[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 125 (Monday, July 31, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H8015-H8022]
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 further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2099.

                              {time}  1430


                     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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Friday, July 
28, 1995, pending was amendment No. 7 offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin] and title III was open for amendment at any 
point.
  Pursuant to the order of the Committee of Thursday, July 27, 1995, 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining 
in debate and the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] has 1 minute 
remaining in debate.

                              {time}  1431

  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I think we have had enough 
debate on this matter. It is a very, very cleverly worded amendment 
that has a tremendous effect upon EPA, broadening its authority. I ask 
very strongly for a ``no'' vote of the membership.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July 
27, 1995, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title III?
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise with great respect for the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis], the chairman of the committee, to discuss a 
matter which I think is of importance to the House.
  I have here before me a release from the Chemical Manufacturers 
Association in which this trade association of the businesses which pay 
most of the costs of the Superfund tax are complaining.
  In the beginning it says, nearly three-quarters of all Americans 
believe that money paid to the Federal Government to clean up our 
hazardous waste sites should not be diverted to other Federal programs 
or to help pay for the Federal deficit according to a recent national 
public opinion survey.
  It goes on to discuss whether or not a prohibition for that use 
exists, and it points out, more properly, that no such prohibition does 
exist. Then, Mr. Fred Weber, the president of the Chemical 
Manufacturers Association which sponsored the research, says, and I 
quote now, ``Almost from the very beginning, Superfund has been used by 
the government as a cash cow. This has to stop. Every dollar raised for 
Superfund should be spent on cleanups, not on other programs, and not 
on deficit reduction.''
  That is the thing, I think, with which every Member of this body 
fully agrees. It certainly was the intention of the committees of the 
House, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the 
Committee on Commerce, when we adopted that legislation, that this 
would be a trust fund, it would be protected against being raided for 
such interesting programs as it has been tapped for, for other 
purposes.
  Mr. Weber in his press release goes on to state as follows: ``Nearly 
$3 billion originally intended for cleaning up waste sites has been 
used for deficit reduction and to offset the cost of other Federal 
programs and administrative costs such as at the Environmental 
Protection Agency and at other agencies.
  ``For example, the Congress has used Superfund money to offset the 
costs of developing the Space Station,'' and he goes on to say the fact 
that Superfund money has been used by the government on things other 
than cleaning up waste sites is one of the great untold stories of the 
program.
  It is also one of its greatest outrages, and he goes on to say a 
little later, ``For years the government has collected more money for 
Superfund than it spends. For example, in fiscal year 1994, total 
Superfund receipts were nearly $2.1 billion. However, the Congress 
appropriated only about $1.5 billion for Superfund activities. By 
earmarking the nearly $600 million in excess Superfund collections for 
deficit reduction and for use by other agencies, the Congress avoided 
having to cut spending to meet other budget guidelines.''
  Mr. Chairman, I am telling my colleagues something which is very 
important. Shortly we are going to be considering an amendment which 
will address the question of whether we are going to have new starts 
under Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites now ready. Moneys 
which would normally be available for that activity are not being spent 
here.
  I would like the attention of my dear friend and my respected 
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], on this matter, 
because I am told that the moneys that are being spent for Superfund 
cleanups are General Fund moneys, and the Superfund moneys in the 
Superfund account or trust fund are not, in fact, being so spent.
  In point of fact, we are going to spend a little over a billion 
dollars on cleanup, but we have about $1.6 billion in the trust fund. 
Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman from California tell me whether I am 
correct on that point?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the 
gentleman and say that we are taking all the authority out of Treasury.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I am not talking about my amendment; I am 
asking a question to find out how this money is being spent. I am told 
that we are going to spend a billion for cleanup. We have $1.6 billion 
in Superfund, but we are spending General Fund moneys; is that correct?

[[Page H 8016]]

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, that is rather peculiar, and it is not in 
conformity with the intention of the House and the Senate when they 
passed the original Superfund legislation or the amendments to it, 
because that was supposed to be a trust fund for the cleanup of these 
hazardous waste sites.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has been a 
leader in this field for a long, long time, and as the former 
authorizing committee chairman, he knows full well that Superfund has 
not been reauthorized and so we are operating with a statute that all 
sides agree is in need of major reform. To say the least, there are 
problems with the way the Superfund operates. I would urge the 
authorizing committees to go forward quickly as possible to overcome 
these problems.
  Mr. DINGELL. What the gentleman is telling me is that we are spending 
Superfund moneys for other purposes.
                amendment no. 38 offered by mr. dingell

  Mr. DINGELL. 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. Dingell:
       Page 59, line 23, before ``to remain available'' insert 
     ``(increased by $440,000,000)''.
       Page 64, line 16, after ``$320,000,000'' insert (reduced by 
     $186,450,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and a Member opposed will each be 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment which I offer on behalf of myself 
and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown], my friend and colleague. Mr. 
Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. Without the adoption of this 
amendment, 58 new starts of cleanups of hazardous sites will not be 
begun; there will be, without the adoption of this amendment, no new 
Superfund cleanups started next year.
  The amendment is a very simple one. All it does is put about $400 
million more into Superfund. It takes it out of FEMA. We have it costed 
out very carefully by the Congressional Budget Office. Some 52 Members 
of this body will find that the land, the air, the water, the 
subsurface waters of their districts will continue to be contaminated 
with imminent endangerment to the health, welfare, and environment of 
their people and the districts that they serve.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment 
because, I reiterate, without the adoption of this amendment, there 
will be no new starts under the cleanup program.
  At the appropriate time, Mr. Chairman, I will insert into the Record 
a list including these 58 sites and the areas in which they are 
located.
  Why is the amendment necessary? Because, as reported, the legislation 
contains a harmful reduction in the Superfund program of over $500 
million below the President's budget request and more than $140 million 
below the fiscal year 1995 level.
  Under this greatly reduced funding, progress at many sites will be 
frozen. Many other cleanups will be stopped. No new starts will occur, 
and there will be significant delays in cleanups all throughout the 
programs and throughout the sites in many parts of the country.
  This is going to affect, I reiterate, the air, the water, the 
subsurface water, the soil, the environment and the health of the 
people in the area. This makes no sense. If this amendment is not 
passed, the new sites that are now scheduled for cleanup--and all that 
has to be started is to do the digging and the work of making the 
cleanup move forward--will not start.
  Communities will be denied cleanups that have been promised and in 
many cases contamination of the air, the water, the soil, and the 
subsurface waters especially, will continue to spread, and other 
cleanups further down the pipeline will have to wait even longer.
  From a financial and cost standpoint, stopping these cleanups fits 
the old adage of ``penny wise and pound foolish.'' Spreading 
contamination means ultimately higher cleanup costs, greater risk to 
the health and welfare of the American people. And stopping cleanups 
can harm and hurt economic development as well as the health of the 
people.
  By stopping cleanups ready to go, which will happen unless this 
amendment is adopted, Congress will be breaching faith with the 
citizens who live around these areas and the affected communities.
  The amendment, as I have observed, is outlay neutral, and it should 
be observed that cleaning up and protecting the health and the welfare 
of the American people by good forward on sites now ready to start, 
some 58 of them in districts of Members in every part of this country, 
Republican and Democratic districts alike, is something that we must 
address forthwith. I urge my colleagues that the amendment be adopted.
  Mr. Chairman, let us begin the cleanups on these sites which would 
otherwise be stopped. I remind my colleagues, without this amendment, 
there will be no new starts on cleanup of Superfund sites in the United 
States.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  


