[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 127 (Wednesday, August 2, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1587]
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

                                 ______


                               speech of

                           HON. EARL POMEROY

                            of north dakota

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 27, 1995

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union 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:

  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, today I am supporting passage of the VA, 
HUD, Independent Agencies appropriations for fiscal year 1996. But I do 
so with reservation.
  Affordable, safe, clean housing is a basic need which eludes many 
low-income families and elderly individuals. We should not be making 
extreme cuts to housing programs as our elderly population increases 
and personal income erodes for the working poor. It is ironic that as 
we push more people into the at-risk population for becoming homeless, 
we cut homeless programs by almost half.
  I hope that my colleagues on the conference committee will be 
amenable to any increases suggested by their Senate counterparts.
  Additionally, I supported the Stokes-Boehlert amendment to the VA-
HUD-Independent Agencies appropriations bill, which eliminated 
legislative language that would gut portions of the Clean Water Act, 
the Clean Air Act, the Community Right-to-Know Act, and the Safe 
Drinking Water Act. If the amendment had been approved it would have 
protected both public health and the legislative process.
  Under the Stokes-Boehlert amendment the legislative process, to which 
we have grown accustomed in this country, would have been preserved. No 
matter what Members think about the details of the riders that would 
have been eliminated by the amendment, all should agree that the 
appropriations process is not the place to have a full and informed 
discussion of environmental policy. This appropriations process has 
robbed the public and this body of its chance to have a full and 
informed discussion of environmental policy.


                          ____________________