[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 189 (Wednesday, November 29, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13750-H13764]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2099, DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND 
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 1996

  Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 280, I call up 
the conference report on 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Emerson). Pursuant to rule XXVIII, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
November 17, 1995, at page H13249).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] each will be recognized for 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].


                             general leave

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks on the conference report on H.R. 2099 as well as the 
Senate amendments reported in disagreement, and that I may include 
charts, tables and other extraneous materials.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have before us H.R. 2099, which is a very, very 
complex bill dealing with diverse agencies such as veterans, housing, 
EPA, NASA, and a variety of other independent agencies and commissions.
  Mr. Speaker, I would first like to start my comments by expressing my 
deep appreciation for my colleagues within the subcommittee who have 
worked so hard to bring this package together in a successful fashion. 
Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues to know that this work 
would not have been able to be done successfully without the assistance 
of very fine staff, headed by my chief of staff within the committee, 
Mr. Frank Cushing, and his colleagues.
  I would also like to mention, Mr. Speaker, that within my personal 
staff a great deal of assistance was provided for me, I would like to 
extend my appreciation particularly today to David LesStrang, Jeff 
Shockey, and one of my key staff people who will be leaving us shortly, 
Mr. Doc Syers.
  Mr. Speaker, it is with a combination of pleasure and pain that I 
bring this bill to the floor today, and I would suggest first that the 
pleasure is there because I am very proud of the fact that this 
subcommittee has led the way in putting Uncle Sam on a diet. This bill 
represents $10.1 billion as a down payment toward balancing the budget 
by 2002.
  I must say, Mr. Speaker, up until now we have been talking about 
moving toward balancing the budget. This, however, is where the rubber 
meets the road. It is one thing to talk. It is another thing to make 
the very, very tough decisions.
  Let me suggest that the pain that I mentioned earlier involves that 
very fact. Unfortunately, the spirit of bipartisanship among the 
committee members that has long been a hallmark of the Committee on 
Appropriations has suffered as a result of our taking a different turn 
in the road regarding this country's spending habits. Even as we 
continue to travel on that road to balance the budget, I pledge to do 
all that I can, Mr. Speaker, to bring this subcommittee back to that 
bipartisan spirit that we have lost this year.
  This conference report reflects a willingness to make the very tough 
decisions and to meet the spending targets necessary to balance the 
budget in 7 years. As I have suggested, out of 13 appropriations 
subcommittees, the VA-HUD bill makes the single largest contribution 
toward balancing the budget. It does not wait until year 5 or year 7 or 
year 10. We are making the tough decisions today. No longer will we 
tolerate paying lip service to the goal of deficit reduction.
  This conference report of $61.3 billion in new discretionary spending 
represents a reduction in budget authority of 13.1 percent, and it is 
about $9.25 billion below the administration's requested spending level 
for fiscal year 1996.
  To say the least, the decisions that led to these reductions were 
certainly not easy ones to make. The work of the Subcommittee on VA, 
HUD and Independent Agencies has changed dramatically from last year. 
No longer do we simply compare the agency account on the basis of what 
they received last year, then add on a certain amount for inflation and 
maybe tack on some more there to establish a new base level.

                              {time}  1145

  We have now completed a bottom-up review of all of our agencies. This 
is all part of a process of justifying each program's existence and 
examining how taxpayer dollars are being used. I intend to continue 
this approach next year so that every program within every agency under 
our jurisdiction receives the kind of necessary scrutiny to find 
appropriate savings.
  The subcommittee began working on this bill on January 24 when we 
held the first of over 20 separate hearings. When our bill passed the 
House in late July we showed a reduction from the 1995 enacted level of 
$9.7 billion, while the Senate showed a reduction of $8.4 billion in 
budget authority.
  As I noted, the conferees essentially split the difference for a net 
reduction of over $9 billion.
  However, during the process we were also able to take advantage of an 
additional 1 year's legislative savings, a provision at HUD, thus 
giving us an additional $1 billion, with which to better fund housing 
programs.
  Let me at this time take a moment to share some of the positive 
actions recently taken by the House-Senate conference meeting. We 
provided an increase of $400 million over the 1995 level for VA medical 
care and were able to do away with the so-called incompetent veterans' 
legislative savings provision that was of concern to many. We provided 
some $24.4 billion for HUD programs. While this is a reduction from the 
budget request, it actually represents a program level of $1 billion 
over the earlier House-passed bill.
  Most importantly, this increase would achieve for 1996 without 
adversely impacting our outlay problems in 1997 and beyond.
  In the bill we terminated four Federal agencies for savings of $705 
million, including the Office of Consumer Affairs, the Chemical Safety 
and Hazards Investigation Board, Community Development Financial 
Institutions, and the Corporation for National Community Service.
  We fully funded the space station and space shuttle programs, even 
though NASA took its fair share of downsizing like every other 
department and agency under this subcommittee's jurisdiction.
  We provided over $1.1 billion to continue the Superfund Program at 
EPA and over $2.3 billion for wastewater, drinking water, and various 
categorical grants to the States so they can adequately meet Federal 
environmental mandates.
  We also created a performance partnership program between the EPA and 
the States so that these funds can be used where the States believe 
they are most needed.
  Finally, we have not included any of the EPA legislative provisions 
as passed by the House and only four passed by the Senate. Of those, 
three were included in last year's bill signed by the President.

[[Page H 13751]]

  Mr. Speaker, please allow me to digress for just a moment with 
respect to the HUD programs. As I mentioned, we were able to do a 
little more this year than we first thought. However, each successive 
year will get more and more difficult with respect to HUD outlays as 
payment for some of the budget authority approved in past years finally 
comes due.
  The choices we make this year will go beyond fiscal year 1996. 
Indeed, they set the foundation for the years ahead. One specific area 
of special note in this regard is the renewal of section 8 subsidy 
contracts. Over the next 2 years, the cost of renewing section 8 
expiring contracts will increase from $4.35 billion in 1996 to $14.4 
billion by 1998. This will occur despite the fact that we have passed 
legislation which actually lowers HUD spending levels from past years.