                                REMEDIAL CLEANUPS SCHEDULED FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Cong.                                                                               
          State             dist.            Member                     City                    Site name       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MA.......................       03  Peter I. Blute..........  Dartmouth, MA...........  Re-solve Inc.           
MA.......................       05  Martin T. Meehan........  Tyngsborough, MA........  Charles-George          
                                                                                         Reclamation Landfill.  
ME.......................       02  John Baldacci...........  Washburn, ME............  Pinette's Salvage Yard. 
NH.......................       01  Bill Zeliff.............  Kingston, NH............  Ottai and Gross/Kingston
                                                                                         Steel Drum.            
NH.......................       02  Charles Bass............  Milford, NH.............  Savage Well Site.       
NJ.......................       02  Frank LoBiondo..........  Vineland, NJ............  Vineland Chemical Co.   
NJ.......................       03  Jim Saxton..............  Beverly, NJ.............  Cosden Chemical Coatings
                                                                                         Corp.                  
NJ.......................       04  Christopher Smith.......  Roebling, NJ............  Roebling Steel Co.      
NJ.......................       10  Donald Payne............  Orange, NJ..............  U.S. Radium Corp.       
NJ.......................       11  Rodney Frelinghuysen....  Millington, NJ..........  Asbestos Dump.          
NJ.......................       12  Dick Zimmer.............  East Brunswick Township,  Fried Industries.       
                                                               NJ.                                              
NY.......................       04  Daniel Frisa............  Franklin Square, NY.....  Genzale Plating Co.     
PA.......................       06  Tim Holden..............  Worman TWP., Boyetown,    Cryochem Inc.           
                                                               PA.                                              
PA.......................       11  Paul Kanjorski..........  Valley TWP., PA.........  NW Manufacturing Site.  
PA.......................       16  Robert Walker...........  Newlin TWP., PA.........  Strasburg Landfill.     
VA.......................       04  Norman Sisisky..........  Chuchatuck, VA..........  Saunders Supply Co.     
VA.......................       10  Frank Wolf..............  Front Royal, VA.........  Avetx Fibers, Inc.      
WV.......................       02  Robert Wise, Jr.........  Nitro, WV...............  Fike Chemical Inc.      
AL.......................       01  Sonny Callahan..........  Bucks, AL...............  Stauffer Chemical Co.   
                                                                                         (Cold Creek Plant).    
FL.......................       01  Joe Scarborough.........  Pensacola, FL...........  American Creosote Works 
                                                                                         (Pensacola Plant).     
FL.......................       22  E. Clay Shaw, Jr........  Miami, FL...............  Anodyne Site, Inc.      
MI.......................       09  Dale Kildee.............  Pleasant Plains TWP., MI  Wash King Laundry.      
MN.......................       04  Bruce Vento.............  New Brighton, MN........  MacGillis and Gibbs Co./
                                                                                         Bell Lumber and Pole.  
OH.......................       16  Ralph Regula............  Uniontown, OH...........  Industrial Excess LDFL. 
OK.......................       06  Frank Lucas.............  Cyril, OK...............  Oklahoma Refining Co.   
TX.......................       30  Eddie Bernice Johnson...  Dallas, TX..............  RSR Corp.               
NE.......................       03  Bill Barrett............  Hastings, NE............  Hastings Ground Water   
                                                                                         Contamination Site.    
CO.......................       03  Scott McInnis...........  Summitville, CO.........  Summitville Mine Site.  
AZ.......................       01  Matt Salmon.............  Scottsdale, AZ..........  Indian Bend Wash Area.  
NV.......................       02  Barbara Vucanovich......  Moundhouse, NV..........  Carson River Mercury    
                                                                                         Site.                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  

  


                                                                                                                

