[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.


                          ____________________