if at all possible. It is very apparent that we 
are going to have difficulty doing that before 2:00 in the morning.
  So we are attempting to take a series of items and have time 
limitations on them that could involve the rolling of a couple of votes 
and then could involve a couple of, three or four items that would be 
voted on tomorrow, if the authors of the amendments agreed to roll them 
over.
  Having said that, I do want the gentleman and I to talk about the 
specifics before we go further. That could get us out of here somewhere 
close to 10:00 tonight, but the unanimous consent request would also 
include a provision that we could debate on items like the space 
station item, like the gentleman's amendment that would eliminate 
language and so on tomorrow and have the debate limited to those 
amendments that are in the Record now so we could start at 9:00 in the 
morning and be through for certain by 3:00 in the afternoon.
  That is the pattern that we are going in. We are looking at time 
limits, but I want to discuss it with the gentleman personally before 
we finally agree to that.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, did the gentleman want additional time for 
he and I to discuss the matter before we bring something of substance 
to the other Members?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield, if we could proceed on the next amendment and the gentleman 
and I discuss it, I think that would be helpful. I find the gentleman 
to be very instructive when I have those discussions.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his response.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the next amendment would be 
the Kaptur amendment and a time limit of 10 minutes on each side, and 
the gentleman and I could have this conversation, as we go forward.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his response.
                              {time}  2115

  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TORRES. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman, I 
would hope to be able to proceed with 

[[Page H 7896]]
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], for 10 
minutes on each side, if we can get that approved, get this agreed to, 
and then proceed with the gentleman's colloquy, subsequent to the 
Kaptur vote.
  Mr. TORRES. I would be in agreement with that, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be asking for a broader unanimous consent 
request in a few moments, but initially I ask unanimous consent to 
proceed with the Kaptur amendment, with a limitation of time of 20 
minutes, 10 minutes on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. The vote would roll until tomorrow.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would tell the gentleman, that authority on 
rolling the vote already exists.
                    amendment offered by ms. kaptur

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Kaptur: Page 20, line 25, after 
     the dollar amount insert the following: ``(increased by 
     $234,000,000)''.
       Page 21, line 15, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $234,000,000)''.
       Page 64, line 16, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $234,000,000)''.

  Ms. KAPTUR (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 gentlewoman 
from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the unanimous consent agreement, the gentlewoman 
from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] will be recognized for 10 minutes 
in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment we are offering has been redrafted from 
this afternoon, and I doubt that there will be any points of order that 
will be able to be raised against the amendment. Essentially what this 
amendment does is to maintain the successful anti-drug program that has 
existed since 1988 when Jack Kemp, in the Bush administration, began 
this program.
  In the Case bill, Mr. Chairman, this program was completely zeroed 
out. During the deliberations of the full committee, I attempted to 
restore these funds, and we came within five votes of doing so on a 
bipartisan basis. Sixteen members of the committee were absent for that 
vote. We went to the Committee on Rules attempting to get a rule that 
would permit us to offer an amendment concerning this program on the 
floor.
  This is what we are attempting to do this evening. Our amendment will 
shift $234 million from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's 
disaster relief account and shift it to the public housing 
modernization account, where it is earmarked for anti-drug activities. 
This is a budget-neutral amendment, and in fact, even with our 
amendment passing, this program will have $54 million less in it than 
in the prior years during which it has been funded.
  I do not think any person in this Chamber could agree with me more 
when I say that there is no greater scourge affecting our country in 
every city, town, and neighborhood, than the scourge of illicit drugs 
and drug trafficking. No Member here wants to be in the position of 
turning back the progress that has been made in this extremely 
successful program. Every Member, before they vote, should call their 
mayor, they should call the director of their local housing authority, 
and ask them how successful this program has been.
  I stood in Chicago when Charlie Hayes served in this Chamber and 
watched snipers on the roofs of those housing projects in Chicago 
controlling the activities of thousands of people who lived in those 
buildings and in the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Chairman, this 
program cleans up those streets and projects that were out of control.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts, 
Joe Kennedy, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Housing and 
Community Opportunity of the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio. This is a 
program that has done an enormous amount of good to housing authorities 
and tenants in those housing authorities throughout the country.
  Just this week I visited two separate housing authorities where the 
tenants have finally gotten control of the drug dealers and the drug 
pushers that live in those housing authorities, and been able to move 
them out. This is the kind of self-determination that we want to see 
take place in tenant ownership and in tenant determination in these 
local housing authorities that for the first time gives people a sense 
that they can take control over their neighborhoods.
  Why would we go about trying to cut the program that does the most 
amount of good, of ridding these programs and projects of the worst 
tenant occupants, of those who are abusing their neighbors, and give 
the power to those tenants who want to put some order in their lives, 
who want to take control over their destinies? That is what these drug 
enforcement grants do. I think the gentlewoman is to be commended for 
her persistence in trying to get this taken up today.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I proudly yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the gentlewoman on a very 
well-purposed and very good program for which she is trying to get some 
money, but I would say, having lived through Hurricane Andrew down in 
south Florida, my kids having gone through hurricane Hugo in South 
Carolina, having looked at what has happened in California with the 
disastrous earthquakes, FEMA, leave it alone. FEMA is so important. It 
is an insurance policy. We in the Congress say we know that there are 
going to be disasters, we know we have to be ready, we know we have to 
sharpen our ability to be able to react to these national disasters. It 
is absolutely nothing less than good planning, and it is absolutely 
imperative that we hold this program together.
  The problem of drugs is absolutely out of sight. We need to talk more 
about it. We need to do more about it, but FEMA has absolutely nothing 
to do with it. It is absolutely nongermane to the subject matter which 
the gentlewoman and I are both concerned about. Let us leave FEMA 
alone. FEMA needs to be left intact. It is nothing less than good 
planning. I would hope that we would soundly defeat this amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman's opinion. There 
are sufficient funds in FEMA to cover natural disasters that have 
occurred. Would the gentleman agree that there are human disasters 
occurring every day where drug lords control the neighborhoods in which 
we live?
  Mr. SHAW. The gentlewoman is absolutely correct, and as a matter of 
fact, tomorrow I am introducing a bill that is going to absolutely cut 
the underpinnings out of Most Favored Nation status for countries that 
do not cooperate with us in the war against drugs. I know the 
gentlewoman would want to take a close look at this particular bill, 
but FEMA must be left intact.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York, Mr. Charles Rangel, the distinguished ranking member of 
the Committee on Ways and Means, who knows more about this terrible, 
terrible problem than anyone I know.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from Ohio. It is really educational to see how the 
good, decent people from the other side of the aisle seem to believe in 
everything that we are trying to do here, but not in this bill.

[[Page H 7897]]

  There is no one more dedicated in fighting drugs than my friend, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw]. He is going to try to make certain 
that the countries producing the drugs do not enjoy a friendly 
relationship with us. However, talking about national disasters, as an 
American, what is more of a disaster than seeing a child born in public 
housing, and just because it is a male, a boy, that we can say that 
that kid is either going to die or end up in jail before he is 15?
  What is more of a disaster than to see a human being that has the 
same dreams that you and I have, to one day move to decent housing, to 
get an education and be productive, and all the statistics would say 
``Because of color, because of background, and because they are in that 
public housing, they will never be able to break out.'' What a great 
national disaster. Secretary Kemp saw it, and he did not see it from 
the high towers in some building, he went into this public housing, he 
talked with the parents, and he felt their dreams and tried to do 
something.
  For a lousy $238 million, we are going to say that these kids do not 
deserve it. What are we talking about? No, it is not jails. That would 
get the Members excited. It is not mandatory sentences. It is not more 
cops. That gets the vital juices flowing. It is education, it is 
mentoring, it is giving someone an opportunity to say that it is not 
just two strikes against you; that in this country, everyone can make 
it.
  For God's sakes, it is Veteran's Day for Korean war veterans. Can we 
not do something decent? That side already struck out hope for the 
homeless, they struck out those that just want to get a house and a 
picket fence, because the house is located someplace that they cannot 
get insurance. Do not be dictated to and just say what you cannot do, 
just break out of it sometime tonight and let the conscience that you 
have say that you are able to do something. Do not wait for some hope 
or dreams tomorrow. It may be too late.
  This money merely says ``Just because of who you are, just because 
you were born in the projects, the United States of America will not 
give up to you.'' Members did not give up on these kids when they went 
in the Army. Do not do it tonight.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair advise me how much time I 
have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields].

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] for yielding me the time, and I wanted to commend her 
for an excellent job in fighting for the drug elimination program in 
this country. If we were sitting here tonight talking about building 
jails and prisons and housing facilities, or turning public housing 
into jails and prisons, there would be little debate on the other side 
of the aisle, but we are only trying to provide kids with hope and 
opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, I was at the Ordonwood Apartment Complex this past 
weekend in my own district, and I had an opportunity to meet with kids 
and their parents and also had an opportunity to meet with the 
management of that facility. They looked me dead in the eyes and said, 
``Congressman Fields, it is because of programs like the drug 
elimination program that we are able to run the drug dealers and drug 
pushers out of our community.''
  Now we are here tonight talking about the very program that is 
benefiting this housing facility and we are talking about cutting it 
out. I said earlier on the House floor tonight that we are already 
cutting out drug-free schools and communities. We are telling kids in 
public school that we are not going to teach you to say no to drugs; we 
are just going to say, ``Just say no to drugs,'' but we will not teach 
about drug education. We are telling kids in public housing that they 
can use drugs by eliminating the drug elimination program.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, in response to the 
gentleman from Florida who spoke about will the FEMA account be whole, 
I served on the Committee on Appropriations for three terms now. There 
are funds in the FEMA account. In fact, we have moved other funds from 
the FEMA account, because they were unexpended, to other purposes 
within the bill.
  In addition to that, these dollars for the drug elimination program 
do not spend out at a 100 percent rate, they spend out at a 7 percent 
rate, which means that the drawdown would be very slow and measured. I 
think it would be very unwise of us, however, to zero out an account 
that has been in existence and working since 1988 and having success 
throughout this country in every State in the Union, in towns and 
cities whose names you will recognize on this list of beneficiary 
communities.
  In my own community of Toledo, Ohio, I can tell you that in one year 
the presence of this program resulted in a 20 percent reduction in 
crime associated with drugs in the neighborhoods that benefited from 
the program. Security cars, police monitoring, work with the sheriff, 
all of the various patrols that were necessary have made an incredible 
difference.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that for those of our colleagues who may not be 
familiar with this program, please think carefully before you vote on 
this. It is likely your community is on this list. If you are not sure, 
come and see me, but, in any case, over 2,000 communities across this 
country are benefiting today. The other dollars in the accounts that 
exist in this bill have been cut substantially by almost 25 percent.
  The dollars are not there for your mayors to choose between will they 
take care of the homeless when those funds are cut by half or will they 
deal with drug dealers in these neighborhoods. We must earmark these 
dollars. The money is there in FEMA. We are not asking for a whole lot. 
This will make a tremendous amount of difference. Let us put these 
people in jail and clean up our streets. Please vote ``yes'' on the 
Kaptur amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
   Mr. Chairman, we have discussed this earlier, but the intriguing 
thing about the amendment of the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], 
which is different than the amendment she had earlier, is that she is 
recommending that one take $234 million and transfer it from FEMA to 
the public housing modernization account. That is a reflection of my 
earlier commentary that we are hopeful that that modernization account 
will become a vehicle for a new war on drugs in these very same 
facilities that we are worried about. We are all in the same ballpark 
in that connection.
   Mr. Chairman, the problem lies in that if you take all that money 
from FEMA, suddenly you have no disaster assistance. If we were 
actually talking about budget authority instead of outlay, we would be 
busting the budget and it would not be in order at all. Having said 
that, we do not want to zero FEMA, and let me suggest why we do not 
need to.
  As we said earlier, within the current public housing modernization 
accounts, in this year's proposal there is $2.5 billion. Left over in 
former accounts from former years there is another $6 billion. To say 
the least, those accounts do not just spend out slowly; the agency has 
not been very good at using those moneys. Now, I think between the 
gentlewoman and myself and my ranking member we can encourage them to 
tap some of that money and make sure it is used for this purpose 
without having to strip FEMA.
   Mr. Chairman, I do not want to lessen the commitment any more than 
the gentlewoman does, but we do not want to find ourselves in a 
position where we zero out FEMA, and, only because of that, I have to 
ask for a ``no'' vote on the gentlewoman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gentlewoman 
from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.