[[Page H 8017]]
                                 REMOVAL CLEANUPS SCHEDULED FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Cong.                                                                               
          State             dist.            Member                     City                      Site          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ.......................       02  Frank Lobiondo..........  Pedricktown, NJ.........  NL Industries.          
NY.......................       30  Jack Quinn..............  Minetto, NY.............  Columbia Mills          
WV.......................       01  Alan B. Mollohan........  Fairmont, WV............  Fairmont Coke Works.    
VA.......................       03  Robert C. Scott.........  Richmond, VA............  Hymon Viner.            
DE.......................       01  Michael N. Castle.......  New Castle, DE..........  Halby Chemical Co.      
WV.......................       04  Nick J. Rahall II.......  Fairdale, WV............  Holly Hills.            
OH.......................       13  Sherrod Brown...........  Lorain, OH..............  Lorain County Pesticides
                                                                                         Site                   
OH.......................       04  Michael G. Oxley........  Mansfield, OH...........  Lincoln Fields.         
MI.......................       01  Bart Stupak.............  Manistique, MI..........  Manistique River and    
                                                                                         Harbor.                
MI.......................       06  Fred Upton..............  Benton Harbor, MI.......  Benton Harbor.          
IN.......................       03  Timothy J. Roemer.......  Osceola, IN.............  Galen Meyers Site.      
AK.......................       02  Ray Thornton............  Jacksonville, AK........  Vertac.                 
OK.......................       02  Thomas A. Coburn........  Miami, OK...............  Tar Creek (Ottawa       
                                                                                         County).               
TX.......................       02  Charles Wilson..........  Jasper, TX..............  Hart Creosote.          
LA.......................       04  Cleo Fields.............  Bossier City, LA........  Highway 71/71 (Old Citgo
                                                                                         Refinery)              
MO.......................       01  William (Bill) Clay.....  St. Louis, MO...........  East Texas.             
MO.......................       01  William (Bill) Clay.....  St. Louis, MO...........  Dioxin Sites.           
CO.......................       01  Patricia Schroeder......  Denver, CO..............  Ramp Industries.        
UT.......................       03  Bill Orton..............  Magna, UT...............  Kennecott Tailing/North 
                                                                                         Zone (Cobalt Ponds).   
CO.......................       06  Dan Schaefer............  Conifer CO..............  Conifer/Aspen Park      
                                                                                         Carbon Tet.            
UT.......................       03  Bill Orton..............  Midvale, UT.............  Midvale Slag.           
UT.......................       02  Enid Waldholtz..........  Salt Lake City, UT......  Sandy City Smelter      
                                                                                         Residential.           
CO.......................       03  Scott Mcinnis...........  Grand Junction, CO......  Hansen Container.       
WY.......................   At Lrg  Barbara Cubin...........  Lovell, WY..............  Lovell Refinery.        
UT.......................       02  Enid Waldholtz..........  Salt Lake City, UT......  Butterfield Lumber.     
AZ.......................       01  Matt Salmon.............  Tempe, AR...............  Saunders Aviation.      
CA.......................       01  Frank Riggs.............  Clear Lake, CA..........  Sulpher Bank.           
CA.......................       25  Howard P. McKeon........  Los Angeles, CA.........  Superchrome.            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
the amendment of my colleague. Mr. Chairman, just for the record, the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] mentions that there will be no 
new sites, and he mentions, specifically, 58 sites that will not be 
moving toward construction if we do not move forward with this 
amendment, and the volume of money that is involved here.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the gentleman that it would have 
helped the process an awful lot if over the last several years we had 
gone about reauthorizing and fixing Superfund. The Secretary herself, 
testifying before my subcommittee, said that Superfund absolutely needs 
to be fixed. It is broken. Indeed, there is a long process with those 
15 sites. They have to go through a record of decision. There is 
environmental impact analysis to be done. There is no question that 
there is need for money, but why should we throw good money after bad 
if the program is not fixed by the authorizing committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio. [Mr. 
Oxley].
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the 
amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan.
  As the chairman of the primary subcommittee in charge of reforming 
the Superfund program, I also wanted increased funding for Superfund. 
I, along with the gentleman from Virgina, Chairman Bliley, and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Shuster, wrote to Chairman Lewis 
and requested funding for the Superfund program that reflected fiscal 
year 1995's appropriation. Unfortunately, the Appropriations Committee 
simply could not provide that level of funding. While that makes my job 
of reforming the Superfund program more difficult, the appropriators' 
rationale is a sound one--that we can no longer afford to waste money 
on a Superfund program which simply doesn't work.
  If you are under the impression that Superfund works well, we need 
only to look at the case of Southern Foundry Supply Co., a family-owned 
business located in Chattanooga, TN. As shown on this chart, EPA spent 
approximately $1.3 million studying the site. Southern Foundry was 
forced to spend an additional $500,000 in attorneys' fees and in 
conducting its own studies. Some 15 years and $2 million later, 
Southern Foundry escaped the Superfund web by spending $38,000 and 2 
days scooping up nonhazardous dirt and shipping it offsite. It is a 
perfect example of how Superfund works--millions for lawyers and 
consultants but little for actual cleanup. It's no wonder that the 
Appropriations Committee doesn't think that this program should 
continue without significant reform.
  I think it is vitally important that we are clear about what the 
Appropriations Committee is doing in this bill. Realizing that we will 
have limited funds now and into the future, the appropriators have said 
that we can no longer afford to throw away money on ineffective 
cleanups and endless litigation. They have said that EPA should wait 
until Congress reforms this program before they go forward with any 
more flawed remedies or make the Federal Government responsible for any 
new sites. And, frankly, I agree.
  Superfund's track record speaks for itself: since the program was 
enacted in 1980, only 75 sites have been cleaned up at a cost to the 
Federal Government of more than $15 billion.
  What many of my colleagues fail to realize is that the appropriations 
bill before us actually spends more on cleanup than EPA has in the 
past. In this bill, nearly 65 percent of the funds are directed to 
cleanup. Even though EPA claims that as much as 70 percent of Superfund 
dollars are for cleanup, my subcommittee found that less than 50 
percent of that money ends up being spent on Superfund sites. What is 
reduced in this bill is EPA bureaucrats and Justice Department lawyers.
  This appropriations bill is the natural predecessor to my 
subcommittee's reform effort. It redirects funds to cleanup, and 
imposed a deadline on the Congress and the administration for reforming 
the Superfund program. If we can't make this program work by the end of 
the year, then the American people are better off without it.
  If we leave the status quo intact, who wins? Not the environment; not 
the people who live near these sites; certainly not the American 
taxpayer. A little more money won't help this program clean up more 
sites or make Americans any safer, particularly when shifting that 
money from FEMA will leave our citizens more exposed to the ravages of 
disasters, both natural and manmade. The only thing that can make 
Superfund more effective in protecting our citizens' health is top to 
bottom reform, and the bill we are debating today is the first step in 
that effort. The authorizing committee will totally change the 
Superfund program for the better. The authorizing committee will take 
the next step this fall.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Dingell-Brown amendment and 
support the bill as is on final passage.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  My good friend from Ohio, for whom I have the most enormous respect, 
sent a letter to the appropriating subcommittee, which I will insert 
the entirety of in the Record because I know the gentleman has 
forgotten sending the letter, in which the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Oxley], the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Bliley], and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], and this 
letter written to you, to my good friend, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Lewis], ``Therefore, we respectfully request that you include in 
your subcommittee mark of the VA- 

[[Page H 8018]]

