[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 125 (Monday, July 31, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H8031-H8034]
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} 1803
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 earlier today,
title V was open for amendment at any point.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Ensign
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Ensign: Page 87, after line 25,
insert the following:
Sec. 519. The amount otherwise provided in title I of this
Act for ``DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS--Veterans Health
Administration--medical care'', the amount otherwise provided
in title III of this Act for ``National Aeronautics and Space
Administration--human space flight'', and the amount
otherwise provided in title III of this Act for ``National
Science Foundation--research and related activities'' are,
respectively, increased to a total of $16,961,000,000,
reduced by $89,500,000, and reduced by $235,000,000.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for a
time limitation of 15 minutes total split equally between the two sides
on the Ensign amendment and all amendments thereto.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] will be
recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized
for 7\1/2\ minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign].
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I offer my amendment to ensure that we keep the
promises made to our veterans. The Ensign amendment is about the
contract with those who have served our Nation honorably without
fundamentally altering the priorities set forth in the bill before us
today.
First, I want to commend the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Lewis,
for making tough choices. In most instances, the VA/HUD subcommittee
has accommodated or exceeded the President's requested funding levels
in veterans programs such as compensation and pensions, readjustment
benefits, and extended care facility grants.
[[Page H 8032]]
H.R. 2099 recognizes the invaluable contribution veterans have made to
our national security, and in turn, extends security to those in time
of need.
Although I appreciate the fact that this measure meets or exceeds the
President's request in several accounts, I must respectfully take issue
with the funding level included in H.R. 2099 for the Veterans Health
Administration's medical care account. Even though the bill contains a
$499 million increase in VA medical care over last year's level, the
President requested a higher level of $16.96 billion in fiscal year
1996 for veterans medical care. The higher level is needed to provide
high quality health care services to all veterans expected to seek care
in 1996.
Even with the adoption of the manager's amendment, a $184 million gap
still exists between the President's VA health care request and the
recommended appropriation of $16.77 billion. I am concerned that this
disparity will deprive veterans of the care that they so desperately
need.
My amendment would close the $184 million veterans medical care gap
and still provide approximately $2 million in savings which could be
used for deficit reduction. The Ensign amendment would reduce the
National Science Foundation's research and related activities account
by $235 million. In H.R. 2099, the research and related activities
account was cut by only $26 million from the fiscal year 1995 level. I
find it hard to believe that there was only room for a $26 million cut
in a $2.25 billion account. Even an additional $235 million cut
represents slightly more than a 10-percent reduction in this account's
fiscal year 1996 appropriation.
Surely, when veterans are facing the prospect of losing access to
health care, the NSF can take a 10-percent cut. I personally support
NSF and the projects it supports in Nevada. However, NSF should be
treated fairly, and I believe my amendment allows NSF to continue its
vital research.
To complete the offset, my amendment would reduce the appropriation
for NASA's human space flight account by $89.5 million. Again, we are
talking about a very small reduction in NASA's $13.67 billion
allotment. We have heard arguments from both sides about the space
station and whether or not we can afford the space station in a time of
great fiscal restraint. My amendment unlike other amendments, will not
decimate the space station program. No specific human space flight
program or initiative is targeted in my amendment. $89.5 million is a
modest cut and represents reasonable middle ground.
Between the offsets from the NSF and NASA, we can meet the
President's request for health care and still provide resources for
scientific research and exploration.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to focus for a moment on the skyrocketing
costs of health care. We are about to reform Medicare, and I would be
the first one to rise in support of reforming our complete veterans'
health care program. But until we do that, we need to completely fund
our veterans' health care program. My amendment brings the funding
level up to the President's requested level for fiscal year 1996. I
urge its support.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California, chairman of the
subcommittee, rise in opposition?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] is recognized
for 7\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly in opposition to the Ensign
amendment. I do so specifically because of the fact that this
subcommittee report is a very carefully crafted and delicately balanced
report.
The very account that the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] is
addressing himself to is that account that we are most sensitive about.