  The challenge facing the subcommittee in the coming years will be 
difficult, but we have made great progress this year, and I look 
forward to working with my colleagues to find reasonable solutions to 
complex issues like this section 8 issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I am including in the Record a table illustrating the 
aforementioned section 8 problem.

                                                        SECTION 8--RENEWAL OF EXPIRING CONTRACTS                                                        
                                                                 [Dollars in thousands]                                                                 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       1996 Budget                       1997 Budget                       1998 Budget  
                                                         Units          authority          Units          authority          Units          authority   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certificates......................................          241,206       $2,993,597          213,590       $2,709,631          579,193       $7,517,923
Vouchers..........................................           58,798          729,739          100,389        1,273,548          242,256        3,095,473
LMSA..............................................          120,587          475,354          126,591        1,637,370          227,794        2,835,182
Property disposition..............................            4,464           35,194           12,738          103,439           17,351          156,649
Moderate rehabilitation...........................            8,016           99,486           18,232          231,294           30,409          394,709
New construction/substantial rehabilitation.......            1,957           17,492           15,667          144,233           45,208          436,083
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.......................................          435,028        4,350,862          487,207        6,099,515        1,142,211       14,436,019
                                                                                                                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Totals may not add due to rounding. Budget authority in 1997 and 1998 reflects LMSA contract renewals with one-year terms calculated from        
  assumptions contained in HUD's 1996 estimates.                                                                                                        

  Mr. LEWIS of California. I would like to make an additional 
observation with regard to HUD. My experience in working with HUD 
Secretary Henry Cisneros and NASA Administrator Dan Golden illustrate 
how valuable partnerships can be when faced with tough spending 
decisions. Both have reached out and been helpful in outlining their 
specific priorities.
  I had hoped such a partnership would be possible in working with 
President Clinton's chief of staff Leon Panetta to fashion a bill 
President Clinton would support. To date it appears we are far from any 
final agreement.
  It is important to note to my colleagues for the record that the 
administration fully expects to veto this bill. At a meeting almost 2 
weeks ago, Mr. Panetta informed Chairman Bond, Senator Mikulski, the 
gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Stokes, and me that this bill would be vetoed 
regardless of what we did to address the President's priorities. If 
this is correct, then the true losers will be the millions of Americans 
who counted on the many programs that would be continued and properly 
funded under this agreement.
  I might mention, Mr. Speaker, at this point that for those of you 
among my colleagues who care about veterans' medical care programs, who 
care about housing programs, who are concerned about EPA, it should be 
noted that the only money those programs will receive in the coming 
year will be as a result of this conference report successfully being 
signed into law. To do otherwise will leave them with a base of funding 
considerably less than available in this bill.
  So I would suggest my colleagues on both sides of the aisle make note 
of that. This is your chance to provide funding that is needed for 
veterans' programs and housing and the like.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report strikes a careful balance in 
caring for our veterans, housing people in need, protecting the 
environment, ensuring America's future role in space, and meeting many 
other critical needs. This is a good, tough, fair bill, and it deserves 
the bipartisan support of this body. I strongly urge adoption of the 
conference report and urge your support.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no one in this House for whom I have greater 
respect or higher regard than the chairman of our subcommittee, Jerry 
Lewis of California. He brings before the House a tough bill and I am 
aware of the long hours and how much personal time and sacrifice he has 
committed to this effort. I also want to recognize all of the 
subcommittee staff for their tireless work on this bill, along with my 
own staff persons.
  I regret having to rise in opposition to the conference report on 
H.R. 2099, the Fiscal Year 1996 Appropriations Act for the Departments 
of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent 
Agencies. My opposition to this legislation is predicated upon the fact 
that the lives of millions of Americans will be devastated if this 
measure is passed in its current form.
  Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed during this Congress, a new leadership 
with an ambitious plan to implement its Contract With America. While my 
Republican colleagues laud their discipline in terms of advancing the 
contract, I worry that they have shown a blindspot to the high cost in 
human suffering and damage to this country's precious resources that 
this legislation will extract. This is certainly the case with the 
conference report on H.R. 2099.
  Having previously served as chairman of the VA-HUD Subcommittee, I am 
acutely aware of the complexities of the subcommittee's bill. I am also 
aware of the problems with the Federal deficit and the call for 
Government reform which have heightened the problems of providing 
funding for essential needs, many of which are under the subcommittee's 
jurisdiction. I believe, however, that there is considerable 
opportunity to try to meet these basic and pressing priorities upon 
which millions of Americans depend--even in this budget climate.
  When this bill first came before the House in July, I argued then 
against drastic funding cuts and harmful legislative provisions in 
housing, the environmental, and veterans programs. I think my 
colleagues on this side of the aisle can take tremendous credit for 
having heightened awareness about these negative actions to the extent 
that the conference report before us has made some important positive 
steps to correcting some of these concerns. Unfortunately, not enough 
has been done and therefore I must still oppose this measure.
  In fact, the President agrees with my position and has already 
indicated that he will veto this bill if it is presented to him in its 
present form. In his statement on H.R. 2099, the President stated and I 
quote:

       The bill provides insufficient funds to support the 
     important activities covered by this bill. It would threaten 
     public health and the environment, and programs that are 
     helping communities help themselves, close the door on 
     college from thousands of young people, and leave veterans 
     seeking medical care with fewer treatment options. This bill 
     does not reflect the values that Americans hold dear.