HUD appropriations bill an appropriation for the Superfund program of 
at least $1.5 billion in new budgetary authority,'' quite different 
from what my friend from Ohio tells us today.
  I would also remind my good friend from Ohio that last year, out of 
the Committee on Commerce came a bill passed 44 to nothing which was 
endorsed and supported by the administration, by industry, by the 
environmentalists and by everybody on the committee. It has been 
reintroduced by the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] and me, and 
lies in the gentleman's subcommittee.
                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, June 20, 1995.
     Hon. Jerry Lewis,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on VA-HUD and Independent Agencies, 
         Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
       Dear Jerry: As you know, the authorization of 
     appropriations for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation and Liability Act (``CERCLA''), commonly known 
     as Superfund, expired at the end of fiscal year 1994, and the 
     program has been operating without an authorization since 
     then. The various committees of jurisdiction have tried 
     unsuccessfully for years to make Superfund into a program 
     that achieves the goal of protection of human health and the 
     environment. We intend to reverse that failed record this 
     year by reforming Superfund to make it fairer, cheaper, and 
     more effective.
       We are writing to request your assistance in rebuilding 
     this broken program from the bottom up. We want to ensure 
     that Superfund is actually protecting Amercians from the 
     hazards of toxic waste and not just financing another 
     generation of lawyers at the expense of the taxpayers. To do 
     that, we need a program focusing on finding cost effective 
     solutions to hazards rather than on assessing blame and 
     raising funds.
       At the heart of the Superfund ``blame game'' is the system 
     of strict, joint and several, and retroactive liability. If 
     we, the authorizing committees, are to reform this program 
     and get Superfund out of the courts and onto these sites, 
     then we must comprehensively reform the current Superfund 
     liability system, including a repeal of retroactive 
     liability. In order to do that and still ensure that truly 
     hazardous sites are being cleared up, we must have the 
     maximum funding possible for fiscal year 1996 and into the 
     future.
       Therefore, we respectfully request that you include in your 
     Subcommittee mark of the VA-HUD Appropriations bill an 
     appropriation for the Superfund program of at least $1.5 
     billion in new budget authority. This amount is consistent 
     with funding levels for previous years, and is necessary to 
     ensure that we have the operating funds necessary in the 
     first years of the reformed program. We are open to working 
     with you on reprogramming funds within Superfund to ensure 
     that this year's program is consistent with the goals we have 
     set forth for our reform effort.
       There is broad consensus that Superfund is a broken program 
     in need of immediate fixing. If we cannot achieve the kind of 
     meaningful, comprehensive reform of CERCLA that all of us 
     believe is necessary--and which prior Congresses have been 
     unable to deliver--this is a program which simply should not 
     be continued. Accordingly, we also ask that you make the 
     availability of appropriations for Superfund beyond December 
     31, 1995 contingent upon the enactment of CERCLA's 
     reauthorization. We believe the program should be terminated 
     if we cannot pass a Superfund reform worthy of being signed 
     into law.
       Thank you for considering our views. We stand ready to work 
     with you to reach a consensus on a reform package allowing us 
     to achieve the kinds of fundamental reforms necessary while 
     fulfilling our common goal of a balanced budget.
           Sincerely,
     Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.,
     Bud Shuster,
     Michael G. Oxley.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley].
  Mr. OXLEY. Let me point out, I pointed out in my response about that 
letter; I referenced the fact that Chairman Bliley, Chairman Shuster, 
and I sent a letter to the gentleman from California in my remarks and 
recognize that they have a job to do as well, and they recognize that 
the program as it is now constituted is simply not working.
  And so they said to us, ``Look, you get your act together, get a good 
bill passed, and we will reconsider the kind of money that will be 
available in the Superfund Program.'' I think that is entirely, 
entirely reasonable.
  As a matter of fact, the bill that the gentleman from Michigan 
referred to we all worked very hard on, did not pass.
  Mr. DINGELL. The Republicans killed it.
  Mr. OXLEY. Right. If you recall, the last time I looked in the 103d 
Congress, the Democrats were in control. We were not able to kill 
anything.
  The fact is this bill will pass this year and will be a major reform 
of the Superfund Program. We will keep faith with the appropriators, 
keep faith with the American people, we will keep faith with the 
environment. I am entirely confident that will be the case.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I might mention at the tail end of that discussion 
between the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] that we are allocated only so many dollars within 
our bill, very difficult dollars to stretch among these various 
accounts.
  This specific proposal would be a budget buster insofar as our bill 
is concerned. We are talking about approximately $89 million in outlay. 
We would be short if this amendment were to become law.
  I strongly urge the membership to refuse this additional allocation 
and recognize the bill does have to stay within its outlay targets.
  I ask for a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown].
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], in 
large part because there will not be one new started cleanup, not one 
new cleanup if this amendment does not pass.
  This amendment ensures 55 important projects currently slated to 
begin in fiscal year 1996 can go forward. It is fully funded through an 
offset in funding for FEMA, which currently holds nearly $1.8 billion 
in unobligated funds.
  In Elyria, Ohio, in my district, hundreds of homes and businesses 
have been affected by application of methyl parathion, a toxic 
pesticide which can damage the central nervous system and the brain. 
This pesticide was illegally applied by an unlicensed exterminator, 
affecting many Ohio communities.
  Short-term effects of exposure to methyl parathion include headache, 
vomiting, lung damage, mental disorder, coma, paralysis, heart failure, 
and even death. As little as a teaspoon can cause serious illness, 
especially in children or elderly who are particularly vulnerable.
  This cleanup in Elyria is ongoing. As of June 10, 105 units were 
decontaminated, 75 residential homes restored, 430 residents were 
temporarily relocated, and 225 returned to their homes.
  But these numbers represent only 50 percent of what needs to be done. 
Contaminated homes are still being identified. The situation is dire in 
Lorain County and needs continued attention.
  This is only one example of the 55 sites which would be restored by 
this amendment, and I repeat what the gentleman from Michigan said, 
that if this amendment does not pass, none of these cleanups will 
begin.
  Certainly we must reform Superfund to ensure that it cleans up more 
sites rather than continuing to line lawyers' pockets, but the projects 
that will be eliminated by cutting funding included in this bill pose 
an imminent threat to the health of human beings in our communities.
  This is the very goal, obviously, for which Superfund was created. 
The funding cut will halt the progress that we have made. It will tie 
the hands of the EPA. It will punish residents in Lorain County, Ohio, 
and 54 other communities, including one in Richland County in the 
district of my friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley].
  Furthermore, the longer we wait the more expensive the cleanup will 
become. As pesticide leaches into ground water, rivers, streams, and 
contamination spreads, cleanup costs will only increase.
  The language of the report accompanying H.R. 2099 seems to say that 
it is OK to finish studies but not to design the remedy. It is OK to 
finish the design but not to proceed with cleanup. It is OK to prohibit 
EPA from overseeing cleanups being undertaken by private, responsible 
parties, and it is OK for Congress to tell our communities that we will 
just have to wait indefinitely for this cleanup.
  Mr. Chairman, this is wrong. It is not OK to ask our communities to 
wait for us to address the toxic chemicals that 
 