[[Page H 7898]]

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. 
Kaptur] will be postponed.
  Are there other amendments to title II?
  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from 
California, the chairman of the subcommittee, if he will please engage 
me.
  As the chairman and I have discussed along with the ranking minority 
member, there is a contentious provision in the VA-HUD appropriations 
bill which prohibits funding for HUD in certain instances. HUD would no 
longer have the ability to investigate under the Fair Housing Act any 
State or local unit of government that has adopted a law or a 
regulation requiring the spoken or written word of the English language 
or declaring English as the official language. This comes as a result 
of a case in the town of Allentown, PA, which has passed a nonbinding 
English-only resolution.
  After HUD reviewed the case, it determined that there was not any 
discrimination because the resolution was nonbinding and not an 
ordinance of fact. Therefore, it was not enforced. The Office of Fair 
and Equal Housing did its job and the system worked.
  Mr. Chairman, this provision in the bill seeks to
   respond really to a nonissue. I am asking the chairman in this 
instance whether he could provide some assurances of rather than 
belaboring this issue here late into the night tonight that we might 
have some resolution in conference.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman will yield, first I very 
much appreciate the gentleman asking me to enter into this colloquy, 
for I feel very strongly that the gentleman is on the right track. I 
think he has described the circumstances accurately. There is not an 
ordinance, or a local law in place. It is not necessary to have this 
language. It seems to me as we go to conference in view of that, that 
we ought to be working to eliminate this language. I feel very strongly 
that the voice of the gentleman ought to be heard in these matters and 
I am going to do all that I can to see that it is heard.
  Mr. TORRES. I thank the gentleman for his assurances to work on this.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman would yield further, you 
were describing to me earlier some very specific circumstances relative 
to a danger sign and otherwise. I think it would be helpful to have 
some of that concern on the record.
  Mr. TORRES. The issue here is at the whole question of English-only 
provisions, where we have instances, as I am talking about now in 
public housing, where there may be elderly persons, American citizens, 
who because of their age have not learned
 exact English, cannot read difficult, intricate instructions; notice 
of eviction, notices of an impending tornado coming or a hurricane, or 
perhaps even a sign. The fact that a sign is written in a non-English 
language really would give rise to this kind of onerous provision. My 
point is that we cannot begin to impose these kind of English-only 
provisions where we have lives at stake, where we have the security and 
the safety of people in effect. This is the basis for this kind of 
provision which I do not feel has any place at this time.

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to engage 
with the subcommittee chairman in a colloquy about an often forgotten 
group of Americans, that is, specifically families that live in 
colonias along the United States-Mexico border.
  Today as we consider this VA-HUD appropriations bill on the floor, I 
ask my colleagues to seek justice, fairness and equity for the poor 
American families living in these colonias.
  I along with other border area representatives have worked hard to 
educate our colleagues in Congress about how desperately these colonias 
need basic infrastructure and sanitation, a lot of things that we that 
live in neighborhoods throughout this country often take for granted.
  The colonias are substandard residential subdivisions located along 
the United States side of the border with Mexico. Most colonias are 
unincorporated, low income, primarily Hispanic neighborhoods with 
substandard housing, unpaved roads and inadequate drainage. Even though 
we are now in the mid 1990s, these American citizens do not have 
running water in their homes and are forced to use outhouses or 
substandard septic tanks in their homes.
  The human cost is staggering. The Texas Water Development Board 
estimates that in Texas alone, there are 300,000 residents living in 
1,200 colonias.
  Last year, with the help of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], we 
were fortunate to get congressional funding for the first time for 
colonia water projects and we appreciated the efforts of my friend the 
gentleman from Ohio very much.
  This year as we work to set priorities and reduce the Federal 
deficit, I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the 
chairman, for demanding a meaningful commitment to improving the health 
and environmental conditions along the 2,000-mile Texas-Mexico border.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, 
first I want my colleagues to know that the gentleman from Texas has 
been very, very effective in advocating his case regarding this 
problem, communicating to each of us just how serious it is. The 
committee's action provides a major step in making sure Americans who 
live in the colonias are truly part of America. I very much appreciate 
not just your work but the courtesy and intelligence with which you 
have shared your problems with me. We look forward to continuing to 
work with you and help in every way we can.
  Mr. BONILLA. I thank the chairman. The committee has allocated $100 
million for projects that will address many of these water problems 
along the border. I would also like to thank the chairman for his work 
for the concerns of many other Hispanic issues along the border from 
Texas all the way to California, the gentleman's home State. He has 
been more than understanding and compassionate as we have dealt with 
these tough appropriations matters in the last year.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to 
enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. Chairman, on June 24, a community called Pleasantville in 
Houston, Texas, some 40 years old, 3,000 families, experienced a 
warehouse fire just behind their pecan trees, a major warehouse fire of 
some 500,000 square feet, a warehouse filled with drums holding various 
chemicals including corrosives, flammables, combustibles, plastics and 
other hazardous items.
  These people had been living in their community for quite a long time 
and were concerned that they were now neighbors to what might be called 
a hazardous site. As the gentleman might be aware, I have an amendment 
proposed. However, I would like to make sure that in discussing this 
issue with you, and I can share with you the anecdotes or the stories 
about ``Meeting on Fire Does Little to Douse Residents' Worries'' and 
``Residents Fear Rebuilding of Burned Warehouses,'' and, of course, 
``More Soil Samples Necessary to be Taken to Check for Contamination.''
  But the real issue, Mr. Chairman, is the utilization of Superfund 
dollars to do emergency cleanups near residential areas. When I say 
``near,'' I am talking about your backyard looking at the warehouse.
  This is a very close community. Before offering this amendment, I 
would like to see whether or not we can engage in an agreement to 
emphasize before the Environmental Protection Agency the importance of 
emergency cleanups near residential areas and the fastness, if you 
will, of that cleanup.
  I might add, Mr. Chairman, in inquiring of the Environmental 
Protection Agency to assist us, though they have worked with our State 
agencies and our local government has worked tirelessly, there was a 
question of resources and a question of speed. But yet I have these 
3,000 families, some of them senior citizens, and I was out there on 
the day of the fire. Immediately upon hearing of this incident, out to 
the shelter, out into the neighborhood, I could not breathe.
                              {time}  2145

  And there is still an air quality problem and there is still a need 
for soil 

[[Page H 7899]]
samples and wipe samples. So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to see whether 
we can provide some guidance to the EPA but as well work on this issue 
with reference to conference.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the 
gentlewoman bringing this matter to my attention. It is obviously a 
very serious circumstance. I think the gentlewoman heard me say that 
one of my difficulties with EPA is sometimes they are not nearly so 
responsive as I might like. But in Superfund, especially, we have had, 
to say the least, some major problems with the way that program is 
implemented.
  To suggest that Superfund might be able to be used effectively as an 
advisor as well as a source of revenue and otherwise to deal with a 
human circumstance like this tells a different story that is a very 
important story. I would be more than pleased to work with the 
gentlewoman and communicate with EPA, but to push them also to be 
responsive to this serious emergency circumstance.
  I might further suggest that FEMA, indeed, could be a source as well 
and I would like to talk with the gentlewoman carefully about various 
avenues that we could pursue. My ranking member, the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Stokes] is more than responsive to me in these kinds of 
circumstances and it is my guess that working with the gentlewoman, we 
together could have an effect and I know that we both would be willing 
to.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that. The 
gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Stokes, has been stellar in terms of issues 
dealing with communities, but particularly in mentioning this issue to 
the gentleman, I was very gratified of his concern.
  This has disturbed this community now for a number of weeks in the 
very hot summer. In fact, they are now on their third blaze on this 
site. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from California and to 
the ranking member, Mr. Stokes, I would hope that maybe we could also 
confer before conference to have this possibly referred there and 
utilized there.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I must say, that the 
gentlewoman is demonstrating a good deal of understanding of the 
process by raising the
 question in this fashion, for should we wait for some preliminary 
action at least all the way through conference, that could take us to 
September or October, and Lord knows what happens beyond that.

  In the meantime, we ought to be acting on this and I intend to do 
everything I can, along with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], and 
indeed if we have not come close to helping the gentlewoman solve the 
problem by then, conference is very appropriate.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join the gentleman in 
that and work as we speak, and that means immediately, in order to 
solve this problem for this community.
  I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his willingness to work 
with me, and I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the ranking 
member, for his leadership. I think we can get this problem solved and 
get these folks in Pleasantville, in the City of Houston, the service 
they need with respect to this hazardous fire and the warehouse 
situation and cleanup as well.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, to my knowledge, there are no 
additional amendments to title II. I would hope that what we might do 
is proceed to title III and then move to the DeFazio amendment, as per 
our earlier agreement.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments to title II?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title III.
  The text of title III is as follows:

                               TITLE III

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                  American Battle Monuments Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, 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.

                   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, $40,000,000.

             Corporation for National and Community Service


       national and community service programs operating expenses

       Of the funds appropriated under this heading in Public Law 
     103-327, the Corporation for National and Community Service 
     shall use such amounts of such funds as may be necessary to 
     carry out the orderly termination of (1) the programs, 
     activities, and initiatives under the National and Community 
     Service Act of 1990 (Public Law 103-82); (2) the Corporation; 
     and (3) the Corporation's Office of Inspector General.

                       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, $9,000,000, of which not to exceed 
     $678,000, to remain available until September 30, 1997, 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, 
     and not to exceed $1,000 for official reception and 
     representation expenses; $11,296,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

                    Environmental Protection Agency


                        research and development

       For research and development activities, including 
     procurement of laboratory equipment and supplies; other 
     operating expenses in support of research and development; 
     and construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation and 
     renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project; 
     $384,052,000, to remain available until September 30, 1997.


                 environmental programs and compliance

       For environmental programs and compliance activities, 
     including hire of passenger motor vehicles; hire, 
     maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchases 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 $6,000 for official reception and 
     representation expenses; and 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; $1,881,614,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, 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: Provided further, That for this fiscal year and 
     thereafter, any industrial discharger to the Kalamazoo Water 
     Reclamation Plant is exempt from categorical pretreatment 
     standards under section 307(b) of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act, as amended, if the following conditions are met: 
     (1) the Kalamazoo Water Reclamation Plant applies to the 
     State of Michigan for an exemption for its industry and (2) 
     the State or the Administrator, as applicable, approves 