  Let me take a moment to explain to you why this bill is so 
unacceptable to the President and those of us who care about the people 
dependent upon the programs in this bill.
  For veterans programs, this bill is still almost $1 billion below the 
President's request. You know how misguided this bill must be when 
programs serving those brave men and women who sacrificed and protected 
our national interest are not adequately funded. Further, there are 
unprecedented retaliatory limitations placed on the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs because he spoke out strongly against the cuts in 
these programs for these 

[[Page H 13752]]
veterans. According to the majority they are sending him a message. The 
message clearly is that they don't tolerate free speech.
  Housing programs, which already suffered under the $6.3 billion cut 
to HUD in the 1995 rescissions bill earlier this year, face another $4 
billion in reductions in fiscal year 1996. This constitutes a wholesale 
assault on those individuals and critical programs that provide safety 
net and human service programs through Federal housing. Hardest hit are 
those programs that provide affordable and decent housing for the 
elderly and poor, like section 8 incremental rental assistance and 
public housing.
  Now, my colleagues on the other side will claim that these actions 
are fair; that HUD is mismanaged and an unwieldy bureaucracy that has 
gotten out of control. Well, I don't think that our elderly, our 
families with children, and our poor would agree that these cuts are 
fair. I am certain that threatening them with homelessness and 
hopelessness is not a price worth paying to satisfy the Republican 
Contract With America.
  But my Republican colleagues did not stop here. Added to these 
reductions are nearly 20 pages of extensive legislative changes--
legislation that clearly falls within the jurisdiction of the 
authorizing committee. Like many other provisions the majority party 
has adopted this year, this legislation showed up in the chairman's 
mark of the bill. While certain provisions have been deleted, just as 
many others have been added and are now in the conference report before 
us. These damaging changes come at at time when affordable housing is 
at a record short supply.
  Mr. Speaker, as if there are not enough problems, not enough reasons 
for the President to veto this piece of legislation, there remains the 
undisguised attack on the environment that this bill represents. As all 
of us remember, this bill as passed by the House included an assortment 
of antienvironment riders that the Republican leadership insisted the 
bill carry. To no one's surprise, Members from both sides of the aisle 
joined in saying that these extreme legislative changes should have no 
place in this bill. And so most, but not all, have been removed.
  Does this make this bill an environmentally sound measure? Does this 
mean that the majority leadership's assault against the environment is 
over? Does this mean that my friends from across the aisle who fought 
so hard with me on my various motions to strip the rider may now vote--
with a clear conscience--for this bill? The answer is a resounding no.
  This bill makes a huge, unpredented cut in EPA's operating budget. 
This cut of more than 20 percent is intended to and will devastate the 
Agency's ability to protect public health and the environment.
  And let us be clear here. These cuts go far beyond what is necessary 
to balance the budget. That is the smoke screen. If the Republicans 
really favored protecting the environment, they would find a way to 
ensure that EPA receives adequate funding even under a balanced budget 
plan. Instead they have targeted a huge, disproportionate, arbitrary 
reduction, that belies any claim that Republicans are interested in 
protecting the environment.
  Furthermore, contained within the details of the big cut are other 
attacks to the environment.
  At a time when Americans continually indicate their support for 
increased environmental enforcement, this measure targets EPA's 
environmental enforcement activities for extra cuts. Last year, EPA 
investigated over 500 cases of criminal misconduct, including cases 
involving loss of life, tainted food, and falsified laboratory data.
  Last year EPA brought over 2,200 administrative and civil cases 
resulting in reductions in hundreds of thousands of pounds of 
pollutants and over $740 million in remediation efforts to clean up 
damage caused by violations of the environmental laws. What number of 
civil and administrative actions can we expect this fiscal year?
  Right now the Center for Disease Control has told vulnerable 
Americans--the elderly, cancer and AIDS patients and others--to boil 
tap water due to the danger from microorganisms in much of the Nation's 
drinking water. The Republicans respond by cutting safe drinking water 
funds in half from the President's request. Not money for regulations, 
mind you, but money that would be used by local communities to build 
and improve their water purification equipment.
  The Republicans also cut hazardous site cleanups by 25 percent and 
sewage treatment funds by 30 percent. With these actions, the bill 
undermines the capacity of EPA and States to clean up toxic sites and 
keep raw sewage out of our streams, lakes, and oceans.
  And let us not forget about the riders. While most have been 
eliminated from the bill language itself, the conference report still 
bluntly pressures EPA into making exceptions and exemptions for natural 
gas processors, oil refineries, pulp and paper facilities, and cement 
kilns that burn hazardous waste. The special interests will not be 
disappointed by this bill.
  One rider, that is still in, cuts EPA out of wetlands permitting so 
that the permitting can proceed without the environmental experts 
allowed a voice.
  The conference on H.R. 2099 also terminates the Corporation for 
National and Community Service [Americorps], the Community Development 
Financial Institutions Program, the Council on Environmental Quality, 
and the Office of Consumer Affairs. These programs and agencies are of 
highest priority to the administration.
  I do not think that this is a close vote for anyone who believes in 
meeting our obligations to our Nation's veterans, providing affordable 
and decent housing for all Americans, protecting the environment, and 
rewarding community service. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf] for purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my friend, the gentleman from 
California, the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent 
Agencies, might help clarify the intent of the conferees with regard to 
the language contained in the Senate report accompanying the fiscal 
year 1996 VA, HUD and independent agencies appropriations bill.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman will yield, I will be happy 
to do so.
  Mr. METCALF. As the gentleman knows, the Senate report addressed a 
particular site on the national priorities list, the Tulalip landfill 
in Marysville, WA. The Senate language requires EPA to complete the 
comprehensive baseline risk assessment at the site and to then conduct 
an alternative dispute resolution procedure in order to achieve a 
remedial act plan based on sound science all parties agree on.
  Mr. Speaker, that direction to the agency represents the views of the 
majority of those Members from the Washington State delegation. The 
site involves over 300 large and small businesses in my home State. It 
is critical to all of them that EPA follow this direction at the site.
  Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. METCALF. I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington.
  Ms. DUNN of Washington. I thank the gentleman and rise in strong 
support of the request of the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf] 
that the EPA be required to complete a comprehensive baseline risk 
assessment at the Tulalip landfill in Washington State.
  Many of us from Washington State represent constituents who have been 
severely impacted by EPA's handling of this site. The Senate report 
language was very clear in its direction the agency, and the chairman's 
support of this directive is appreciated.
  Mr. METCALF. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman will yield further, let me, 
by way of responding to both of my colleagues from Washington, say that 
I want to assure you both that the presence of that particular language 
in the final conference report in no way diminishes the intent of the 
conferees that the Senate language serves as the clear and final 
direction to the EPA at the Tulalip site during the fiscal year.
  My recollection is that both Washington State members of the 
Committee on Appropriations, one from each 