[[Page H 8019]]

contaminate our homes and schools and businesses.
  The Dingell amendment simply makes sense so our communities do not 
have to wait for this cleanup.
  If the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] would engage briefly in 
a colloguy, is it correct, I ask the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Dingell], whether State cleanup managers of the 50 States strongly 
support this amendment restoring cleanup money now for fiscal year 
1996?
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. DINGELL. The answer to the question is ``yes,'' and I have a 
letter on that point which we will insert in the Record at the 
appropriate time.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. It is my understanding these same managers in the 
50 States have said that overall costs will increase if we do not pass 
this amendment, that contamination, if unabated, could spread, and that 
most important, surrounding communities will continue to be subjected 
to health risks posed from these sites. Is my understanding correct?
  Mr. DINGELL. If the gentleman will yield further, that is correct, 
and these are Superfund sites, because they have been chosen under the 
criteria as areas and as contamination sources which impose imminent 
endangerment upon the public health in the area.
         Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste 
           Management Officials,
                                    Washington, DC, July 26, 1995.
     Hon. John D. Dingell,
     Ranking Member, House Commerce Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Dingell: I am writing on behalf of the 
     Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management 
     Officials (ASTSWMO), whose membership includes the State 
     cleanup program managers. Our members are engaged in the day-
     to-day remediation of sites throughout the country and 
     therefore have a fundamental interest in ensuring the 
     Superfund program is adequately funded. The purpose of this 
     letter is to communicate our strong support for your 
     amendment to H.R. 2099 restoring $440 million to the 
     Superfund budget.
       After 15 years of experience with the Superfund program, 
     many NPL sites are now in the remedial design and 
     construction phase. Delaying site progress at this stage will 
     have far reaching impacts, i.e., the overall costs associated 
     with these sites will increase; contamination, if left 
     unabated, could spread; and most importantly, surrounding 
     communities will continue to be subjected to health risks 
     posed from these sites. We believe an expectation has been 
     created in the minds of the American public that no matter 
     where one lives or what economic class one belongs to, human 
     health will be protected. As we understand, your amendment 
     will allow at least fifty-five (55) remedial and removal 
     actions to proceed uninterrupted.
       While the federal Superfund program is directly responsible 
     for ensuring the remediation of approximately 1300 NPL sites, 
     it can also be credited with indirectly spurring the growth 
     of over 20 State Voluntary cleanup programs and over 40 State 
     Superfund programs. As of 1992 State programs have remediated 
     2,689 sites and are currently working on an additional 11,000 
     active sites. The Federal Superfund program provides the 
     backbone for these cleanups and must be sufficiently funded.
       State Waste Officials thank you for your support.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Teresa D. Hay,
                                                        President.

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I again ask for support of the Dingell amendment. 
Fifty-five sites will not be cleaned up if this amendment does not 
pass.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished 
friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta].
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the Dingell 
amendment to restore funding for the Superfund hazardous waste cleanup 
program.
  What is the major complaint heard year after year about the Superfund 
program? Not enough cleanup, not enough shovels in the ground. Well, 
EPA heard those criticisms and rearranged the priorities of the 
Superfund program to assure the maximum amount of cleanup with the 
minimum amount of delay. Now, as EPA is continuing to increase the 
number of cleanups, the Appropriations Committee decides to refuse to 
fund those cleanups.
  This is not what is in the best interests of the Superfund program. 
And, it clearly is not what is the best interests of the people living 
in the vicinity of the 58 sites which will receive no cleanup should 
the Dingell amendment fail.
  There is no valid reason to hold back on the cleanup of these sites 
just because you believe, as we all do, that the Superfund program 
needs reform. The cleanups which would be restored by the Dingell 
amendment are EPA cleanup sites. They are sites at which the Superfund 
program is providing the funding for cleanup. These are not sites which 
would be affected by any change in the liability mechanism of 
Superfund.
  Congress may or may not determine to alter the liability mechanism of 
Superfund. But, liability is not an issue in the cleanup of these 58 
sites. These are EPA-led sites where there is no private party 
involvement. Congress can repeal the liability mechanism, retain it, or 
adopt a compromise--it will not matter to the cleanup of these sites. 
What will matter is whether EPA is allowed the resources to initiate 
cleanup action on these sites.
  Failure to initiate cleanup at these sites poses a serious health 
threat to those who live nearby. Twenty-five of these sites are 
scheduled removal actions. Removal actions are only undertaken as 
short-term responses where there is a public health threat which needs 
to be abated. Without the Dingell amendment, some 25 sites, in 19 
States, and in 22 congressional districts, will not receive attention 
next year, yet the health threat will remain.
  An additional 30 sites are scheduled for remedial actions. Again, 
this bill will prevent the cleanup of sites in 19 States, and in 30 
congressional districts. Superfund reform is supposed to be in the name 
of getting on which cleanups, yet when EPA proposes to move forward on 
cleanups, EPA is told it cannot have the resources to do so.
  I question whether the Republican leadership is serious about 
Superfund reform. As we debate this bill in July, there is but one 
comprehensive reform bill pending before the Congress--H.R. 228, which 
was introduced on the first day of the session by Mr. Dingell and 
myself. Now, 7 months into the Congress, there is not one comprehensive 
reform bill pending from the majority party. At the same time, the 
Appropriations Committee has determined that Superfund will be shut 
down entirely should reform not occur before the end of this year.
  Why the delay? The bill Mr. Dingell and I introduced from last year 
had the support of organizations such as NFIB, CMA, the U.S. Conference 
of Mayors, the American Bankers Association, several environmental 
groups, and the administration. But, there has been no action. There is 
not even anything scheduled toward enacting reform.
  If the majority wants Superfund reform, pass H.R. 228, but don't kill 
the program while awaiting reform. There has been a reasonable, 
responsible proposal before the House for over 6 months, let's get on 
with it.
  Let's also get on with cleanups which are ready to go--support the 
Dingell amendment.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains to me?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to try to summarize this very briefly, and I do 
so with great respect to the chairman of the subcommittee, also the 
chairman of the legislative subcommittee.
  The issue before us is very simple. The gentleman is going to 
conclude; all I am going to do is use 1 minute.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, out of respect for my 
colleague from California and my chairman, especially my colleague's 
mother-in-law, I will be happy to yield a couple more minutes to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful. I do not think we need it, 
but I want to thank my good friend.
  There is one bill pending, but that bill will not be enacted this 
year because it is only going to come up in September, and we are going 
to be very busy during the month of September. What this failure to 
adopt this amendment will do to us is it will mean that committees will 
be dawdling while the country is afflicted with some 58 sites which are 
decided already to be imminently dangerous to the public health 
 