[[Page H 7900]]
     such exemption request based upon a determination that there exists an 
     operative financial contract between the City of Kalamazoo 
     and the industrial user and an approved local pretreatment 
     program, including a joint monitoring program and local 
     controls to prevent against interference and pass through: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under 
     this heading shall be obligated or expended to implement or 
     enforce section 118(c)(2)(C) of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act, as amended: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds appropriated under this heading may be made available 
     for the implementation or enforcement of the stormwater 
     permitting program under section 402(p) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act, as amended: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be 
     made available for the enforcement of permit limits or 
     compliance schedules for combined sewer overflows or sanitary 
     sewer overflows under section 402 of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act, as amended: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds appropriated under this heading may be used 
     to implement or enforce section 404 of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act, as amended: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds appropriated under this heading may be made 
     available for the development and implementation of new or 
     revised effluent limitation guidelines and standards, 
     pretreatment standards, or new source performance standards 
     under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended: 
     Provided further, That the limitations on the use of funds 
     set forth in the previous four provisos shall have no force 
     and effect upon enactment of legislation which further amends 
     the named sections of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act, as amended, in each of the previous four provisos: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under 
     this heading may be used by the Environmental Protection 
     Agency to impose or enforce any requirement that a State 
     implement trip reduction measures to reduce vehicular 
     emissions. Section 304 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 
     shall not apply with respect to any such requirement: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under 
     this heading may be used to assign less than full credit for 
     automobile emissions inspections programs required under 
     section 182 (c), (d), or (e) of the Clean Air Act, as 
     amended, on the basis of network design equipment unless the 
     Administrator determines, based on data collected from at 
     least two full cycles of the program, that less than full 
     credit is appropriate: Provided further, That beginning in 
     fiscal year 1996 and each fiscal year thereafter, and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Administrator 
     is authorized to make grants annually from funds appropriated 
     under this heading, subject to such terms and conditions as 
     the Administrator shall establish, to any State or federally 
     recognized Indian tribe for multimedia or single media 
     pollution prevention, control and abatement and related 
     environmental activities at the request of the Governor or 
     other appropriate State official or the tribe: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading may be used to develop, propose, promulgate, issue, 
     enforce, or to set or enforce compliance deadlines or 
     issuance schedules for maximum achievable control technology 
     standards pursuant to section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act, as 
     amended, for the category proposed to be regulated at Vol. 
     59, Federal Register, No. 135, page 36130, dated July 15, 
     1994, and for purposes of this provision, section 304 of the 
     Clean Air Act shall not apply: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds appropriated under this heading shall be obligated 
     or expended to take any action to extend the risk management 
     plan requirements under section 112(r) of the Clean Air 
     Act, as amended, to the domestic oil and gas exploration 
     and production and natural gas processing industry: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated 
     under this heading may be used by the Administrator or the 
     Administrator's designee for signing and publishing a 
     national primary drinking water regulation for radon and 
     other radionuclei: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds appropriated under this heading may be used by the 
     Administrator or the Administrator's designee for signing 
     and publishing any proposed national primary drinking 
     water regulation for arsenic: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds appropriated under this heading may be used 
     to issue or enforce any requirement not otherwise 
     authorized under existing law or regulation with respect 
     to combustion of hazardous waste prior to promulgation of 
     final regulations pursuant to a rulemaking proceeding 
     under the Administrative Procedure Act or to impose or 
     enforce any requirement or condition of a permit, 
     including the use of an indirect risk assessment, or to 
     deny a permit pursuant to section 3005(c)(3) of the 
     Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, unless 
     the Environmental Protection Agency follows the procedures 
     governing the use of authority under such section which it 
     has set forth at 56 Fed. Reg. 7145, note 8, February 21, 
     1991: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading may be used to issue or 
     enforce any regulatory standard for maximum achievable 
     control technology (MACT) for hazardous waste combustion 
     under any statute other than the Clean Air Act, as 
     amended, issue any such standard without first determining 
     that in calculating the MACT floor emission levels for 
     existing sources under section 112(d)(3) of the Clean Air 
     Act, as amended, one-half of the currently operating 
     facilities in the group of sources that make up the floor 
     pool for that category or subcategory actually achieve the 
     MACT floor levels for all of the hazardous air pollutants 
     to be regulated: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading may be used to promulgate, 
     implement, or enforce sections 502(d)(2), 502(d)(3), or 
     502(i)(4) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, against a 
     State which is involved in litigation regarding provisions 
     of title V of the Clean Air Act, as amended: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading may be obligated or expended to require facilities 
     to submit any data pursuant to section 313(a) of the 
     Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act or 
     section 8 of the Toxic Substances Control Act, as amended, 
     that is not specifically enumerated in said sections, 
     including mass balance, materials accounting, or other 
     chemical use data: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds appropriated under this heading may be used to 
     revoke, or require the issuance of, a food additive 
     regulation under section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug and 
     Cosmetic Act for a pesticide in processed food where there 
     is a tolerance established under section 408 of said Act 
     for the pesticide on the raw commodity from which the 
     processed food was made, and may not be used to revoke, or 
     deny the issuance of, a section 408 tolerance for a 
     pesticide on a raw agricultural commodity solely on the 
     basis that a food additive regulation cannot be issued or 
     maintained under section 409 of said Act for the pesticide 
     in a processed form of the commodity: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds appropriated under this heading may 
     be used to exclusively regulate whole agricultural plants 
     subject to regulation by another federal agency: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading may be used to obtain a voluntary environmental 
     audit report or to assess an administrative, civil or 
     criminal negligence penalty, in any matter subject to a 
     state law providing a privilege for voluntary 
     environmental audit reports or protections or immunities 
     for the voluntary disclosure of environmental concerns.


                      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, and for construction, alteration, 
     repair, rehabilitation, and renovation of facilities, not to 
     exceed $75,000 per project, $28,542,000.


                        Buildings and Facilities

       For construction, repair, improvement, extension, 
     alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of, 
     or use by, the Environmental Protection Agency, $28,820,000, 
     to remain available until expended.


                     Hazardous Substance Superfund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       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; 
     not to exceed $1,003,400,000 to remain available until 
     expended, to be derived from general revenues: 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 $5,000,000 of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading shall be transferred to the 
     Office of Inspector General appropriation to remain available 
     until September 30, 1996: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding section 111(m) of CERCLA or any other 
     provision of law, not to exceed $62,000,000 of the 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 1996: 
     Provided further, That no part of any appropriation made 
     under this heading shall remain available for obligation 
     beyond December 31, 1995, unless the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 has been reauthorized.


              leaking underground storage tank trust fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out leaking underground 
     storage tank cleanup activities authorized by section 205 of 
     the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and 
     for construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and 
     renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project, 
     $45,827,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That no more than $5,285,000 shall be available for 
     administrative expenses: Provided further, That $426,000 
     shall be transferred to the Office of Inspector General 
     appropriation to remain available until September 30, 1996.


                           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, 

[[Page H 7901]]
     $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 wastewater infrastructure 
     financing, and to carry out the purposes of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act, as amended, the Water Quality Act of 
     1987, and section 1443(a) of the Public Health Service Act, 
     $1,500,175,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $1,000,000,000 shall be for capitalization grants for Clean 
     Water State Revolving Funds under title VI of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act, as amended; $100,000,000 for 
     architectural, engineering, design, construction, and related 
     activities in connection with the construction of high 
     priority wastewater facilities in the area of the United 
     States-Mexico Border, after consultation with the appropriate 
     border commissions; $50,000,000 for grants to the State of 
     Texas, which shall be matched by an equal amount of State 
     funds from State sources, for the purpose of improving 
     wastewater treatment for colonias; $15,000,000 for grants to 
     the State of Alaska, subject to an appropriate cost share as 
     determined by the Administrator, to address wastewater 
     infrastructure needs of rural and Alaska Native Villages; 
     $22,500,000 for making grants under section 104(b)(3) of the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended; $100,000,000 
     for making grants under section 319 of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act, as amended; $75,000,000 for making 
     grants under section 1443(a) of the Public Health Service 
     Act; and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     $137,675,000 for making grants for the construction of 
     wastewater treatment facilities and the development of 
     groundwater in accordance with the terms and conditions set 
     forth in the House Report accompanying this Act: Provided, 
     That of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-327 and in Public Law 103-124 for capitalization 
     grants for State Revolving Funds to support water 
     infrastructure financing, $225,000,000 shall be made 
     available for capitalization grants for State Revolving Funds 
     under title VI of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 
     amended: Provided further, That of the funds made available 
     under this heading for capitalization grants for State 
     Revolving Funds under title VI of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act, as amended, $50,000,000 shall be for wastewater 
     treatment in impoverished communities pursuant to section 
     102(d) of H.R. 961 as approved by the United States House of 
     Representatives on May 16, 1995: Provided further, That 
     appropriations made available under this heading to carry out 
     the purposes of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 
     amended, shall be available only upon enactment of 
     legislation which reauthorizes said Act.

                   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

       To carry out the orderly termination of the programs and 
     activities authorized by the National Environmental Policy 
     Act of 1969, the Environmental Improvement Act of 1970 and 
     Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, $1,000,000.

                  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, $2,155,000, as authorized by 
     section 319 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, as amended: Provided further, That these 
     funds are available to subsidize gross obligations for the 
     principal amount of direct loans not to exceed $25,000,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct loan program, $95,000.


                         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; $162,000,000.


                    office of the inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the 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.), 
     sections 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, $203,044,000.


                   emergency food and shelter program

       There is hereby appropriated $100,000,000 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

       For activities under the National Flood Insurance Act of 
     1968, the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, and the 
     National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994, not to exceed 
     $20,562,000 for salaries and expenses associated with flood 
     mitigation and flood insurance operations, and not to exceed 
     $70,464,000 for flood mitigation, including up to $12,000,000 
     for expenses under section 1366 of the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, which amount shall be 
     available until September 30, 1997. In fiscal year 1996, no 
     funds in excess of (1) $47,000,000 for operating expenses, 
     (2) $292,526,000 for agents' commissions and taxes, and (3) 
     $3,500,000 for interest on Treasury borrowings shall be 
     available from the National Flood Insurance Fund without 
     prior notice to the Committees on Appropriations: Provided, 
     That none of the funds appropriated in this Act for the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) shall be available 
     for any further work on effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps 
     for the City of Stockton and San Joaquin County, California 
     based on FEMA's restudy of flood hazards on South Paddy 
     Creek, Middle Paddy Creek, Paddy Creek, Bear Creek, Mosher 
     Slough, Calaveras River, Potter A Slough, Potter B Slough, 
     Mormon Slough, and the Diversion Channel.


                        Administrative Provision

       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 beginning in fiscal year 1996 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 1996 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 1996.

                    General Services Administration


                      Consumer Information Center

       For necessary expenses of the Consumer Information Center, 
     including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $2,061,000, 
     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 1996 shall not 
     exceed $2,502,000. Appropriations, revenues, and collections 
     accruing to this fund during fiscal year 1996 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, $1,811,000: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     that Office may accept and deposit to this account, during 
     fiscal year 1996, gifts for 

[[Page H 7902]]
     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; $5,449,600,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 1997: Provided, That of the funds made available under 
     this heading, $390,000,000 of funds provided for Space 
     Station shall not become available for obligation until 
     August 1, 1996 and shall remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 1997.


                  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; $5,588,000,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 1997.


                            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; 
     $2,618,200,000, to remain available until September 30, 1997.


                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the 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)

       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, 
     1998.
       Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds 
     appropriated for ``Mission support'' and ``Office of 
     Inspector General'', amounts made available by this Act for 
     personnel and related costs and travel expenses of the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall remain 
     available until September 30, 1996 and may be used to enter 
     into contracts for training, investigations, cost associated 
     with personnel relocation, and for other services, to be 
     provided during the next fiscal year.
       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.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation, 
     the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall 
     convey, without reimbursement, to the State of Mississippi, 
     all rights, title and interest of the United States in the 
     property known as the Yellow Creek Facility and consisting of 
     approximately 1,200 acres near the city of Iuka, Mississippi, 
     including all improvements thereon and also including any 
     personal property owned by NASA that is currently located on-
     site and which the State of Mississippi requires to 
     facilitate the transfer: Provided, That appropriated funds 
     shall be used to effect this conveyance: Provided further, 
     That $10,000,000 in appropriated funds otherwise available to 
     the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall be 
     transferred to the State of Mississippi to be used in the 
     transition of the facility: Provided further, That in 
     consideration of this conveyance, the National Aeronautics 
     and Space Administration may require such other terms and 
     conditions as the Administrator deems appropriate to protect 
     the interests of the United States: Provided further, That 
     the conveyance of the site and the transfer of the funds to 
     the State of Mississippi shall occur not later than thirty 
     days from the date of enactment of this Act.
       The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration shall conduct a study of the closing or re-
     structuring of Space Flight Centers and Research Centers. The 
     study shall include an analysis of functions currently being 
     performed at each Center, the cost of performing each 
     function at its current location and at logical alternative 
     Centers, the schedule for transitioning functions to 
     alternative Centers, and the overall cost savings which will 
     be derived from the closing or re-structuring of each Center. 
     The findings of the study, including a detailed schedule for 
     completion of the re-structuring, shall be submitted to the 
     Congress no later than March 31, 1996. Closure or re-
     structuring of these Centers shall be completed no later than 
     October 1, 1998.