[[Page H 13753]]
side of the aisle, have strongly supported this language, and it is 
certainly my intention to see that the agency conducts a comprehensive 
baseline risk assessment and responds to your request. So I appreciate 
my colleague raising the question.
  Mr. METCALF. I thank the gentleman.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the distinguished ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Commerce.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is an outrageous bill. I rise in 
strong opposition to the conference report on H.R. 2099. I urge my 
colleagues to reject it.
  I hope all Americans know what is in this bill, because it reveals 
the real essence of the Republican vision for this country.
  In a budget where sacrifices had to be made to protect tax breaks for 
the wealthy and Republican pet projects, something had to give. Here is 
what gave.
  One group that is being forced to give is our Nation's veterans, 
their widows, and their children. This bill reduces funds for VA 
construction and improvement projects by 62 percent. It cuts $400 
million from the Administration's requests for veterans' health care.
  What does this mean? By the year 2000, cuts mandated by this 
Republican budget plan will require 41 veterans' hospitals to close 
their doors. More than 1 million veterans will be denied health care. 
The Republican plan will force the elimination of about 60,000 health 
care positions and the cancellation of 40 construction projects for the 
VA.
  More shockingly--and one of the really spiteful things that I have 
seen done by the Republicans in this Congress, and that is an 
extraordinary event--because Secretary Jesse Brown dares to speak his 
mind about this bill and Republican budget priorities, the majority has 
added to the conference report provisions aimed at stripping huge sums 
and personnel out of his office. As a matter of fact, they totally 
eliminated his travel budget. The question then is how will he travel 
about the country to look at VA facilities, VA projects, and to talk to 
the veterans? So much for free speech and so much for the veterans in 
this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is going to also cut 20 percent off of EPA's 
budget. It is going to see to it that cleanup of Superfund sites and 
the dirty waters of this Nation will be set back enormously. So much 
for the environment.
  This is also the worst attack on housing since the Hoover 
administration. Housing programs face $4 billion in reductions. These 
cuts are on top of more than $6 billion cut in last summer's rescission 
bill. Wrongheaded provisions are also included to undercut enforcement 
of fair housing and antiredlining requirements.
  I urge my colleagues to reject it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg] for purposes of a colloquy.
  (Mr. KNOLLENBERG asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I seek the time just to engage our chairman, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], in a colloquy. I would like to 
reserve a serious reservation that I have with respect to the statement 
of the manager's language regarding amendment No. 58. Section 223(D) of 
the administrative provisions was intended to address HUD's pattern of 
regulation regarding property insurance. My problem is simply this: The 
language does not precisely reflect the compromise that was reached 
with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and others. I want to address 
that.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg], his concern is appropriately 
addressed. I share his reservation. The House bill, which contained a 
spending limitation in the bill language, was rather clear. 
Unfortunately, I think the final manager's language goes beyond what 
the gentleman attempted to develop, and he is the author of the 
provision. It was carefully worked out with the staff on the other 
side.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Can I get the 
chairman's assurance that the offending language will be removed if 
this bill is vetoed and if negotiations on H.R. 2099 are resumed for 
any other reason?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
can assume the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that if we have another 
opportunity to go back at this language by way of a separate bill, or a 
bill to follow one that is vetoed, the gentleman's voice will be very 
clearly heard.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], the distinguished ranking member 
of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
  (Mr. GONZALEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this mean-spirited and 
draconian HUD-VA appropriations conference report for fiscal year 1996. 
This will victimize people who are helpless--they have neither money 
nor power, which are commodities that seem to get attention these days. 
H.R. 2099 slashes one fifth of the budget for the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development. It starves all efforts to expand, preserve, and 
rehabilitate all kinds of public, assisted, and affordable housing. And 
through the legislation that is included in this appropriations report, 
housing policy has shifted and changed course dramatically.
  But bad as it is, this conference report is much better than the bill 
that left the House in July.
  Let me tell my colleagues what will happen if this conference report 
becomes law. If we pass this bill, we virtually ensure that affordable 
housing will continue to decrease and deteriorate; we will lose our $90 
billion investment in public housing; and hundreds of thousands more 
families will become or remain homeless.
  Public housing residents in the more than 3,400 local housing 
authorities throughout the Nation are at risk of seeing their everyday 
maintenance requests go unanswered for lack of operating funds, which 
are set at only $2.8 billion, some $400 million below this year's HUD 
funding request.
  Inevitably, housing that is good will fall into ruin, and the 
eyesores of deteriorated and dilapidated housing in many of our urban 
centers will remain vacant and crumbling, further destroying 
neighborhoods.
  Because nearly one-third of the modernization funds and 50 percent of 
the urban revitalization grants for severely distressed public housing 
projects will be lost if this conference report passes.
  Under this bill there will be no new public housing funded and no 
incremental or new section 8 certificates available for the first time 
in 20 years. There will be only certificates for replacement housing--
even though there are more than 5.6 million families today who pay more 
than 50 percent of their incomes for rent, or who live in substandard 
housing. The number of families who need help grows each year by more 
than ten times the number that would be assisted under this bill. 
During this fiscal year 88,400 units of affordable housing were 
financed through the various Federal housing programs but--next year 
there will be fewer than 15,000 units.
  The conference report leaves two of the core programs untouched--HOME 
and CDBG. That's good; however, don't be surprised when the mayors and 
the Governors are here begging for more money. Why? Because, the deep, 
deep cuts in public housing and section 8, and the increases in the 
cost of that housing inevitably will mean trouble for our cities and 
States--more deteriorated housing and more homelessness--more people 
with no-where safe and sound to live.
  What this conference report does, make no mistake, is place the 
burden on cities and States, while the Federal Government takes a walk 
and abrogates its responsibilities.
  I have watched these programs work for poor and working families, for 
the elderly and 