It is the only account within my entire bill that has any significant
adjustment upwards. Indeed, we provide in the medical care section of
this bill more than a half a billion dollars of the 1995 authorization
as well as outlay. It is very, very important that we recognize that to
imbalance this effort could throw the entire bill askew.
For example, NSF has already been cut by $200 million. They are
considerably below the President's request. This additional $235
million in fundamental science work would have a dramatic and negative
impact upon the work that the bill is attempting to carry forward.
In dealing with NASA, NASA is already itself over a half a billion
dollars below the President's request. To strike that blow to our work
in space is a very significant item.
One of the other elements I would mention is the fact that we are
attempting to put some pressure on the Veterans' Administration,
specifically because while we here in Congress are very empathetic to
medical care needs of our veterans. Too often the system treats them
like cattle in the districts where the hospitals are. We need to put
pressure on this agency to rethink the processes they use whereby we
deliver those services to veterans.
Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly but very strongly urge my colleagues to
vote ``no.''
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, while the remarks that the subcommittee chairman said
are true, that it is important to have basic science research, it is
important to have the programs that NSF supports and that NASA
supports, it is also true that it is critical that we maintain the
contract that we have with the veterans in this country.
The reason that we have the freedoms to have basic science research
in this country is because of the sacrifices that our veterans have
made serving this country. I have 114,000 veterans in southern Nevada
just in my district alone. Many of those veterans have to travel 4\1/2\
hours to southern California because there is not adequate funding
levels at the hospital in Las Vegas to take care of their basic needs.
Therefore, they have to travel all the way to southern California. I
think this is a travesty to those people who have sacrificed so much,
have had very little pay while they are in the service, spent a lot of
time away from their families, a lot of them sacrificed limbs, a lot of
them sacrificed a lot of their friends, people that they knew in
battle, and to me and to a lot of the Members of this Congress, I think
it is important that we maintain the contract that we have had with
these veterans over the years.
I would strongly urge that Members consider supporting this amendment
to bring the funding levels for 1996 up to what the President has
proposed.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This is a case
where you take the account that has been increased the furthest in the
entire budget and then you hammer two accounts that have not taken
significant increases. In particular I am very concerned about the fact
that the National Science Foundation has been targeted by the gentleman
from Nevada for increased cuts. This will amount to a 17 percent cut in
the National Science Foundation and that is in the basic science
accounts. This is where we do our basic research. This is the
university money that is required in order to make certain that our
university research programs stay alive.
Who are some of those universities? Well, the University and
Community College System of Las Vegas got $1.6 million. The University
of Nevada at Las Vegas got over $1 million in 1994. The Clark County
School District got $867,000. The University of Nevada Desert Research
Program got $1.731 million out of the National Science Foundation. On
it goes, in programs that from everything I have been able to determine
are high-quality research programs that are very, very important to the
basic underlying fundamental science of this country.
{time} 1815
And so, to devastate those accounts by taking them down by hundreds
of millions of dollars in order to fund an account that we have already
increased
[[Page H 8033]]
significantly, it seems to me, is the wrong set of priorities.
I understand that the gentleman wants to keep our commitments, but we
have commitments that are very, very important in science. There are
many of these science researchers that over the years also feel that
they have a commitment to making certain that we keep this Nation
economically strong by having a good basic science base. This
particular amendment will cut into that basic science base; this is one
of the worst places that we can possibly find to cut programs in the
entire VA-HUD budget.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Doyle], a member of the committee.
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I
do so with a unique perspective on this matter, as I am the only member
of this body who sits on both of the authorizing Committees affected by
this amendment.
I am honored to represent a district with one of the largest veterans
populations, and I am extremely sensitive to the need to adequately
fund veterans' health care. My father was a permanently disabled
veteran. I could not imagine what my life would be like if he had not
had access to quality VA health care.
It would be my preference to fully fund the administration's request
for VA health care, which the amendment before us would do by cutting
$235 million from NSF's research account to achieve $100 million in
savings, coupled with a $89.5 million in NASA funds. Despite my support
for our nation's veterans, I cannot support this amendment because of
its impact on the National Science Foundation.