                  National Credit Union Administration


                       Central Liquidity Facility

       During fiscal year 1996, 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 
     1996 shall not exceed $560,000.

                      National Science Foundation


                    research and related activities

       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; $2,254,000,000, of which not to exceed 
     $235,000,000 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, 1997: 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.


                        major research equipment

       For necessary expenses in carrying out major construction 
     projects, and related expenses, pursuant to the purposes of 
     the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 1861-1875), $70,000,000, 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 

[[Page H 7903]]
     (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, 1997.


                     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, 
     $599,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 1997: 
     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; $127,310,000: 
     Provided, That contracts may be entered into under salaries 
     and expenses in fiscal year 1996 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, $4,490,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 1997.


          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 the Act may be expended for or in connection 
     with the induction of any person into the Armed Forces of the 
     United States.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
proceed to the DeFazio amendment with a time agreement of 10 minutes 
per side with votes thereon to be rolled, likely until tomorrow.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object. Although 
one amendment was proposed, it was found to not be germane. It will be 
10 minutes on the underlying amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that 
there could be a perfecting amendment that would be found out of order.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.


                amendment no. 34 offered by mr. defazio

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. DeFazio: Page 8, line 9, strike 
     ``$16,713,521,000'' and insert ``$16,725,521,000''.
       Page 79, line 23, strike ``$22,930,000'' and insert 
     ``$6,000,000''.

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 5 minutes 
to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery], and that he be 
permitted to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the issue before us is the issue of Selective Service, 
a vestigial bureaucracy of the cold war. The subcommittee in its wisdom 
eliminated funding for the Selective Service, reduced it by $17 
million, with the idea that the agency itself would be eliminated.
  My amendment would reduce the funding by $17 million, but put the 
agency into deep standby; that is, give it an opportunity to enter into 
the late 20th century and develop off-the-shelf technology in case of 
the remote happenstance of a conscription in a national emergency, that 
they could go forward, but not continue the postcard registration that 
is in effect today.
  Mr. Chairman, from the beginning there has been no military necessity 
for Selective Service and the registration, the roster report. Jimmy 
Carter's 1979 Director of Selective Service found that 8 to 10 days 
could be saved by registration, but that because of the bottleneck at 
the training facilities, not one troop would be delivered one day 
sooner to the battlefield, and of course that day would not cutback 
very much on training.
  In the Department of Defense a 1993 report found that there was no 
military necessity for continuing draft registration. This is an 
opportunity to save $17 million over the outyears, that is $102 million 
in our 7-year objective to balance the budget, which I support.
  For this year, we would move $17 million into the underfunded VA 
medical account. We would also eliminate an unfunded mandate. It is an 
unfunded mandate, because every university in every jurisdiction that 
administers a college or student loan program is required to determine 
whether or not those students have registered for the draft and are 
currently registered for the draft and whether their address is 
current.
  So we have an opportunity to eliminate a bureaucracy which has no 
national security purpose and to save funds. This is a great 
opportunity for this House to go on record, as the House did 2 years 
ago for 1 month, until we ceded to the Senate, that this is a 
bureaucracy whose time has passed. We can save money and remove the 
burden of draft registration from our young people.
  Mr. Chairman, patriotism does not come in a postcard, unless you have 
some bizarre Publisher's Clearing House view of what constitutes 
patriotism and Selective Service. This is the postcard every young man 
between 18 and 25 must fill out every time they move.
  It is time to do away with this bureaucracy and cede to the economic 
realities.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not stand on this floor and protect Federal 
spending very often. As a matter of fact, in the last several weeks, I 
have voted to cut projects in my own district because it is so serious 
that we get this budget balanced.
  This is an important issue. This is national defense. The Joint 
Chiefs of Staff oppose this amendment. The Committee on National 
Security, the committee of jurisdiction, opposes it. The National 
Security Advisor opposes it. President Clinton opposes it.
  But let me read a letter, just in case my colleagues do not see 
through the subterfuge of abolishing this department and putting the 
money into veterans affairs. The American Legion and the veterans 
organizations do not want that money put over there. They want the 
program protected.
  Mr. Chairman,

       The American Legion strongly opposes the amendment proposed 
     by Peter DeFazio. The American Legion supports the retention 
     and full funding of the Selective Service registration 
     program as being in the best interests of all Americans.
       The Selective Service System is a proven, cost-effective, 
     essential and rapid means of reconstituting the required 
     forces to protect our national service.

Let me read you the most important part:


[[Page H 7904]]

       Removing this rite of passage for a young man would reduce 
     each man's level of consciousness about military service and 
     obligation to defend our country.

  I want my colleagues to go home this August break. I want them to go 
into their offices where the recruitment offices are right next door 
and I want my colleagues to ask the recruiters. They are having trouble 
today getting young men and women to voluntarily serve in our all-
voluntary military.
  Mr. Chairman, these lists are very important tools. We have high 
schools that will not let recruiters on campus; we have colleges that 
will not let recruiters on campus. These lists are where we get the 
names to tell these young men and women what an honorable career it is 
to serve in the U.S. military in service to their country.
  Mr. Chairman, that is why we need to preserve this measly $16 
million. It is money well spent for the national security of this 
country.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] 
and I were at the dedication today on the 42d anniversary of the Korean 
war where Mr. Clinton delivered a beautifully written speech about how 
important it was to preserve liberty in South Korea.
  I thought it was equally important to preserve it in South Vietnam, 
but at the end of the debate, when we are out of the Committee of the 
Whole, I will put in the whole text of Bill Clinton's letter to the 
Commander of the ROTC on December 3, 1969.
  Here is what he says about the draft. He says,

       The draft was justified in World War II, because the life 
     of the people, collectively, was at stake. Individuals had to 
     fight, if the Nation was to survive, for the lives of their 
     countrymen and their way of life. Vietnam is no such case, 
     nor was Korea an example.

  Clinton had exceptions with Korea in spite of his remarks today, and 
he certainly had exceptions with Vietnam. But remember, Clinton did 
register for the draft. His problems came much later.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit the following article for the Record.

     Text of Bill Clinton's December 3, 1969 Letter to ROTC Colonel

       I am sorry to be so long in writing. I know I promised to 
     let you hear from me at least once a month, and from now on 
     you will, but I have had to have some time to think about 
     this first letter. Almost daily since my return to England I 
     have thought about writing, about what I want to and ought to 
     say.
       First, I want to thank you, not just for saving me from the 
     draft, but for being so kind and decent to me last summer, 
     when I was as low as I have ever been. One thing which made 
     the bond we struck in good faith somewhat palatable to me was 
     my high regard for you personally. In retrospect, it seems 
     that the admiration might not have been mutual had you known 
     a little more about me, about my political beliefs and 
     activities. At least you might have thought me more fit for 
     the draft than for ROTC.
       Let me try to explain. As you know, I worked for two years 
     in a very minor position on the Senate Foreign Relations 
     Committee. I did it for the experience and the salary but 
     also for the opportunity, however small, of working every day 
     against a war I opposed and despised with a depth of feeling 
     I had reserved solely for racism in America before Vietnam. I 
     did not take the matter lightly but studied it carefully, and 
     there was a time when not many people had more information 
     about Vietnam at hand than I did.
       I have written and spoken and marched against the war. One 
     of the national organizers of the Vietnam Moratorium is a 
     close friend of mine. After I left Arkansas last summer, I 
     went to Washington to work in the national headquarters of 
     the Moratorium, then to England to organize the Americans 
     here for demonstrations Oct. 15 and Nov. 16.
       Interlocked with the war is the draft issue, which I did 
     not begin to consider separately until early 1968. For a law 
     seminar at Georgetown I wrote a paper on the legal arguments 
     for and against allowing, within the Selective Service 
     System, the classification of selective conscientious 
     objection for those opposed to participation in a particular 
     war, not simply to ``participation in war in any form.''
       From my work I came to believe that the draft system itself 
     is illegitimate. No government really rooted in limited, 
     parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its 
     citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose, a 
     war which even possibly may be wrong, a war which, in any 
     case, does not involve immediately the peace and freedom of 
     the nation.
       The draft was justified in World War II because the life of 
     the people collectively was at stake. Individuals had to 
     fight, if the nation was to survive, for the lives of their 
     countrymen and their way of life. Vietnam is no such case. 
     Nor was Korea an example where, in my opinion, certain 
     military action was justified but the draft was not, for the 
     reasons stated above.
       Because of my opposition to the draft and the war. I am in 
     great sympathy with those who are not willing to fight, kill 
     and maybe die for their country (i.e. the particular policy 
     of a particular government) right or wrong. Two of my friends 
     at Oxford are conscientious objectors. I wrote a letter of 
     recommendation for one of them to his Mississippi draft 
     board, a letter which I am more proud of than anything else I 
     wrote at Oxford last year. One of my roommates is a draft 
     resister who is possibly under indictment and may never be 
     able to go home again. He is one of the bravest, best men I 
     know. His country needs men like him more than they know. 
     That he is considered a criminal is an obscenity.
       The decision not to be a resister and the related 
     subsequent decisions were the most difficult of my life. I 
     decided to accept the draft in spite of my beliefs for one 
     reason: to maintain my political viability
      within the system. For years I have worked to prepare myself 
     for a political life characterized by both practical 
     political ability and concern for rapid social progress. 
     It is a life I still feel compelled to try to lead. I do 
     not think our system of government is by definition 
     corrupt, however dangerous and inadequate it has been in 
     recent years. (The society may be corrupt, but that is not 
     the same thing, and if that is true, we are all finished 
     anyway.)
       When the draft came, despite political convictions, I was 
     having a hard time facing the prospect of fighting a war I 
     had been fighting against, and that is why I contacted you. 
     ROTC was the one way left in which I could possibly, but not 
     positively, avoid both Vietnam and resistance. Going on with 
     my education, even coming back to England, played no part in 
     my decision to join ROTC. I am back here, and would have been 
     at Arkansas Law School because there is nothing else I can 
     do. In fact, I would like to have been able to take a year 
     out perhaps to teach in a small college or work on some 
     community action project and in the process to decide whether 
     to attend law school or graduate school and how to begin 
     putting what I have learned to use.
       But the particulars of my personal life are not nearly as 
     important to me as the principles involved. After I signed 
     the ROTC letter of intent, I began to wonder whether the 
     compromise I had made with myself was not more objectionable 
     than the draft would have been, because I had no interest in 
     the ROTC program in itself and all I seemed to have done was 
     to protect myself from physical harm. Also, I began to think 
     I had deceived you, not by lies--there were none--but by 
     failing to tell you all the things I'm writing now. I doubt 
     that I had the mental coherence to articulate them then.
       At that time, after we had made our agreement and you had 
     sent my 1-D deferment to my draft board, the anguish and loss 
     of my self-regard and self-confidence really set in. I hardly 
     slept for weeks and kept going by eating compulsively and 
     reading until exhaustion brought sleep. Finally, on Sept. 12 
     I stayed up all night writing a letter to the chairman of my 
     draft board, saying basically what is in the preceding 
     paragraph, thanking him for trying to help in a case where he 
     really couldn't, and stating that I couldn't do the ROTC 
     after all and would he please draft me as soon as possible.
       I never mailed the letter, but I did carry it on me every 
     day until I got on the plane to return to England. I didn't 
     mail the letter because I didn't see, in the end, how my 
     going in the Army and maybe going to Vietnam would achieve 
     anything except a feeling that I had punished myself and 
     gotten what I deserved. So I came back to England to try to 
     make something of this second year of my Rhodes scholarship.
       And that is where I am now, writing to you because you have 
     been good to me and have a right to know what I think and 
     feel. I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one 
     story will help you to understand more clearly how so many 
     fine people have come to find themselves still loving their 
     country but loathing the military, to which you and other 
     good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service 
     you could give. To many of us, it is no longer clear what is 
     service and what is disservice, or if it is clear, the 
     conclusion is likely to be illegal.
       Forgive the length of this letter. There was much to say. 
     There is still a lot to be said, but it can wait. Please say 
     hello to Col. Jones for me.
       Merry Christmas.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, practically speaking, the draft and 
draft registration is a waste of scarce tax dollars, a waste of $17 
million this year alone. The draft itself will likely never serve our 
national security needs, especially in an era of high-tech weapons and 
computerized weapons systems.