[[Page H 8020]]

welfare and to the environment. There will be no cleanup, there will be 
no new starts. Pollution of ground water, air, soil, and surface water 
will continue unabated. How many Americans will have to die because we 
do not address this? How many will get cancer? How many will suffer 
health failures and health problems because of this failure? There are 
some 52 congressional districts and some 58 sites involved here.
  I plead with my colleagues, and I say this with respect to my good 
friends on the Republican side, let us clean up these sites, let us 
spend the money, let us do what has to be done now. The money is here. 
The appropriations arrangement will move the money from where it is not 
needed to where it is, and we can begin to address an imminent problem 
immediately affecting the health and the well-being of American people 
in some 19 States and in some 58 areas.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not as though this program is not funded in our 
bill. We do provide for an additional billion dollars, and I know that 
there are those who suggest that there is a need for more. But I must 
say to my colleagues in the House that one of the objectives here is to 
put pressure on the entire process, perhaps even get the other body to 
respond to the authorizing process. Unless this program is reformed, 
there is something fundamentally wrong with his continuing to throw 
money at it without that basic reform. I 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 Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  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.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July 
27, 1995, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments to title III?
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. STUDDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, there is a disturbing provision in this 
bill that deserves to be brought to the attention of my colleagues. For 
some inexplicable reason, the committee has included $1 million for the 
Council on Environmental Quality [CEQ] to terminate the programs and 
activities of the National Environmental Policy Act and to close the 
Council's doors.
  The establishment of CEQ occurred at a time when we were just 
beginning to understand that major activities of the Federal Government 
can, and frequently do, have significant impacts on the environment. 
Today, thanks in part to NEPA and CEQ, we understand that a through 
examination of the impacts of our actions is critical to balancing 
economics and environmental protection.
  I cannot understand why this body would want to shut down CEQ. The 
Council has a long and distinguished bipartisan history going back 25 
years to the Nixon administration. Former Under Secretary of the 
Interior for President Nixon, Russell Train, and the former Republican 
Governor of Delaware, Russell Peterson, were the first two chairmen of 
CEQ--and to this day, both believe that the enactment of NEPA, with its 
concurrent establishment of CEQ, is the most significant environmental 
law passed in the last quarter century.
  NEPA is not about controlling development, limiting growth, or 
fostering preservation. NEPA is about ensuring balance in Federal 
decisionmaking. It is the law that first opened up Federal 
decisionmaking to citizen involvement. For those of my colleagues who 
are suspicious of the big, bad Federal bureaucracy, may I remind you 
that it is NEPA which ensures that State and local governments and your 
affected constituents have an opportunity to make their views known to 
a Federal agency proposing to undertake a particular action in their 
backyard?
  The committee's report on this bill points to the need for increased 
coordination in implementing environmental policy within the executive 
branch. Then, without any apparent explanation, the recommendation is 
made to get rid of CEQ. I also have serious concerns about the 
ambiguity in the language,
 which could be construed as an attempt to repeal NEPA itself, although 
I do not believe that was the committee's intention.

  I do not intend to press this matter further at this time, although 
I'm convinced that this provision makes an already bad bill even worse. 
But I would say to the gentleman from California, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, that I and others from this side of the aisle are very 
concerned about this, and would like the opportunity to discuss the 
issue with you prior to your conference with the Senate.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not use the full 5 minutes. I have repeatedly 
expressed my great respect and affection for the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis], and I again do so at this time because he is a 
very fine person and a very valuable Member of this body. I do rise, as 
has the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds], to express concern 
about the fact that funds for the Council on Environmental Quality have 
been stricken from the bill.
  When the Congress adopted the basic legislation, the National 
Environmental Policy Act, years ago, as a matter of fact some 30 years 
ago, it was our purpose to set up one agency inside the Office of the 
President. The function of that agency would be to advise the President 
on environmental matters, to serve as a clearinghouse on environmental 
matters and concerns, to see to it that the differing and diverse 
policies of the Federal Government on the area of environment were knit 
together in something of a better unitary whole than that which had 
been done before. We found that the Council on Environmental Quality 
over the years has done so, and it is an agency which is small in 
number and which is low in budget, but which nevertheless has 
contributed enormously by seeing to it that different policies on the 
environment adopted by different agencies inside the Federal Government 
are rationalized, are harmonized, and that the agencies talk together 
and work together to resolve differences so we can have coherence 
rather than cacophony.
  I am deeply troubled that these monies have been stricken almost in 
their entirety. I do urge my colleague, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, to try and do something to get this money back in here or 
at least a little because the agency serves an enormously valuable 
purpose. Without it there will be no coherence in the environmental 
policies of the United States, and I think that that would be a 
calamity.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments the 
gentleman is making regarding CEQ. I really thought it would be 
appropriate to refer to the language that is in the report regarding 
this matter, for we agree, the committee agrees, that the work of CEQ 
in many ways has been very valuable, but we go on to say that the 
committee is nevertheless concerned that greater oversight and 
coordination of environmental policy and actions of the many Federal 
departments and agencies is necessary. Far too often environmental 
policy, as articulated by the White House, bears no relationship to the 
actual implementation of that policy. It is our concern, and frankly I 
will say to the gentleman that between now and conference I would hope 
to look with great care as to what continuing contributions CEQ could 
make.
  Mr. DINGELL. I certainly hope so, because I observe to my good friend 
that this has been the Agency which has rendered coherent the policies 
of the Federal Government on the environment, and without it and 
without this money I do not think we could look forward to the same 
process being as successful as it has been heretofore.
 