In the Science Committee, we have gone to great pains, under the
leadership of Chairman Walker, to make the difficult decisions on
funding priorities in order to achieve a balanced budget. I must tell
the author of this amendment, since he wasn't present for the seven or
so days that the Science Committee spent considering all the programs
in its jurisdiction, that no federal agency enjoyed a greater degree of
bipartisan support than the National Science Foundation.
We are already cutting this account by $26 million from FY 95, and
NSF as a whole is being cut by over $200 million from the current year.
I am not sure why NSF has been targeted by this amendment, but I cannot
endorse this effort to support one worthwhile effort by cutting a
greater amount of funds from another important program.
Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, although the reasons of the
gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] are worthwhile, I have to oppose
this amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], ranking member of
the Committee on Science.
(Mr. BROWN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, this is a battle that we have
gone through many times before over the past years, and I have
frequently sided with those who support the position of the gentleman
from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] with regard to taking money from NASA or other
science agencies and adding it to veterans, because I have such a
feeling for the needs of the veterans.
But in this particular case, I spent most of the last week arguing
that we had cut NASA too much already, over half a billion dollars, and
voted against the space station because of those cuts that came out of
NASA science, basically.
Mr. Chairman, I am constrained to oppose the amendment before us for
that reason. I think that we have achieved a good balance, not at the
level that I would want, but within the constraints of the money
available; a good balance with the bill that we have.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge all of my colleagues to oppose this
amendment and to support the numbers which are contained in the bill
presented to us by the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr.
Lewis].
Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in strong opposition to the
amendment offered by Mr. Ensign. The amendment makes cuts to the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science
Foundation that are ill-advised and will do serious damage if enacted.
Let us first consider the NASA cut. NASA's request for fiscal year
1996 has already been cut by $600 million in this appropriations bill.
In addition, NASA's funding plans have been cut by 35 percent since
1993. The proposed amendment would cut an additional $90 million from
NASA's human space flight account. Now, $90 million does not sound like
a great deal of money in a $5 billion account, but in this case
appearances are seriously deceiving.
NASA's human space flight account provides funding for the space
station and the space shuttle. The station program was restructed in
1993, its overall development budget was cut by billions of dollars,
and annual funding for the program was capped at $2.1 billion. There is
no room for additional cuts to the space station budget if the
international space station is to meet its demanding schedule
commitments.
The budget for space shuttle operations has been cut 23 percent since
fiscal year 1992, and the President's fiscal year 1996 budget assumes
that additional cuts will be made to the shuttle program during the
period fiscal year 1997-2000. NASA is making plans to restructure the
shuttle program to further reduce costs through contract consolidations
and other management changes. However, the shuttle account cannot
absorb additional cuts in fiscal year 1996 without running an
unacceptable risk that the shuttle will not be able to carry out its
missions, and that NASA will not be able to make needed safety and
performance upgrades.
I cannot stress too strongly how important it is not to impose
additional budgetary stress on the space shuttle program at a time when
the shuttle program is trying to adjust to the cuts already imposed on
it. I do not think that I need to remind any Member that the shuttle is
a very complicated machine. Indeed, this weekend's decision to defer
further shuttle flights until NASA understands the current problem with
the shuttle O-rings underlines the importance of proceeding with
caution when dealing with the shuttle program.
Turning to the National Science Foundation, this amendment would cut
$235 million from NSF's research and related activities account. This
account is already below the fiscal year 1995 funding level in the bill
as reported by the Appropriations Committee. The additional proposed
cut of 11.4 percent will harm basic research in many important fields
of science.
Although NSF is a small agency with only about 4 percent of all
Federal R&D funding, it is the only Federal agency mandated to
strengthen the Nation's overall potential in science and engineering.
Moreover, the Agency is a principal source of Federal support for
basic research in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering: 60% of
computer science support; 44% of mathematics support; 34% of biological
sciences support; 33% of earth sciences support; and 19% of engineering
support.