[[Page H 7905]]

  That is speaking practically. Speaking philosophically, unless war is 
declared, indicating an overwhelming support by the American people, a 
peacetime draft is totally inconsistent with our national tradition.
  Many of those who arrived on our shores and built this great land of 
liberty were escaping despotism, the despotism of their native lands, 
which more than anything else was signified by the tyranny of 
conscription. Only during the cold war was a peacetime conscription 
tolerated in the United States, and even then, after two decades, it 
was abandoned with the support of Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater and 
Ronald Reagan.
  Mr. Chairman, it is long overdue that we quit wasting money on this 
anachronism which has nothing to do with the security of our country 
and everything to do with egos that are trying to prove a point in an 
argument that should have ended over 20 years ago.
  Finally, the American military is a fine example, a shining example, 
of volunteerism. The strength of our country is in its love of liberty 
and freedom. Our military today represents that love of liberty because 
they are volunteers.
  Liberty will be safe as long as our people who serve this country, 
the brave men and women who volunteer, are willing to do so. We should 
honor them by trusting our people, and we will be free as long as they 
stand strong and we stand behind them.
  We stand for the principles of liberty and justice and democracy that 
brought people to these shores 200 years ago at the founding of our 
country.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment of the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio]. The Selective Service System is 
working well; it is not broke, it does not need fixing. I would say 
that the system is an insurance policy against the unknown.
  We did not know what would happen in the Persian Gulf war. We almost 
had to go back to the draft because when you have a war, young men and 
women do not come in and volunteer.
  We need this system; it is in place. It does not cost a lot of money; 
it costs less than one Apache helicopter. We have 11,000 volunteers 
around the country working for the Selective Service. They believe in 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, the young men of this country, 98 percent of them, have 
signed up when their time came. When they have reached 18, they have 
gone right to the Post Office, they have signed up with the Selective 
Service System. They like to carry the card; it is a patriotic duty and 
they appreciate it.
  So let us vote down the DeFazio amendment and move ahead with other 
important issues.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the DeFazio amendment. I 
support the actions of the full Appropriations Committee to provide $23 
million for the Selective Service System for fiscal year 1996.
  This funding is an inexpensive insurance policy against the unknown. 
We ought to keep that policy in force.
  It has the bipartisan support of the House Republican and Democratic 
leadership, President Clinton, and the Department of Defense.
  It is also backed by all the Nation's military and veterans 
organizations, as well as the more than 11,000 Selective Service 
volunteers across America who will make the process work if it is 
activated.
  And while this is a relatively small amount of money, decisions 
regarding the future of this agency should not be budget-driven at all. 
They should really be considered on national security grounds.
  Since early in this century, we have always had an organized 
capability to plan for, and to conduct, a draft in a crisis. It has 
served us well. Now is not the time to terminate that capability.
  Registration is a quick and easy process that has always been 
accepted among our 18 year olds. The compliance rate has been steady at 
98 or 99 percent over the years.
  I believe the young people look upon this as a patriotic duty, and 
that they would be ready to answer the call, if we faced a national 
crisis.
  Funding the Selective Service System does not promote a military 
draft. I don't support a draft. The all-volunteer force has worked, and 
continues to work in our Nation's defense. But no one can predict when 
we might have another war.
  If this country were forced into a full-scale crisis, we would need 
more people than our scaled-down all-volunteer force could provide.
  We simply would be unable to quickly mobilize large numbers of people 
without the Selective Service System.
  We all hope our country never again faces an national emergency, but 
we ought to be prepared for such an action. Selective Service provides 
us that ability.
  It is efficiently run and its computerized data base can mobilize 
large numbers of people in a short period of time.
  If we cut this funding for Selective Service today, it could take a 
year or more to start up again in a crisis. That might be too late in a 
national emergency.
  Can we afford to gamble that our country will never again face a 
national crisis? I think the answer is no. We have an inexpensive hedge 
against such a crisis with the Selective Service System. Let's keep it. 
Oppose the DeFazio amendment.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Gilman].
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the DeFazio 
Selective Service amendment.
  You know, the world is a dangerous place today. We see hot spots all 
over the world, in a mode of uncertainty for all of us. It is important 
that we have a ready defense.
  Mr. Chairman, let me read from the President's May 18, 1994, letter 
to the Speaker of the House in which he says,

       I have decided that it is essential to our national 
     security to continue draft registration of the Selective 
     Service system. While tangible military requirements alone do 
     not currently make a mass call-up of American young men 
     likely, there are three reasons I believe we should maintain 
     the Selective Service and the draft registration requirement.
       Maintaining that system provides a hedge against unforeseen 
     threats.
       Terminating this system now can send the wrong signal to 
     our potential enemies.
       As fewer and fewer members of our society have direct 
     military experience, it is increasingly important to maintain 
     the link between the all-volunteer force and our society at 
     large.

  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in opposition to the 
DeFazio amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Foley].
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join the gentleman from Oregon 
[Mr. DeFazio] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] in 
offering this amendment to end peacetime draft registration.
  Mr. Chairman, it pains me to oppose my good friend, the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon] on this issue as I consider the gentleman 
one of the most patriotic Members of this Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, the VA-HUD appropriations bill includes $23 million for 
Selective Service. The Selective Service, as we know it today, was 
created by President Carter to respond to fears that regional conflicts 
of the Soviet Union would grow and lead to a superpower showdown. The 
national defense structure at that time had been gutted and allowed the 
volunteer Armed Forces to fall to dangerously low levels.
  No wonder we created a peacetime draft. We could not get Americans to 
volunteer for service.
  Mr. Chairman, that is not the case today. This Congress has made a 
commitment to a strong national defense. We intend to keep military 
personnel equipped and ready to fight.
  We have over 1 million active duty troops. We have over 1 million 
trained Select Reservists, and we have almost 800,000 Standby 
Reservists. We have 3 million volunteers, young men and women ready to 
give their lives in defense of America's freedom.
  In almost 10 years of the Vietnam war, just under 2.5 million 
Americans were sent to the combat area; one of every four of those 
young Americans were drafted. In 10 years we did not send the number of 
volunteers that can be deployed from our shores today.
  Mr. Chairman, I use this example to show that the amendment will not 
leave the U.S. defense vulnerable. We have 3 million volunteers ready 
to fight. By cutting $17 million, this amendment leaves $6 million to 
keep an on-the-shelf system that would in a short period of time be 
able to augment the volunteer Armed Forces. The $17 million will be 
transferred to add to the veterans' medical care.
  Mr. Chairman, let me sum this up. This amendment is prodefense 
because 

[[Page H 7906]]
instead of feeding a useless bureaucracy, it adds funding to care for 
the men and women who have defended our liberty. I ask, which is 
better, to create a strong fighting force or a bloated Federal 
bureaucracy?
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Nation's veterans, 
vote yes on this amendment.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. de la Garza], a World War II veteran, and both of his sons 
served in the Persian Gulf war. I am pleased to yield to him.
  Mr. de la GARZA. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to bring another perspective to this debate. One 
is that I served in the Navy at the end of World War II and then I 
served during the Korean war. I was in the Reserves in between. One of 
the regrets of my life is that I never got to register for the draft.
  Mr. Chairman, the perspective in my area, though, is we have high 
schools waiting for ROTC, we have colleges waiting for ROTC. 
Registering raises the consciousness of our youth, and I think that it 
is a pride.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that there is a technical aspect to it to have 
to enlist and to be prepared, but it adds to our young people's 
consciousness that we have a country, that we have fought wars, and 
that there may be the possibility of other wars.
  I think that the money is very little for the effort that is done 
mostly by volunteers, but I think the young people deserve the 
opportunity to show that they want to serve their country.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. Metcalf].
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeFazio amendment. It 
transfers $17 million from the Selective Service account to the VA 
medical care account.
  The opposition to this amendment argues that the Selective Service is 
a visible symbol of national security, a symbol that we need to 
protect. Well, $23 million is an awfully expensive symbol. The 
Department of Defense has stated, and I quote, ``Peacetime draft 
registration could be suspended with no effect on military mobilization 
requirements.''
  I will repeat that. The Department of Defense: ``Peacetime draft 
registration could be suspended with no effect on military mobilization 
requirements.''
  Mr. Chairman, the Pentagon goes on the say that with over 1 million 
trained members in Select Reserve units, plus another 750,000 
individual Ready Reserve personnel, we already have the ability to 
augment active forces through the early days of a major conflict.
  If we want a real symbol of patriotism, let us honor those veterans 
who have made the sacrifice for our Nation. Let us show veterans who 
have made the ultimate offering that this country has not forgotten 
them.
  Mr. Chairman, we just dedicated a memorial to our veterans of the 
Korean war, showing our praise and thanks to American servicemen. We 
must not let them think that in just a matter of hours, we have 
forgotten the sacrifices they made.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment to help 
VA medical and vote for those veterans to whom we owe so much.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Nadler].
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, we have lost sight of first principles. 
This country was founded on the spirit of liberty, that what we give to 
our country, we give voluntarily.
  The Peace Corps voluntary service is voluntary. The draft is not in 
the spirit of American liberty. It was a concession, a concession to 
danger and to reality. For most of American history, we did not have 
it, and then we blessed ourselves as different from the tyrannies of 
Europe that had it.
  Mr. Chairman, for the last 50 years of war, hot and cold, we had to 
have it, of necessity. But now we do not. We have 2 million men and 
women under arms, as much as the rest of the planet combined. We would 
have plenty of time to prepare and to reinstitute a draft if some other 
nation began arming to match us with supposed danger. There is no 
danger that justifies this departure from our traditions of liberty.
  Mr. Chairman, let us remember what this country is about. A draft, a 
Selective Service System is obnoxious to the spirit of liberty and 
ought not to be maintained except as a concession of danger which does 
not now exist. So I support the amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I am going to reserve the balance of my 
time to close. I believe I have 1 minute.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner], a Vietnam hero veteran.
  Mr. TANNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I spoke yesterday on the floor on what I thought was a 
short-sighted amendment. But may I say to my friends, and I understand 
the arguments on the other side, but I would say in this new world 
order, this is probably one of the most short-sighted amendments we 
could adopt, and I say that for this reason: None of us can see the 
future. All of us know, realize, and understand that one of our roles 
as the United States of America today is as the leader of the free 
world.
  The least we can ask of our citizens, our young people in this 
country is to register. Most of our NATO allies have compulsory 
service. We ask only for registration. Mr. Chairman, I say to my 
friends, that is not too great a price to pay for our liberty.
  I would hope that we would reject this amendment out of hand. I used 
to serve in the Selective Service; we would have a ready pool if 
something untoward happens in this world. None of us can see the 
future, and I hope we reject this ill-timed amendment.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I yield my last minute to the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. Dicks], a great patriot and a great American.
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the position of the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] on this issue, because I 
believe that having a Selective Service System in place maintains 
American readiness, and that is the crucial issue. If we do not have a 
Selective Service System in place, we would have to reconstitute it, if 
we had to go to a draft, and it would take a long period of time to do 
that, at least 2 years.
  So I would tell the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] that all 
those veterans that we all support in terms of health care would much 
prefer the country being prepared, keeping this tool in place.
  What is the compliance rate? Ninety-nine percent of our young people 
have been willing to register without any objection. So this is a good 
tool, a good mechanism, and I think it keeps our country prepared.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the outstanding 
gentleman from New York City [Mr. Flake], a longstanding member of this 
body.
  (Mr. FLAKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I realize that some would consider this to 
be a peculiar time and a peculiar moment for me to be standing on the 
Floor. One of the things I have done is, I have analyzed the problems 
that have developed in this Nation. For the African-American community 
in particular, I would suggest that one of the worst calamities ever to 
happen was the elimination of the draft.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a civil libertarian. But I also understand one 
thing, that when African-American young men can be taken off street 
corners, put into a disciplined environment, be able to leave their 
corner and understand there is a bigger world for them; when they come 
back they have a sense of discipline, they have an understanding of 
what it means to be able to make a contribution not only to their own 
lives, but to the lives of others.