[[Page H 13754]]
for the disabled throughout my public career. One of my jobs in my home 
city of San Antonio before I came to Congress was with the San Antonio 
Housing Authority. Public housing worked; and despite the problems in 
some places, public housing in most areas is safe, decent, and sound. 
But this bill by the Republican majority will devastate the lives of 
thousands of families currently residing in public and assisted housing 
and those who wait, sometimes for years, for such housing.
  The Republicans talk about their historic balanced budget bill. They 
talk about their willingness to make hard decisions about discretionary 
spending to control spending. Despite what our colleagues on the 
majority contend, these are not hard decisions, they are merely 
heartless attacks on those too poor and too inconsequential to count on 
the scales of political calculations. The insistence and desire to 
provide foolhardy tax breaks for the wealthy at the expense of 
America's poor and working families drives this bill just as it drives 
the whole budget process. That is the thrust of this massive and mean 
assault on our most vulnerable citizens.
  I urg a ``no'' vote on this conference report, which merely 
victimizes further the victims of poverty.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], a member of the committee.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report of H.R. 2099 shows a real 
commitment to our future and our citizens. While it takes a major step 
toward eliminating our Nation's deficit, it does so while providing 
medical care to our veterans, housing for the poor, and preserving the 
challenges to be explored in space. One might call it a balancing act--
but it is a skill that Chairman Lewis and his excellent staff have 
refined. I commend the them on their fine work. I would also like to 
give thanks and a wish of good luck to Doc Syers of the chairman's 
staff, who will be leaving the Hill to boldly go where no man has gone 
before. Doc has been a great friend over the years and we will miss 
him.
  Returning to the matter at hand, our veterans represent one of our 
Nation's finest resources. This conference report appropriates $37.7 
billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, of which $16.5 billion 
is included for medical care. After listening to the concerns of many 
veterans groups, the subcommittee determined the controversial 
incompetent veterans language should be deleted. Our commitment to our 
veterans is unwavering and I believe this bill is proof of this fact.
  The conference report also provides $19.3 billion for housing 
programs to help our poor, our homeless, and to give homebuyers a 
chance to reach the American dream of owning their own home.
  In this time of fiscal restraint, the conference report takes strong 
action in eliminating programs which are ineffective or duplicative, 
such as the AmeriCorps Program and the Health and Human Services Office 
of Consumer Affairs.
  When faced with the tough challenges of a decreasing budget, the 
subcommittee made effective decisions. This is a conference report in 
which we can all be proud and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of 
this essential legislation. A yea vote is a vote in favor of our 
veterans and our commitment to our Nation's future.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to the 
conference report. Although admittedly an improvement from the 
draconian version originally passed by this body a few months ago, this 
bill still is a glaring indication of wrong-headed priorities.
  In addition to slashing funding for housing and veterans programs, 
this appropriations bill severely curtails the Government's historic 
role in ensuring the most basic guarantees of clean air and clean 
water. It cuts the Environmental Protection Agency by 21 percent, 
including a 19-percent cut in the program that cleans up hazardous 
waste sites. It also cuts hundreds of millions of dollars from 
wastewater treatment grants that provide critical assistance to local 
communities in keeping drinking water safe and beaches swimmable. In 
the area I represent, these funds are critical to helping to clean up 
Long Island Sound.
  This legislation is premised on the false assumption that a strong 
economy and a clean environment are natural enemies. The authors of 
this bill try to polarize the debate as a choice between jobs and 
environmental stewardship.
  Well, my colleagues, do not be fooled. A strong environment and a 
strong economy go hand in hand.
  My constituents and I know from our experience with Long Island Sound 
that pollution-based prosperity is shortsighted and costs more--
financially and otherwise--in the end.
  There is no denying that these environmental rollbacks will cripple 
the EPA's ability to protect the quality of our air and water.
  Let us not turn back the clock on environmental protection. Defeat 
the conference report.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen].
  (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Lewis, Congressman 
Stokes, and the subcommittee staff for all of their hard work in 
producing this compromise agreement.
  This conference report contains funding for many vital programs for 
our Nation's veterans, protects and preserves our environment, helps 
house the needy and disabled, and moves scientific research and 
discovery forward.
  As Chairman Lewis has said it has been a difficult task balancing 
these needs against the critical need to balance our Federal budget. I 
believe that it has been done responsibly.
  In total, this report provides $80.6 billion for these important 
programs. That number is $9.6 billion less than last year and $894 
million more than the House-passed bill. This action shows that we have 
truly compromised in order to produce a sound piece of legislation.
  Specifically, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we were able to increase 
the Superfund program by $163 million for a total of $1.16 billion. In 
addition, this agreement removes the December 31 ``drop dead'' date for 
the Superfund program. By removing this provision, we will be allowing 
this important program to operate while the authorization committee 
acts on reforming the Superfund law.
  Representing a State with more Superfund sites than any other, I want 
to thank Chairman Lewis for these actions and for realizing the 
importance of keeping work at all current Superfund sites moving 
forward. This funding increase brings the total number very close to 
what the program received last year.
  This conference agreement also removes the controversial 17 EPA 
riders that were included in the House-passed bill. I am particularly 
happy that the clean water riders were removed. As I have always said, 
these riders should not have been included in this bill. We should give 
the authorization committees a chance to fine-tune the Clean Water Act, 
instead of prematurely halting many of the programs that have been 
working under this Act.
  While I do not agree with all the reductions in this conference 
agreement, I do believe that it is time to stop throwing good money 
after bad and start focusing our limited resources toward programs that 
work.
  Three such programs are at HUD, section 202, Senior Housing, and 811, 
Disabled Housing, and HOPWA, Housing Opportunity for People With AIDS. 
These programs have a proven track record and have worked. While the 
House-passed bill consolidated these three programs under one account, 
the conference agreement keeps these accounts separate allowing each of 
them to run independent of one another. This is something I supported 
and worked in conference to achieve. I would have liked to provide more 
funding, however, the committee agreed to freeze all these accounts at 
the current level.
  As regards scientific research and development, I am pleased that 
this agreement recognizes that our Nation's future depends on properly 
educating all Americans so that we can continue to be number one in 
developing and producing various technologies. New Jersey is already 
the home to the brightest and best in both the public and private 
sector. This report dedicates itself to renewing our Nation's 