[[Page H 8021]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?
  The Clerk will designate title IV.
  The text of title IV is as follows:

                                TITLE IV

                              CORPORATIONS

       Corporations and agencies of the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development which are subject to the Government 
     Corporation Control Act, as amended, are hereby authorized to 
     make such expenditures, within the limits of funds and 
     borrowing authority available to each such corporation or 
     agency and in accord with law, and to make such contracts and 
     commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as 
     provided by section 104 of the Act as may be necessary in 
     carrying out the programs set forth in the budget for 1996 
     for such corporation or agency except as hereinafter 
     provided: Provided, That collections of these corporations 
     and agencies may be used for new loan or mortgage purchase 
     commitments only to the extent expressly provided for in this 
     Act (unless such loans are in support of other forms of 
     assistance provided for in this or prior appropriations 
     Acts), except that this proviso shall not apply to the 
     mortgage insurance or guaranty operations of these 
     corporations, or where loans or mortgage purchases are 
     necessary to protect the financial interest of the United 
     States Government.

                      Resolution Trust Corporation


                      office of inspection general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended $11,400,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title IV?
  The Clerk will designate title V.
  The text of title V is as follows:

                                TITLE V

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Section 501. Where appropriations in titles I, II, and III 
     of this Act are expendable for travel expenses and no 
     specific limitation has been placed thereon, the expenditures 
     for such travel expenses may not exceed the amounts set forth 
     therefor in the budget estimates submitted for the 
     appropriations: Provided, That this section shall not apply 
     to travel performed by uncompensated officials of local 
     boards and appeal boards of the Selective Service System; to 
     travel performed directly in connection with care and 
     treatment of medical beneficiaries of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs; to travel performed in connection with 
     major disasters or emergencies declared or determined by the 
     President under the provisions of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; to travel 
     performed by the Offices of Inspector General in connection 
     with audits and investigations; or to payments to interagency 
     motor pools where separately set forth in the budget 
     schedules: Provided further, That if appropriations in titles 
     I, II, and III exceed the amounts set forth in budget 
     estimates initially submitted for such appropriations, the 
     expenditures for travel may correspondingly exceed the 
     amounts therefor set forth in the estimates in the same 
     proportion.
       Sec. 502. Appropriations and funds available for the 
     administrative expenses of the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development and the Selective Service System shall be 
     available in the current fiscal year for purchase of 
     uniforms, or allowances therefor, as authorized by law (5 
     U.S.C. 5901-5902); hire of passenger motor vehicles; and 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
       Sec. 503. Funds of the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development subject to the Government Corporation Control Act 
     or section 402 of the Housing Act of 1950 shall be available, 
     without regard to the limitations on administrative expenses, 
     for legal services on a contract or fee basis, and for 
     utilizing and making payment for services and facilities of 
     Federal National Mortgage Association, Government National 
     Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, 
     Federal Financing Bank, Resolution Trust Corporation, Federal 
     Reserve banks or any member thereof, Federal Home Loan banks, 
     and any insured bank within the meaning of the Federal 
     Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, as amended (12 U.S.C. 
     1811-1831).
       Sec. 504. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 505. No funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     expended--
       (1) pursuant to a certification of an officer or employee 
     of the United States unless--
       (A) such certification is accompanied by, or is part of, a 
     voucher or abstract which describes the payee or payees and 
     the items or services for which such expenditure is being 
     made, or
       (B) the expenditure of funds pursuant to such 
     certification, and without such a voucher or abstract, is 
     specifically authorized by law; and
       (2) unless such expenditure is subject to audit by the 
     General Accounting Office or is specifically exempt by law 
     from such audit.
       Sec. 506. None of the funds provided in this Act to any 
     department or agency may be expended for the transportation 
     of any officer or employee of such department
      or agency between his domicile and his place of employment, 
     with the exception of any officer or employee authorized 
     such transportation under title 31, United States Code, 
     section 1344.
       Sec. 507. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used for payment, through grants or contracts, to recipients 
     that do not share in the cost of conducting research 
     resulting from proposals not specifically solicited by the 
     Government: Provided, That the extent of cost sharing by the 
     recipient shall reflect the mutuality of interest of the 
     grantee or contractor and the Government in the research.
       Sec. 508. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used, directly or through grants, to pay or to provide 
     reimbursement for payment of the salary of a consultant 
     (whether retained by the Federal Government or a grantee) at 
     more than the daily equivalent of the rate paid for Level IV 
     of the Executive Schedule, unless specifically authorized by 
     law.
       Sec. 509. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to 
     pay the expenses of, or otherwise compensate, non-Federal 
     parties intervening in regulatory or adjudicatory 
     proceedings. Nothing herein affects the authority of the 
     Consumer Product Safety Commission pursuant to section 7 of 
     the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056 et seq.).
       Sec. 510. Except as otherwise provided under existing law 
     or under an existing Executive order issued pursuant to an 
     existing law, the obligation or expenditure of any 
     appropriation under this Act for contracts for any consulting 
     service shall be limited to contracts which are (1) a matter 
     of public record and available for public inspection, and (2) 
     thereafter included in a publicly available list of all 
     contracts entered into within twenty-four months prior to the 
     date on which the list is made available to the public and of 
     all contracts on which performance has not been completed by 
     such date. The list required by the preceding sentence shall 
     be updated quarterly and shall include a narrative 
     description of the work to be performed under each such 
     contract.
       Sec. 511. Except as otherwise provided by law, no part of 
     any appropriation contained in this Act shall be obligated or 
     expended by any executive agency, as referred to in the 
     Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 et 
     seq.) for a contract for services unless such executive 
     agency (1) has awarded and entered into such contract in full 
     compliance with such Act and the regulations promulgated 
     thereunder, and (2) requires any report prepared pursuant to 
     such contract, including plans, evaluations, studies, 
     analyses and manuals, and any report prepared by the agency 
     which is substantially derived from or substantially includes 
     any report prepared pursuant to such contract, to contain 
     information concerning (A) the contract pursuant to which the 
     report was prepared, and (B) the contractor who prepared the 
     report pursuant to such contract.
       Sec. 512. Except as otherwise provided in section 506, none 
     of the funds provided in this Act to any department or agency 
     shall be obligated or expended to provide a personal cook, 
     chauffeur, or other personal servants to any officer or 
     employee of such department or agency.
       Sec. 513. None of the funds provided in this Act to any 
     department or agency shall be obligated or expended to 
     procure passenger automobiles as defined in 15 U.S.C. 2001 
     with an EPA estimated miles per gallon average of less than 
     22 miles per gallon.
       Sec. 514. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
     1996 pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be 
     absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
       Sec. 515. None of the funds appropriated in title I of this 
     Act shall be used to enter into any new lease of real 
     property if the estimated annual rental is more than $300,000 
     unless the Secretary submits, in writing, a report to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Congress and a period of 
     30 days has expired following the date on which the report is 
     received by the Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 516. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and 
     Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products 
     purchased with funds made available in this Act should be 
     American-made.
       (b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance 
     to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using 
     funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal 
     agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to 
     such entity a notice describing the statement made in 
     subsection (a) by the Congress.
       Sec. 517. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     used to implement any cap on reimbursements to grantees for 
     indirect costs, except as published in Office of Management 
     and Budget Circular A-21.
       Sec. 518. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for any program, project, or activity, when it is 
     made known to the Federal entity or official to which the 
     funds are made available that the program, project, or 
     activity is not in compliance with any Federal law relating 
     to risk assessment, the protection of private property 
     rights, or unfunded mandates.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title V?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, we communicated a good deal of this in the initial 
stages of the bill, but I would like to have the Members know one more 
time just how 