                              {time}  2215

  They learned discipline. They learned what it meant to be able to 
take care of their responsibilities, and they got two major benefits: 
They had an educational benefit so that they could get 

[[Page H 7907]]
an education; and they had an opportunity to purchase their first 
asset, which was a home.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe tonight when we talk about eliminating the 
Selective Service System, one of the problems I have is when we spend 
so much money building jails, we ought to consider that we ought to do 
more to put these young people in a situation where they could do 
something positive.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 30 
seconds.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, let me just say to my good friend, the 
gentleman from New York, Mr. Floyd Flake, amen, amen, amen. Yes, they 
do. They learn a little pride, they learn a little patriotism, they 
learn how not to use drugs, they even get a little religion. Is that 
not wonderful for this country?
  Please vote against the DeFazio amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 1\1/4\ 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, we are getting a little afield here. This 
is not about reinstating the draft. We are not about that. The military 
does not want it. In fact, the Department of Defense has said peacetime 
draft registration, not conscription, could be suspended with no effect 
on military mobilization requirements.
  Ronald Reagan said, ``I believe this proposal, draft registration, is 
an ill-conceived one and should be rejected. Advance registration will 
do little to enhance our military preparedness.'' That was from Ronald 
Reagan and the Department of Defense.
  If this is what we think brings patriotism and citizenship to our 
kids, not good schools, not decent housing, and all the other things we 
are eliminating here on the floor, this is an opportunity to eliminate 
an obsolete Federal bureaucracy and put in place a standby system which 
uses modern computer technology, if indeed a calamity ever comes, and 
if indeed we ever have to go back to conscription, which I do not 
believe we will, but we will have that as a standby system.
  This is 1940's technology. This is not citizenship, except in some 
bizarre Publisher's Clearinghouse view of the world where you send in a 
postcard every time you move. That is not teaching our young people the 
values that we need to instill.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment 
to eliminate the Selective Service System. The sponsor says that his 
amendment does not terminate the program, but puts it on standby. To 
me, this effectively terminates the program.
  How do you put an organization which has a standby function for our 
armed forces on standby? You don't and you can't--because it destroys 
the very concept of readiness. If we should require a draft, how would 
you select people to serve? Would you choose those who are tall? Would 
you choose those with red hair? No, you would have a fair and equitable 
system to determine who would volunteer, and that system takes a great 
deal of time to develop and maintain.
  Unfortunately, we have not achieved the goal of world peace. 
Chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons have created a dangerous 
atmosphere of conflict and potential for casualties for which DOD may 
not be prepared. As such, DOD officials recommend the draft as a way to 
meet such challenges by ensuring a high quality and quantity volunteer 
force.
  Simply put, the DeFazio amendment puts our Nation and our freedom at 
risk. I urge a no vote on the amendment.
amendment offered by mr. weldon of florida to the amendment offered by 
                              mr. de fazio

  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida to the amendment 
     offered by Mr. DeFazio: Strike the first paragraph and insert 
     the following:
       Page 12, line 2, strike ``$183,435,000,'' and insert 
     ``$195,455,000,''.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired for debate. Does the gentleman 
from California insist on his point of order?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Is the chairman telling me the gentleman has 
no time on his amendment to the amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time was limited under the unanimous consent 
agreement to the amendment and all amendments thereto. All time for 
debate has expired.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, we do not know what the gentleman's 
amendment does. I think the membership ought to know, in case we want 
to argue for or against the point of order. The gentleman ought to have 
a chance to explain.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from 
Florida, Mr. Weldon, be given two minutes to explain his amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I simply 
would inquire if the gentleman gets unanimous consent for 2 minutes to 
offer his amendment, does anybody get a minute or two in case they want 
to comment or oppose it?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] propounded a 
unanimous consent request.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the intent of my amendment was very simple. Although 
many areas of the country have adequate medical facilities for 
veterans, some areas do not. My amendment simply would shift the money 
to the VA construction account instead of the general medical account 
as the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] has proposed. Simply put, my 
amendment would direct these funds to the most needy veterans, the 
veterans who currently have no medical facilities.
  As a veteran and as a physician who has provided medical care to many 
of these veterans, I understand the acute need for the underserved 
communities. Today there are 250,000 veterans living in east-central 
Florida that are in great need of a veterans medical facility. Without 
the adoption of my amendment to the amendment, these 250,000 veterans, 
who gave of themselves for our freedom, and other veterans in 
underserved areas, will see little improvement in their veteran-scare.
  The veterans in these areas are the most underserved in the Nation, 
and we have a responsibility to fulfill our commitments to them. If we 
are going to transfer money from the Selective Service to meet the 
needs of veterans, we should transfer it to serve the most needy 
veterans. Voting for the Weldon amendment will do this.
  Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, there is a point of order for lack 
of germaneness against my amendment, so I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw my amendment at this time. I appreciate the chairman's 
recognition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. 
DeFazio] will be postponed.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an amendment, but pending a 
colloquy with the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], I will 
withhold on that amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, what the amendment was about was adding $429,000 to the 
Court of Veterans Appeals. The $429,000 was cut by the committee from 
the 1995 appropriation level. According to the Chief Justice of the 
Court of Veterans 

[[Page H 7908]]
Appeals, this cut will kill the pro bono legal program for low income 
veterans, as well as further delay hearings and timely decisions on all 
claims appealed to the court.
  I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis] about his intentions regarding the sum of money.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my 
colleague cooperating, with the time difficulties we have as well as 
the problem the gentleman is attempting to draw our attention to.
  Frankly, the amount of money the gentleman is talking about is a very 
small amount of money in this entire picture. I am personally willing 
to commit to the gentleman that I will work very hard in conference to 
try to restore that money, and bring it to the attention of the 
appropriate members of the Senate side as well.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, does the gentleman 
think we have a good chance to capture this money?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield, out of all the money we are talking about here, that is 
almost a drop in the pond. I would be surprised if we could not satisfy 
the gentleman.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. MINGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to language 
appearing at page 56 of the report for this appropriations bill. The 
language in question attempts to influence the Environmental Protection 
Agency's [EPA] implementation of the Reformulated Gasoline Program 
[RFG]. This language tells the EPA that it should refrain from spending 
any funds on the pursuit of creating a market share for specific 
oxygenates. This is unfortunate; it is vital that the EPA has the 
flexibility to deal with renewable fuels in reformulated gasoline in 
the manner which the EPA feels is most productive.
  The tragedy of the situation is that the petroleum industry and this 
report disregard the importance of renewable fuels and attempt to 
dissuade the EPA from acting responsibly. In fact, recent technological 
developments and a range of economic, environmental, and national 
security externalities have an important bearing on the value of using 
oxygenates which are derived from a domestically produced source. Every 
school child knows that there is a very limited supply of easily 
obtainable fossil fuel. Therefore, developing renewable fuels is vital. 
Corn-based ethanol has become more abundant; the engineering needed for 
cost-effective development is emerging. It is a win-win situation when 
the balance of payments, the environment, the agricultural economy, 
rural economic development, and reduced dependence on energy from 
distant, politically volatile sources of petroleum supply can all be 
promoted at one time.
  Unfortunately, most of these factors are not valued in today's 
market. Nonetheless, there are vast costs which we are absorbing in the 
form of tax dollars and societal costs.
  Report language from an appropriations subcommittee is not the 
appropriate place to make critical decisions about renewable fuels. 
Such decisions deserve public input and the attention of the entire 
House of Representatives. Certainly, the EPA should have the ability to 
pursue a fair role for renewable fuels in the reformulated gasoline 
program. This cannot be influenced by obscure, staff-prepared language 
in a report accompanying an appropriations bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title III?


                     amendment offered by mr. davis

  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, No. 1.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Davis: Page 87, after line 25, 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec. 519. (a) Contractor Conversion.--The Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency shall cease any further 
     hiring in the Agency's Office of Research and Development, 
     and shall maintain the funding of all existing scientific and 
     technical support contracts at not less than the current 
     level.
       (b) Report.--Not later than January 1, 1996, the head of 
     the Office of Research and Development of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall submit to the Congress a report on 
     all staffing plans including the use of Federal and contract 
     employees.

  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires that the 
administrator of EPA cease all further hiring in the agency's Office of 
Research and Development [ORD] for the purposes of the contractor 
conversion initiative as laid out in last year's VA/HUD Appropriations 
bill.
  This amendment is necessary to prevent EPA from further eroding the 
employment base of four well respected private sector companies who 
have been providing contract support to EPA's office of research and 
development.
  Last year, Congress provided EPA with resources and direction in the 
fiscal year 1995 VA/HUD appropriations bill to improve the agency's 
contracts management. Unfortunately, the Office of Research and 
Development has mishandled the resources provided to it and ignored the 
direction of Congress. My amendment serves to soften the blow to those 
private sector companies providing contract support.
  In fiscal year 1995 EPA received an increase in its authorized 
personnel ceilings by 900 positions. Of that number, 265 positions were 
provided to the Office of Research and Development. This increase runs 
contrary to the administration effort as well as this Congress' efforts 
to reduce the size of Government and has not addressed the weaknesses 
in EPA contracts management as it was intended to do. These weaknesses 
were identified by the Congress and the EPA inspector general.
  Of the 265 positions allotted to ORD, only 32 were directed to 
address the identified contracts management problems. The remaining 233 
positions have been used to augment the ORD workforce in four 
Government labs. During this time, ORD has undergone an internal 
reorganization by merging these labs into four ``mega-labs''. The 233 
positions were directed to the mega labs under the leadership of an EPA 
employee. This individual had the sole responsibility for coordinating 
the contractor conversion activities at EPA and they have used their 
authority to raid EPA's private contractors.
  The situation as it stands now is that four well respected private 
professional service contractors have lost significant business and 
stand to lose even more if we do not halt ORD's actions. The result has 
not been improved contacts management or reduced costs for the 
Government, it has been bigger bureaucracy. This amendment stops this 
grievous action.
  Of the companies raided by EPA, one is a small business and another 
is minority owned. In the case of the minority owned firm, after 10 
years of hard work building a successful business, the firm saw 75 
percent of its total workforce hired away by EPA. In the case of the 
small business, it lost 22 of its 33 employees to the agency's actions. 
This is a prime example of the big Government that so many of us were 
elected to stop.
  This amendments puts a hold on any further hiring in EPA's Office of 
Research and Development for the purposes of carrying out the 
contractor conversion efforts required under the Departments of 
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent 
Agencies Appropriations Act of 1994.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and support America's 
small and minority businesses by putting an end to EPA's actions.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] 
want to amend his language?
  Mr. DAVIS. I believe the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] has an 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


 amendment offered by mr. lewis of california to the amendment offered 
                              by mr. davis

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Lewis of California to the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Davis:
       In subsection (a) of the amendment strike the words ``and 
     shall maintain the funding of all existing scientific and 
     technical support contracts at not less than the current 
     level''.