[[Page H 13755]]
commitment to science by providing new resources, both fiscal and 
physical.
  This report also funds the Department of Veterans Affairs. Nearly 
half of our allocation supports these activities and the committee 
increased medical care above the current year by $337 million. This 
should be adequate funding to keep all our veterans who rely on the VA 
for medical care fully supported.
  I would also like to comment on the behavior of VA Secretary Brown 
who has politicized this budget process. Under the guise of so-called 
``free speech'' he has needlessly alarmed veterans throughout the 
Nation. As a veteran myself, I am insulted by his actions.
  Mr. Speaker, we have drafted a sound agreement and I urge my 
colleagues to support this conference report.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, before the Thanksgiving holiday, we came to 
an agreement on a framework to work toward a balanced budget. Within 
this framework, we agreed to a set of priorities to guide our actions. 
We agreed to preserve Medicare, strengthen our educational system, and 
protect the environment for our children and our future.
  Well, today we have the opportunity to stand up for one of the 
priorities we outlined over a week ago. It is time to stop this 
Congress from rolling back existing environmental protections. In the 
VA-HUD appropriations bill before us now, most of the infamous 
regulatory riders have disappeared, but the EPA has still been put on a 
starvation diet.
  This bill radically cuts the EPA's budget, from the $7.2 billion 
appropriated last year, down to only $5.7 billion, a reduction of $1.5 
billion, or 21 percent. The EPA enforcement budget is specifically 
targeted for an even larger 25 percent cut. Make no mistake, Mr. 
Speaker, taking the environmental cops off the beat by slashing their 
budget is just another way to gut strong environmental laws.
  The GOP cuts slash $270 million from the Superfund program. The EPA 
Administrator, Carol Browner, has testified that this will delay 
cleanups of toxic waste sites at hundreds of communities around our 
Nation.
  And at the same time this Congress is cutting the budget for 
environmental protection, we just sent the Defense Department $7 
billion the Pentagon did not even ask for.
  Mr. Speaker, this all comes down to a question of priorities. Should 
we be giving tax cuts to the wealthy and buying more B-1 bombers, which 
we do not need? Or, should we be insuring that our children have clean 
air and clean water and that toxic waste sites in our communities get 
cleaned up?
  We cannot say one day that we believe the preservation of our 
environment is a national priority, and then 10 days later turn around 
and agree to radical cuts in environmental enforcement and cleanup 
programs. It is wrong, Mr. Speaker, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this proposal.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my 
colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg], a member of 
the committee.
  (Mr. KNOLLENBERG asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill, and I commend the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the staff for all their hard 
work. Without the chairman and, obviously, the staff, we would not be 
here today.
  Mr. Speaker, the VA-HUD bill has never been an attractive piece of 
legislation. Never. It contains funding for a wide variety of programs 
that represent different and often conflicting priorities. What we have 
before us is the product of this task, and it is a good one. The bill 
does not simply spread the pain throughout all of the programs in its 
jurisdiction, it makes the tough choices which are necessary, but it 
also preserves funding for those programs which work well.
  There are some who will complain that the spending cuts in our bill 
are just simply too deep.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. Speaker, let me make one point. We spend over $5 billion for 
environmental protection and over $20 billion for affordable housing in 
this bill. Just a few days ago, as my colleagues know, during the 
Government shutdown only 4 percent of EPA's 18,000 employees were 
considered essential and, I repeat, only 1 percent of HUD's employees 
were considered essential. So it seems to me that it would be much 
easier to say that perhaps these cuts are not deep enough; they should 
be deeper.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sure that every Member of this body, given the 
chance, would draft a different VA-HUD bill. I would like to make a few 
changes myself. But to use an often-heard quote, we cannot allow the 
perfect to be the enemy of the good.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. 
What is wrong with this bill is what is wrong with the priorities. 
There is no consideration or deliberation, much less public awareness, 
of votes on these topics. Wholesale policy changes are made without 
consideration, Mr. Speaker, all of this, of course, under the mantra of 
a balanced budget.
  The impact of the GOP spending cuts priorities for the poor, the 
environment, the homeless, the veterans. It is not fair, and it is not 
right. The fact is that it is bad policy. A Congress that creates and 
bloats the human deficit, the environmental deficit, but claims to 
balance the budget is out of balance; out of balance with the common 
sense and values of the people we represent.
  Mr. Speaker, the shortest distance between legislation and law is to 
get the President to sign this. I suggest we defeat this conference 
report, send it back to conference committee, and get on with the job 
of making compromises and reflecting the values of the people that we 
represent that stand for a sound environmental policy, sound policies 
and fairness to the poor and the programs that are important to them. I 
suggest we send this back to conference and a ``no'' vote on this 
measure.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference 
agreement on H.R. 2099, the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies 
appropriations bill. This conference agreement has positive 
modifications from the radical bill passed by the majority party of the 
House earlier this year, but it remains wholly out of step with people, 
priorities and shared sacrifice which should characterize reductions in 
spending necessary to achieve a sound fiscal result.
  On the whole, the agreement cuts housing programs by 21 percent, guts 
homeless programs by almost 30 percent, reduces Environmental 
Protection Agency spending by 21 percent, eliminates a number of 
community programs, and subsumes many into larger block grants thereby 
diluting the funds and in the end, atrophying the programs. These cuts 
are represented as being necessary for deficit reduction, but what is 
proposed in this measure is a fundamental retreat from proper Federal 
responsibilities and support. The conference agreement cuts housing on 
the ground by $4 billion from the administration request, but manages 
once again to provide over $2.1 billion for the latest version of the 
questionable space station. This VA, HUD and Independent Agencies 
conference agreement continues to balance the budget on the backs of 
those least able to support cuts: the poor, the homeless and our 
seniors. Our congressional priority should be to help those unable to 
help themselves but this measure reneges.
  As I mentioned, the conference agreement cuts homeless funds, both at 
HUD and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The statement of 
managers indicates that the funds should be used as localities see fit 
under the rubric of options available under the McKinney Act programs. 
I cannot agree that any one HUD homeless assistance program should 
receive any priority over another such program as the statement of 
managers suggests. If demand were any indicator, the supportive housing 
program would be the likely model program, not the shelter plus care 
program emphasized in this agreement. The record should further reflect 
the reality that in shifting 