[[Page H 8022]]
much I appreciate the very, very positive and constructive working 
relationship that I have had with my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Stokes]. He was my chairman during the last Congress. His 
friendship is very important to me, and I must say that during this 
process of transition, working together has been extremely positive in 
spite of the fact that the shift in policy direction is not necessarily 
always to the agreement of the gentleman. He has been willing to 
communicate at every step of the way and has been very cooperative and 
helpful in the process, and I appreciate that.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. STOKES. I would like to say how much I appreciate the comments of 
the chairman of the subcommittee, and I would just like to say in 
return that working with the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] has 
been one of the most enriching experiences of my career here in the 
Congress, and I think I said this on other occasions, but I reiterate 
it here again, that notwithstanding whatever philosophical changes or 
difference now exist as a result of the majority changing in this 
Congress, working with the gentleman from California has been an 
experience which has meant a great deal to me. I have enjoyed 
cooperating and working with him, and while we have changed 
chairmanships, from myself over to him, I do want him to know that I 
have enjoyed working very closely with him and look forward to a 
continued personal relationship of the kind that we have had.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman 
very much.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, I have an amendment that is 
currently filed at the desk that would bar the Federal Government from 
making any per diem payments to a State veterans administration nursing 
home if that nursing home has undergone privatization which results in 
the diminution of services or care to the veterans, the quality of 
their health care, or quality of life. It is my understanding, Mr. 
Chairman, that in your judgment the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
currently has this authority and would indeed be required under current 
law to bar per diem payments to any State nursing home who sees a 
decline in the quality of care following a privatization of services.

                              {time}  1515

  Since in your judgment, Mr. Chairman, this authority is already 
vested in the department, I assume it is your judgment that it would be 
unnecessary for the House to reaffirm this authority.
  Because we share a concern with a possible privatization in the 
district of the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], but in the 
county which we jointly represent, I would like at this time, Mr. 
Chairman, to yield to Mrs. Roukema.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, actually I wanted to hear from the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], his observations regarding our 
understanding concerning the existing legislation that controls this 
issue.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding the 
intent of the gentleman's amendment is already existent in current law, 
and the Department of Veterans Affairs has the legal authority to 
withhold these payments if the concerns that the gentleman has made 
come to fruition.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, if the privatization of a Federal-State 
nursing home were to happen, and the concerns I enumerated, such as a 
decrease in the number of nurses or other tangible signs of a decrease 
in the quality of care provided to the veterans would occur, the 
Federal Government has the legal authority to withhold per diem 
payments to that facility.
  Mr. Chairman, the concurrence of the gentleman from California, 
Chairman Lewis, with this judgment and his commitment to work with me 
and the gentlewoman from New Jersey, Mrs. Roukema, to require that the 
VA take this action seriously, is extremely important. I take from the 
gentleman's comments, Mr. Chairman, that indeed is the belief and 
commitment of the gentleman of California [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, 
my colleagues from the committee have my commitment.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. If the gentleman would yield further, I certainly 
appreciate the assurance of the gentleman from California, Chairman 
Lewis, and would like to make some important observations of my own.
  Mr. Chairman, over the last few days I have conducted extensive 
research on Mr. Torricelli's amendment. We have confirmed several key 
points:
  Whether our Paramus home is operated by State employees, private 
contractors or some combination of the two, one thing is clear: 
Responsibility for the quality of care at the home will not change.
  It rests with the New Jersey Commissioner for Veterans Affairs as 
monitored by the New Jersey Department of Health and enforced by the 
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA's quality assurance 
program, as outlined in subchapter 5 of chapter 17 of title 38 of the 
United States Code, includes precise standards on both the range and 
the quality of care and--this is critical--an enforcement regime.
  Throughout the State's privatization study, I have expressed serious 
reservations. In fact, based on recent bids, I believe this proposal 
will not go forward.
  Our State commissioner of veterans affairs, Gen. Paul Glazer sat in 
my office last Wednesday and pledged that the quality of care will not 
be diminished whether services are contracted out or not. I know that 
to be his commitment, the Governor's commitment and the New Jersey 
legislatures.
  Mr. Chairman, when it comes to our veterans, we cannot ignore our 
sacred commitment to protect them in their time of need, just as they 
served us in our time of need. We must preserve, protect and enhance 
the quality of care at the veterans' health care facilities around the 
country, including our veterans' memorial home at Paramus.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman will yield further, I 
appreciate my colleagues bringing this matter to my attention. I assure 
both Members we will continue to work with them. If our good offices 
will help open the channels of communication with the Department of 
Veterans Affairs, we are happy to be of service.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the gentleman from California. The 
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] joined with me in this, and 
the bipartisan leadership of the New Jersey legislature, to assure that 
we will watch the Paramus Nursing Home, the quality of its care, the 
numbers of nurses, the quality of the food, to ensure that these 
people, who served our country so well, are not jeopardized.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not ask for my amendment.
  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. 
Porter) 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.

                          ____________________