A cut of $235 million translates into foregoing potential advances in
knowledge in such fields as advanced computers and high-speed digital
networks, electronic and structural materials, biotechnology, and
nanoscience--the observation and manipulation of chemical, biological,
and mechanical processes at the atomic scale.
the cut will also help to weaken the scientific infrastructure of
universities. Last year, well over 20,000 senior scientists and 18,500
graduate students worked on research projects sponsored by NSF, mostly
at colleges and universities. The proposed cut to NSF's research
account would reduce these numbers by 2,100 scientists and 1,900
graduate students. In addition, 24 percent of the research and related
activities budget supports unique national research facilities, such as
telescopes, research ships, and supercomputers, all of which enable a
broad range of research activities. Imposition of a $235 million cut to
the research account will mean that operations are reduced and
maintenance delayed for these facilities.
Reductions in basic research budgets have consequences for the
economic strength of the Nation and the future well being of its
citizens. Federal support for basic research is an investment, as has
been quantified by economists who find a social rate of return from
basic research funding of 30 to 50 percent. The proposed cut to the NSF
research budget is shortsighted.
I urge my colleagues to resist the temptation to make additional cuts
to NASA and NSF.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time
to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
[[Page H 8034]]
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis] on the outstanding job that he has done with a
difficult bill.
This amendment highlights the problems that he has had with this
bill. There are conflicting interests, all of which are necessary and
vital. We pit NASA against housing; housing against veterans' benefits.
There is no one in this Chamber that wants to cut any of these things
unless it is absolutely necessary. And it is absolutely necessary to
cut these to get to a balanced budget by the year 2002.
The gentleman's amendment is well intentioned, but it still cuts
$89.5 million out of NASA, and $235 million out of the National Science
Foundation. These cuts are proposed in an effort to help the veterans'
programs which now currently, in this bill, receive $562 million in
medical benefits over and above what we spent last year. That
represents a total of $16.777 billion in medical care for veterans.
Mr. Chairman, nobody can say that that is not sufficient. We can
always spend more money on these programs, but I would hope that the
Members would understand that we cannot continue to spend more money on
every good cause. We have got to try to balance the competing
interests.
Mr. Chairman, this is a balanced bill. The gentleman from California
[Mr. Lewis] and the members of the Committee on Appropriations have
tried to bring forward a balanced bill considering all of the needs:
The needs of the veterans, the needs of science, the needs of NASA, and
the needs of housing. Together, those needs demand that this amendment
be rejected.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, while I respect the words that have been said by my
colleagues and respect the work that has gone into making this bill, I
still think that this is a question of priorities, and the priorities
that I have remain with the veterans in this country.
When we are looking at limited funds, we do have to say, ``What is
important? How much should we spend on veterans? How much should we
spend on science?''
Science is a theoretical number. Should we spend $100 billion on
those science programs? Should we spend $200 billion? We have no idea
what that number should be. It is some number floating out there.
We do know, Mr. Chairman, that veterans have those needs and we do
know that we are not meeting those needs currently. To not increase
this number up to what the President has requested, I think, would be
doing a disservice to the veterans who have paid such a dear price in
serving our country. That is why I have offered this amendment, because
of the sacrifice that those veterans have made.
It is a question of priorities. There is no question.
Mr. Chairman, this is a difficult decision to make, and I appreciate
what the subcommittee chairman and all the members of the committee
have gone through in crafting this bill. To me, though, this happens to
be a question of priorities. I believe that the NSF can take a 10-
percent cut in this year's budget. It is just a question of the
priorities that I have set for myself to come and represent the people
of southern Nevada and especially those 114,000 veterans that I
represent there.
I believe they deserve the medical care that they are to get this
year. I would be the first one, though, to add my voice to reforming
the whole veterans' medical care. It needs to be reformed just like
Medicare does. We need to provide better service for less cost, and
then maybe next year, we will not have this argument.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign].
The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ENSIGN. 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 Nevada [Mr. Ensign] will be postponed.
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.
Walker] having assumed the chair, Mr. Combest, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 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.
____________________