[[Page H 13756]]
these reduced funds--a shell and pea game--in no way alters the loss 
and adverse impact on the homeless. In fact, it only compounds and 
complicates the use of the programs.
  I am also concerned about the great number of authorizations 
rewriting policy in this appropriations conference agreement. The 
Banking Committee today continues to cede its authority and role to the 
Budget and Appropriations Committees and in the process jeopardizes the 
integrity of important housing and community development programs.
  Frankly, the committee process in this Congress is in a shambles. The 
new Republican majority has adopted an authoritarian posture. Through 
the budget and appropriation scheme the GOP leadership has dictated 
without consideration, much less public awareness and votes on the 
topics, wholesale policy changes under the guise of fiscal crisis and 
the mantra of balancing the budget. They--the majority Gingrich 
Republicans--rationalize and gloss over the fundamental impact of the 
GOP spending priorities that cut programs for the poor, the 
environment, the homeless, and the veterans in this measure for 
example. This isn't fair and it isn't right. We can and should balance 
the budget but how we do it is the key to our role as policy makers. A 
Congress that creates and bloats the human deficit and the 
environmental deficit but claims to balance the budget is out of 
balance with the common sense and values of the American people we 
represent.

  What it all comes down to is that despite the changes in this HUD-VA 
appropriations legislation from the House-passed version and at least 
two round trips to the House and Senate conference table, the 
priorities and the funding levels guarantee that we will see more 
people denied housing opportunities in public and assisted housing, 
fewer people receiving homeless assistance in order to get back on 
their feet, veterans excluded from needed service, and more chances for 
polluters to desecrate our precious air and water. All this by virtue 
of this deficient appropriations measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose every aspect of this measure. However, 
because the cuts and sacrifices are not balanced, I must strongly 
oppose this conference agreement. I urge my colleagues to heed the 
President's concerns with regards to this measure and vote against this 
report. By defeating the conference report today and addressing the 
serious deficiencies in a House/Senate conference report we can attain 
the shortest distance from legislation to law. We do not have to 
experience a certain veto that will force us to start all over again.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Heineman] for the purpose of a 
coloquy.
  (Mr. HEINEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the distinguished gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis], the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA-HUD and 
Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations engage me in a 
brief colloquy?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, If the gentleman will yield I 
would be happy to.
  Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I very much 
appreciate the support of my good friend, Chairman Lewis, over the past 
several months regarding plans to construct a new consolidated facility 
for the EPA and the Research Triangle Part in North Carolina.
  As the chairman knows, the EPA is currently scattered in 11 separate 
buildings which are privately owned and in bad shape. The chairman made 
this freshman Member aware that previous Congresses have not dealt with 
this problem.
  After studying the matter and after touring these existing 
facilities, I learned that recent studies show that renovating the 
existing buildings and signing new leases would cost $400 million. For 
only $232 million, a brandnew, consolidated facility can be built, 
making this the most realistic, cost-effective plan available to 
further the important mission of the EPA.
  I know that the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] has pledged his 
support to find the additional funds necessary in the next fiscal year 
to make this new facility a reality, and I want to thank the gentleman 
for that support.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me 
express my appreciation to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Heineman] for bringing to our attention in such an effective manner the 
importance of this research facility, and the committee does very much 
want to be of assistance.
  As I indicated in the earlier colloquy, the Research Triangle Park 
facility is one of the three major infrastructure projects requested 
for the EPA. Funding was not available for the current fiscal year, but 
I have pledged my support to the gentleman to do my very best to find 
funds necessary for the project in the next fiscal year.
  It is my understanding that the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure is currently updating the authorization for this 
project, and I look forward to addressing this in the years ahead.
  Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference 
report.
  Once again, we are witnessing an all out assault on the quality of 
our Nation's water, air and land. The Republican Party is trying to 
accomplish through funding cuts what they failed to do through an open 
debate on environmental policy.
  Time and again this year, and the last several years, Democrats and 
Republicans have come together in a spirit of bipartisanship to protect 
the environment. This conference report will cut enforcement of 
environmental laws, cut funding for safe drinking water, cut funding 
for wastewater treatment, and cut hazardous waste cleanup.
  Slashing EPA's budget by more than 20 percent, will cripple the EPA's 
ability to ensure that our water is safe to drink, our food is safe to 
eat, and our air is safe to breathe.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this conference report.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski].
  (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, this conference report will roll back 25 
years of environmental protection and it should be defeated.
  This bill slashes the funding for the Clean Water Act. It slashes the 
funding for Superfund. It slashes the funding for EPA to even conduct 
an effective management and enforcement program.
  EPA, will be barred from any role whatsoever in decisions on 
development of our Nation's most valuable wetlands.
  It is absolutely incredible that we can give the Pentagon $7 billion 
more than the President of the United States wanted but, unbelievably, 
we can't find the money for the Environmental Protection Agency to 
enforce the laws that protect our water and our air.
  Mr. Speaker, in the Philadelphia region, there have been and will be 
cancellations of numerous Superfund inspections, leaving potentially 
dangerous toxic waste undiscovered at sites that threaten the 
community.
  The conference report means no new Superfund priority cleanups, 
whether or not there is a toxic threat to drinking water.
  Mr. Speaker, the American public does not want less environmental 
protection. They want more protection of their water and their air.
  This bill does not give them that protection. It should be defeated 
and sent back to conference.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of reasons 
to vote against this bill, but the truth of the matter is, whether we 
are concerned about the fouling of our air and our water and our 
streams or whether or not we are concerned about the cuts in the 
veterans' health care budget, what is the most egregious in this budget 
is what we have done to the housing of our Nation's poor and our 
Nation's senior citizens.