[[Page H 7909]]

  Mr. LEWIS of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment to the amendment be considered as 
read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  2330

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I do not 
know what the second amendment is.
  Continuing my reservation of objection, I yield to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis] to find out what this amendment is.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes the 
second part of the first paragraph, the words ``and shall maintain the 
funding of all existing scientific and technical support contracts at 
not less than the current level.'' I do not think the chairman would 
have any problem with that.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, as I understand what the gentleman is 
doing, he is leaving only the first part of the amendment and striking 
the second part of the amendment and, in striking the second part, he 
is striking the part which freezes existing contracts; is that correct?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to accept the perfecting 
amendment. I think this amendment clarifies the original intent of my 
amendment which is to put a stop to EPA's practice of hiring away 
employees from their contractors.
  The language the gentleman strikes from my amendment was intended to 
ensure that EPA does not take retribution against these same 
contractors who have been harmed by EPA's inappropriate actions. I 
would, therefore, like to get the gentleman's assurances, that if EPA 
does take punitive action against three contractors, the gentleman 
would be willing to revisit this issue.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I assure the gentleman that I 
would be greatly disturbed if EPA takes any action that could be 
construed as retribution against these contractors.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
will happy to accept the amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Davis-Moran 
amendment to the VA, HUD and independent agencies appropriations bill. 
The amendment would freeze internal hiring in EPA's Office of Research 
and Development in the hope that current contracting levels would be 
maintained.
  It might be useful to provide a bit of background because this 
amendment is in direct response to actions taken by the agency 
regarding the implementation of its contractor conversion initiative. 
In fiscal year 1995 EPA requested an additional 900 FTE's and $44.6 
million for its contractor conversion initiative and received 
appropriations to start the initiative. This budget request was 
initially prompted by criticism about EPA's use of contractors, 
especially with regard to some contractor abuses. I have listened to 
endless testimony concerning contractor
 reimbursement of Rolex watches and reindeer suits. No one here 
believes that taxpayers should be footing the bill for these items. 
However, it has never been clear to me that the way to ameliorate the 
problem is to hire more EPA employees. In a time when we are looking to 
downside the government, we have EPA hiring up. In a time when we are 
looking to rely more on the private sector, we have EPA relying less on 
the private sector. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense just because 
we have accountability problems with a few bad apple contractors.

  Now we are not hearing from private contractors that EPA is offering 
their employees full time government jobs and shutting down their 
companies. Many of the positions being filled by EPA don't even fit the 
definition of inherently governmental positions which were the 
positions of most concern. In a letter from EPA, the agency indicated 
that contractor size and performance were not factors in the 
decisionmaking process, and in addition admitted that the initiative 
has indeed negatively impacted some small and minority-owned businesses 
and that only 26 of the 265 positions being filled by ORD were 
inherently governmental.
  Given this information, it leads one to ask--what are we doing? Is 
this just a quick fix to address some contracting abuses and get 
Congress off our backs?
  I urge my colleagues to support the Davis-Moran amendment and provide 
EPA a time out to re-examine this conversion initiative.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I compliment the gentleman. If 
this bill goes forward in a reasonable fashion and becomes law, I would 
guess it would be time out for awhile.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest that we inform the Members on 
what is happening here, because I am concerned that some Members may 
have gotten the impression that there will not be votes yet tonight and 
unless something else happens there will be. So we need to get this 
tied down. I wonder if we can do that before we have lots of Members on 
both sides of the aisle in massive confusion.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I hate to do this in the 
middle of somebody's vote on an amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to stop if we can get an 
understanding that as soon as the discussion on this amendment is 
completed, we will immediately inform all Members about what is going 
to happen for the rest of the evening.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I will attempt to do so. At 
this moment I would urge Members not to presume there are no more votes 
tonight. We are attempting to get to that point, however.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the author of the 
amendment, I want this committee to know what is going on here.
  EPA has a long history of having used contractors. Very frankly, the 
contractors are a sorry lot. The Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations last year investigated them. I want you to hear what the 
contractors did with the taxpayers money, the money that we are charged 
with protecting.
  Frankly, this amendment should be called the Corrupt Contractor 
Protection Act of 1995. It tells EPA that it cannot save money. In 
fact, it tells in its original form that EPA must spend money on 
contractors in the office of research and development.
  First of all, we found that the contractors were cooking the 
research. We found that they were playing games politically in support 
of the Clean Air Act and Clean Air Act in its strongest and, I think, 
particularly unacceptable form to my colleagues on this side of the 
aisle.
  Now, the contractors, it should be known, enjoyed a very good living 
at the expense of the taxpayers. They charged the taxpayers with 
reindeer suits, with
 clown suits, with Santa Claus costumes. These were all charged to the 
taxpayers. They charged the taxpayers for golf outings and golf balls. 
They charged the taxpayers for chocolate bars with the contractor's 
logo on them. They bought lots and lots of alcohol. They had lots and 
lots of parties.

  They had entertainment of all sorts. They spent money on tickets for 
Johnnie Limbo and the Lug Nuts. They used the taxpayers' money to 
finance trips by an assortment of persons to Alaska on fishing junkets.

[[Page H 7910]]

  The money which was spent by the contractors was spent under not only 
improper circumstances but most curious circumstances, because in many 
instances they were charged by the former EPA with the responsibility 
of opening the mail, of negotiating contracts, which they negotiated 
with themselves. In many instances they paid themselves for work which 
was not done.
  They kept records which were incapable of being audited. They threw 
Christmas parties. They did work under contracts which never existed 
and paid themselves lavishly for the privilege.
  Now, this amendment in its original form would sanctify that kind of 
behavior. It would permit those scoundrels who had been doing those 
things that we are
 supposed to be cleaning out of the public purse to do the same thing 
which they had done before under the same conditions.

  I do not believe that this House wants to have that kind of 
situation.
  I commend the gentleman from Virginia for striking the language which 
would keep these scoundrels hooked up to the public teat.
  But I do want you to understand one thing, that to foreclose EPA from 
the privilege of firing them is bad, but to now not allow EPA to retain 
enough people on its own payroll to see to it that the public work is 
properly done is enormously unwise.
  Let me remind you that the work which is involved here is work which 
involves research on important questions like air pollution, like 
whether or not your constituents are violating the air pollution laws 
or whether what the consequences of a particular Superfund dump might 
happen to be.
  I think those are important questions. And we are entitled to have 
the utmost integrity, truthfulness and ability brought to bear on those 
kinds of questions. To allow contractors who can come in here and 
impose upon Members of this body who know nothing about the history of 
contractor misbehavior is wrong. To permit them to continue to prosper 
at the taxpayers expense on the kind of sorry, shoddy record of serious 
misbehavior which should have sent the whole lot of them to jail is, I 
think, extremely unwise and improper on the part of this body in which 
we are a part.
               preferential motion offered by mr. dingell

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Dingell moves the Committee do now rise and report the 
     bill back with the enacting clause stricken.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I want my colleagues to understand. At 
issue here is not whether we like contractors or whether we have got 
them in our districts. It is not whether or not we like government or 
do not like government. The question is really whether we are going to 
write law which is in the broad public interest. The question is also 
whether or not we are going to see to it that corrupt practices in 
government contracting, investigated by congressional committees and 
document under oath before those congressional committees, are properly 
respected by this body and that the recommendations are properly 
carried out. By driving the money changers from the temple and by 
seeing to it that EPA can properly administer its affairs.
  Those are the questions. Frankly, the amendment, as originally drawn, 
should be rejected. Very frankly, the amendment as it was amended, and 
I fought to oppose it, because it is better than what was there. And I 
am sure my colleagues on this side are going to vote for it in spite of 
the fact that it is unwise to do so. It is a hard and unfortunate fact, 
my colleagues, that what is at foot here is just that a bunch of 
contractors do not like getting shoved away
 from the public trough. They wanted to stay there and keep on doing 
the same things which they have done in times past, paying themselves 
for work not done, doing work without contracts, claiming that there 
were contracts where in fact none exist, showering upon themselves and 
their friends the joys of being unsupervised in the expenditure of 
public moneys, hiring Johnnie Limbo and the Lug Nuts, buying lots of 
alcohol, dressing in reindeer suits, and pretending to do something of 
value.

  Now, just one little story. When we were working one night late 
trying to come together between the House and the Senate with my 
Republican colleagues and my Democratic colleagues alike, we tried to 
get some of these contractors to provide the information that we needed 
on a very important question; namely, the question affecting the 
implementation of the clean air sections of the law. Members should 
know that we could not find any of them, and we could not get any 
cooperation.
  We finally got information which was carefully cooked, carefully 
cooked to suit the environmentalists an to write legislation which made 
it much harder for American industry and American workmen, American 
business and the American economy. I want Members to understand what 
happens when these sly, slick, sneaky contractors come in here and they 
want the Congress to give them special relief.
  Congress ought not give them special relief. They do not deserve it. 
As a matter of fact, what they deserve is a comfortable period of time 
in an appropriate Federal institution during which they might think of 
the wrongs which they have done to the taxpaying public of the United 
States.
  The amendment is a bad one, even as amended. I urge Members to 
support the amendment as amended. And if they really want to do some 
good, I urge them to vote against the whole darn thing.
                              {time}  2245

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the preferential motion offered by 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the motion be 
withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I unfortunately did not know this debate was going to 
occur, but I rise in support of the gentleman from Virginia and his 
amendment, as amended or not. I have a great respect for and am a very 
close friend and ally of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]. The 
gentleman from Michigan has done a great deal of good in ensuring that 
people who do business with the Federal Government do not in fact 
defraud the taxpayers of our country, or in fact do not do jobs for 
which they contract, or do not in any way abuse their responsibilities.
  Having said that, Mr. Chairman, the situation to which the 
gentleman's amendment refers is perverse in the extreme, in my opinion. 
That is that we ask people to contract with the Federal Government, put 
together their capital, place that capital at risk, hire employees, and 
undertake an objective that the Federal Government wants accomplished, 
and contracts towards that end.
  Then it has turned around in one of the most perverse ways that I 
have seen and in fact said, ``We are going to cancel your contract for 
the convenience of the Government, and guess what? We are going to take 
all the employees that you recruited, that you paid money to train, 
that you put on your payroll, and accrue them to ourselves, and you are 
out of business.''
  Mr. Chairman, I do not take a back seat to anybody on this floor, not 
one, in the defense of Federal employees. On the other hand, I do not 
take a back seat to anybody in saying that we ought to side with 
Federal employees against private sector employees. This is a 
partnership, not a competition, not where we want to choose one side 
over the other. What we want to do is ensure a compatible, fair, and 
just environment for both of those groups to effectively perform their 
duties.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment speaks to a very serious 
problem, and it is not the problem that the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Dingell] speaks to. The gentleman from Michigan has been, as I 
said earlier, one of the great champions of ensuring against fraud of 
the taxpayer and of our Government.
  Are there those out there who would do that? There are. Does the 
American 

[[Page H 7911]]
taxpayer in this country need a vigorous and tough and hard-as-nail 
watchdog? It does, and the gentleman from Michigan, John Dingell, fills 
that bill. One the other hand, Mr. Chairman, in pursuing that objective 
to undermine businesspeople who are doing a fair and honest job is 
wrong. That is what the gentleman from Virginia seeks to address. I 
applaud his efforts and support them.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been working for 9 months to correct an 
injustice that was done as a result of this appropriations bill that 
was passed last year. I have been trying to find out what the source of 
the problem was, and it became apparent tonight who is responsible for 
it, but I am glad I had an opportunity to hear from my very 
distinguished chairman and colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, on 
what motivated him to do this, because I do not disagree with any of 
the points that the gentleman from Michigan made.
  I had an amendment that I offered before the Committee on Rules, it 
was not made in order, that went much further than this particular 
amendment. I suspect that the gentleman from Michigan would have gotten 
much more excited had it been made in order. However, it is the 
gentleman from Michigan who should be making this amendment. Let me 
explain why.
  Last year this appropriations bill provided 265 positions to correct 
just the very contract management problems that my colleague, the 
gentleman from Michigan, identified through his oversight Committee on 
Energy and Commerce. That was the purpose of those positions, hard-
fought-for positions; unprecedented to give an agency in a time of 
reinventing government 265 more positions.
  Do Members know what the Environmental Protection Agency did once 
they got those 265 positions? Obviously, they had the same big smile 
that is on the face of my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, 
tonight, because they sent out a guidance memo internally within EPA 
that said, ``These positions are not to be used to correct contract 
management performance problems.''
  Had they been used for the purpose for which they were appropriated, 
this amendment would not be necessary and there would not have been any 
injustice done, but they were not. What happened is that EPA went out 
after four small contractors and they raided them. Listen to this, now.
  One of those was a minority contractor for 10 years. They had put 
their company together. They went in and bought out 75 percent of his 
employees. Another one that served EPA for 20 years had gotten a top 
quality award just last year. In September they had their contract 
renewed for another year. The appropriations bill passed in October. 
EPA went immediately to those employees, after the contract had been 
renewed, took their private pay stub, and converted it to a Federal 
paycheck. They hired all but 12 of this contractor's people. They had 
received a quality award. They were not guilty of any of these 
problems, but they went in and hired them. This company had been worth 
$50 million, and it is virtually worthless today. Imagine if you were 
that small business employer, and the Federal Government had come in 
and raided your employees?
  There is one individual in EPA, and I think this probably best 
explains why EPA went about this the way they did. He had a small 
office. He was responsible for monitoring these contracts. He now has 
160 people reporting to him, and they are people that were working in 
the private sector who had been converted: scientists, engineers; not 
management people, not the people that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Dingell] was after. They were scientists and engineers that had been 
gathered to perform a specific function, and EPA went in and bought 
them out, telling them that they had no choice. Mr. Chairman, he told 
them they had no choice, they would lose their jobs if they did not 
become Federal employees.
  At a time when we are trying to reinvent government, we have the 
Federal Government going in, raiding four firms, four small 
contractors, all of them with top performance ratings, and that is how 
they used the 265 people. There was a gross injustice, it was a 
perversion of what was intended, and it should be overturned by 
supporting this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis].
  The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Davis], as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word, and to enter into a discussion, a colloquy, some people say, but 
a personal conversation with my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Stokes].
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio, and I have been endeavoring to 
try to put on some reasonable debate on a variety and mix of amendments 
in order that we could accomplish a couple of things; originally to get 
us out of here by 10 o'clock tonight, and that was very successful; but 
also to have the Members help us realize that the more we can restrain 
ourselves tomorrow, the more likely it is, even if we should come in at 
9 o'clock tomorrow, that we will be able to get out of here by 3 
o'clock in the afternoon. I thought that we were going toward limiting 
a certain number of amendments that would give us an assurance of being 
out. I think instead now we are going to ask for some time limitations. 
I know full well we will be coming back in with a full plate in the 
morning and encouraging the Members to restrain themselves then.
  Otherwise, while I will be urging that the Speaker and others limit 
1-minutes in the morning very severely, I would further be suggesting 
that we might have to work late into the evening, for we do intend to 
finish this bill tomorrow. It is not necessary that we go beyond 3 
o'clock, but there is a tendency for us to multiply amendments when we 
take 12 hours to think about them.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and I 
have discussed this between ourselves and with friends.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each of the following 
amendments and any amendments thereto be debatable for the time 
specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent 
of an individual amendment: The first is amendment No. 48 offered by 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for 20 minutes, 10 
minutes on each side; the second is the amendment No. 26 offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], for 20 minutes; and in all these 
cases, it is divided equally on each side; third, amendment No. 57 
offered by the gentleman form Indiana [Mr. Roemer], for 50 minutes; 
fourth, amendment No. 66 offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Stokes] or the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], for 90 minutes; 
fifth, amendment No. 55 or 56 offered by the gentleman from Rhode 
Island [Mr. Reed] or the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], for 
20 minutes; sixth, amendment No. 7 offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin] or the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson], for 40 
minutes. There is no particular order, but nonetheless, those would be 
the amendments being considered, and it does not limit other 
possibilities of amendments.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, that is right. So we have a complete 
understanding, these are the amendments upon which we have a time 
limit, is that correct?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I would say to the gentleman, that is right.
  Mr. STOKES. We do not go further than that. The gentleman has already 
stated that the manner in which he read the agreed-to amendments will 
be in no prescribed order?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, that meets our agreement.
  Mr. DINGELL. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, and I do 
not think I will, I did not hear some of the other amendments raised.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  
[[Page H 7912]]

  Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, 
that is because we are doing nothing with the other amendments. They 
are printed in the Record, they are subject to discussion, and we will 
be talking about those with the gentleman in the morning. It is an open 
rule.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman forgive me about being 
sensitive?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I have learned very much from the gentleman 
from Michigan.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I feel my amendment might just get lost in 
the shuffle, but I am sure the gentleman will want to assure me that 
the amendment I want to offer on the Superfund will not be foreclosed.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. It will not be foreclosed, and certainly the 
last person I want to get lost in the woods or the shuffle is the 
gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. DINGELL. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and I withdraw my 
reservation of objection.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I doubt that 
I will object, but I did want to ask the chairman, at what point will 
our amendment No. 2, the one that was rolled until tomorrow morning 
concerning drug elimination, at what time in the proceedings might that 
come up tomorrow, please, in view of these recently announced time 
limits?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, we have actually not talked 
that through, but I can tell the gentlewoman that it would be my 
intention to have us in a circumstance where there are no more than 
four amendments, that were being packaged together, and the 
gentlewoman's would be among the early package, so sometime shortly 
after we get moving in the morning. I am informed it is up the 
discretion of the Chair, but if the gentlewoman would be some 
indication as to what she would prefer, I certainly would work toward 
that end.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think it should also be pointed out in this 
conversation that because it is apparently the understanding that there 
will be no votes before 10, that that may affect in some way the number 
of votes that do occur at one time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I could.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentleman from Ohio.

                              {time}  2300

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, just one additional question.
  In our early discussions, I had mentioned to you the amendment 
proposed by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields], which he wants 
to propose. That is not one of the agreed-upon amendments, but have you 
been advised of his intention to propose that amendment?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. That is correct.
  Mr. STOKES. I thank the gentleman.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I 
thank the gentleman for responding. I would hope that, as you 
discussed, that our amendment concerning drug elimination would be one 
of the first votes in the morning, since we discussed that at length 
today and I think the Members are waiting for it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Since the Chair would determine the order of the votes, 
the gentlewoman's amendment would be the first amendment voted on.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the Chairman. Further reserving the right to 
object, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, just so Members can understand, my 
understanding is that if this unanimous-consent is agreed to, there are 
no additional votes tonight.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I need to include in this 
unanimous consent request the rolling over of those amendments, those 
votes outstanding, but that would be my intention.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has that authority and, obviously, would be 
very compassionate in that regard.
  Mr. SABO. Is that the intent of the Chair?
  The CHAIRMAN. Yes; it would be the intent of the Chair. There are two 
votes pending at this time that had rollcall votes requested, the 
amendment of the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] and the amendment 
of the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Ms. KAPTUR. To further clarify, Mr. Chairman, in no case would either 
of those votes occur before 10 o'clock tomorrow morning; is that my 
understanding?
  The CHAIRMAN. At this point that is the Chair's understanding. The 
Chair was not a party to any decision on that, but at this point that 
is the Chair's understanding.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, as far as I am concerned, it 
would be a part of the request, but, Mr. Chairman, further, I want the 
Members to know that presuming this is approved and there would be no 
further votes tonight, there would be a colloquy between the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], 
and that would be the end of the business this evening.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I 
yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think it needs to be understood by Members 
that the understanding was that the majority party wished to come in at 
9 o'clock tomorrow, and that in return for that happening, there would 
be an agreement that while there might be discussion of the amendments 
cited by the gentleman from California, that, in fact, there would be 
no votes occurring before 10 a.m.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
  The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous-consent request is amended to reflect 
that no votes will occur before 10 a.m.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of engaging in a colloquy with my colleague, the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Oxley].
  Mr. Chairman, in the current budget climate, all federal agencies 
need to reevaluate their priorities, the efficiency of their 
regulations, and their relationships with States. We cannot afford to 
expend limited resources without achieving commensurate environmental 
or public health gains.
  One area of concern, that I believe requires congressional action 
involves EPA's development of new ``Phase III and Phase IV land 
disposal restrictions'' requirements under the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act. On March 2, 1996, when the Agency proposed the Phase 
III requirements, EPA itself pointed out that:

       [T]he risks addressed by this rule, especially [underground 
     injection control] wells, are very small relative to the 
     risks presented by other environmental conditions or 
     situations. In a time of limited resources, common sense 
     dictates that we deal with higher risk activities first, a 
     principle on which EPA, members of the regulated community, 
     and the public can all agree. Nevertheless, the Agency is 
     required [by a court decision] to set treatment standards for 
     these relatively low risk wastes and disposal practices 
     during the next two years, although there are other actions 
     and projects with which the Agency could provide greater 
     protection of human health and the environment.

  I understand that my esteemed colleague from Ohio, Congressman Oxley, 
has introduced a corrections bill, H.R. 2036, that would overturn the 
Chemical Waste Management court decision, which required EPA to 
undertake this rulemaking.
  Mr. OXLEY. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman 
is correct in his understanding. Section 2 of H.R. 2036 is designed to 
prevent the imposition of burdensome requirements on wastewater 
treatment systems and deep injection wells that already are thoroughly 
regulated and 

[[Page H 7913]]
permitted by the States and EPA under the Clean Water Act and the Safe 
Drinking Water Act. Essentially, my bill would authorize EPA to take 
the course of action that it originally chose. When the Agency first 
issued its LDR regulations, the Agency concluded that imposing 
treatment requirements on these types of nonhazardous waste management 
systems ``would not provide further protection to human health and the 
environment,'' and would cause ``considerable disruption at facilities 
that EPA generally considers safe.''
  Mr. McINTOSH. How much does EPA estimate that it would cost to impose 
the rule required by the court's decision, which would provide little 
or no environmental or public health gains?
  Mr. OXLEY. If the gentleman will yield further, EPA's regulatory 
impact analysis places the cost of this rule at somewhere between one-
half billion dollars and three-quarters of a billion dollars each year. 
That is too steep a price to pay for wasteful and duplicative 
regulation when those resources could do so much more to protect human 
health and the environment if used elsewhere. Frankly, if the 
supermandate in H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act, 
were law, we would not be facing a rule which EPA, itself, believes is 
so extraordinarily wasteful.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Again, Mr. Oxley, I commend you for introducing H.R. 
2036. Hazardous waste land disposal restrictions should not be imposed 
on wastes being managed in units that are permitted under the Clean 
Water or Safe Drinking Water Acts; nor should land disposal 
restrictions intended for hazardous wastes be imposed on non-hazardous 
wastes. Your bill would allow EPA to redirect its scarce resources to 
actions and projects that would achieve the greatest overall benefit 
for the costs incurred.
  I commend the gentleman for that legislation.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do 
now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Fox 
of Pennsylvania) having assumed the chair, Mr. Combest, 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. 2099) 
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, 1996, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________