[[Page H 13757]]

  We see cuts in this budget that will decimate our housing programs. 
We see politicians constantly marching before public housing projects 
and condemning them for the condition that they are in, and yet what 
this housing budget does is gut the very provisions that are necessary 
to improve those housing projects. At the same time, we turn around and 
cut the homeless budget of our country by 40 percent. So what we are 
going to do is we are going to gut our public housing, we are going to 
come in and hurt our assisted housing projects, and once our senior 
citizens and our poor are not able to live in those projects, we then 
are going to turn them to the streets where we then gut the homeless 
budget of this country. It is a crying shame, and we ought to do better 
than this.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just might mention, in responding to the gentleman's 
comments, that, indeed, the assisted housing, for example, in this 
country has increased in terms of budget by 50 percent in the last 4 
years. All one has to do is look across the country at boarded-up 
buildings in housing projects everywhere to know that it is time for us 
to rethink where we have been in terms of those programs. Clearly, this 
side is very concerned about those future programs in terms of their 
effectiveness, and it is time for us to take some new direction.
  I said in my opening remarks the Secretary Cisneros has publicly said 
on many occasions it is time to rethink where we are going on housing. 
Money is one way to do it; but, indeed, it is important to make sure 
that the House recognizes that it has a positive role to play in terms 
of the change as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill primarily 
because of the impact on the environment. No other agency faces the 
type of cuts in this House that the EPA does in this conference report.
  It has already been mentioned that EPA funding is cut by 
approximately 20 percent, with enforcement being the hardest hit in 
terms of cuts, almost 25 percent. We all read in the New York Times 
last week that the EPA has had to cut back on inspections and 
enforcement already. This will only make it worse.
  In addition, more than half of the original 17 antienvironmental 
riders have been included either directly or through report language in 
this conference report. Since agencies often have to follow the 
dictates of the appropriators, this shift to report language in my 
opinion does not mean that the damage to the environment will be any 
less. So I ask once again that we oppose this bill and that it go back 
to conference to improve in particular the funding for the EPA.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, two-and-a-half weeks ago we celebrated 
Veterans Day, and we told the veterans of America how much we respect 
them and how grateful we are for the sacrifices that they have made for 
this Nation. Well, two-and-a-half weeks have come and gone and how 
quickly we have forgotten.
  This bill cuts $43 million from the VA programs, a larger cut than 
the House version, but that is just the beginning. The Republicans' 7-
year budget, which begins with a funding bill we are discussing today, 
cuts entitlements for veterans by $6.7 billion over 7 years. Under the 
Republican budget, many veterans would pay more for their prescription 
drugs. In some cases, the cost that veterans pay for prescription drugs 
would double, and the cuts do not stop there.
  The Republican budget demands that, in addition to the $6.7 billion 
veterans' cuts, all discretionary spending, including veterans' 
programs, be reduced by 20 percent over the 7-year combined period.
  Let us defeat this bad bill. It is unfair to our veterans.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez].
  (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mr. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
draconian conference report. This conference report is nothing more 
than a cruel attack on our children, the elderly and the poor. These 
cuts are not about arbitrary numbers of the elimination of port barrel 
projects. They are about human beings. Behind every dollar of this 
reduction, there is human tragedy.
  Mr. Speaker, by gutting the McKinney program, hundreds of thousands 
of Americans will be forced to live in the streets. As we begin the 
coming winter months, the action taken on the floor today will 
constitute a death sentence for many.
  These cuts mean less security services and the elimination of 
critical social services. For the 500,000 public housing residents in 
the New York City area, this reduction translates into deteriorating 
buildings, greater insecurity and fewer opportunities for economic 
advancement. This is shameful. It is not enough that Republicans have 
slashed education, cut Medicare, and eliminated job training programs. 
Now they are planning to throw poor people out on the street. Enough is 
enough.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
yielding to me at this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a more-than bill. This is more than what we had 
before, but what is that? I certainly applaud the assurance that has 
been given to the space program, but where are we in research and 
development dollars, far less than needed. Then when we begin to look 
at the Department of Housing and Urban Development we see that this 
bill cuts 17 percent, the Environmental Protection Agency is almost 
gutted with cuts of 21 percent, and our Federal Emergency Management 
Agency is cut 17 percent. What will occur if disasters occur in our 
States.
  Then we look at the Community Development Bank initiatives which were 
designed to revitalize economically distressed areas that program is 
being absolutely eliminated. The housing assistance under section 8 
which helps house poor Americans is being cut. Homeownership grants, 
wherein we in this Congress have stood on the House floor and said we 
want Americans to own homes, is being cut by 48 percent.

                              {time}  1230

  Public housing modernization programs are being but by 32 percent. 
Then the one-for-one replacement program to restore public housing is 
being cut. Also when we talk about negotiations in my city regarding a 
final solution to APV, located in the 18th Congressional District in 
Houston, intrusions to prevent us from considering historic 
preservation issues and the repeal of the Frost-Leland amendment which 
does not take into account the need for a local master plan for public 
housing being completed, are not helpful. This is not a good bill. This 
is an intrusive bill in some areas and it takes away the money from the 
people who need it most. More-than is simply not good enough.
  Mr. Speaker, I include my complete statement on the conference report 
for the Record, as follows:
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opinion regarding the 
conference report on the VA-HUD appropriations bill. I applaud the 
conferees for appropriating $13.8 billion for NASA. This funding is 
more than the amount contained in the House bill. The Space Agency will 
receive full funding for the space station. Funding for other programs 
such as human space flight, mission support and science, aeronautics 
and technology is slightly below current level.
  While there are still challenges that remain with respect to the 
space program, I believe that NASA will continue to provide leadership 
to the rest of the world.
  The Department of Veterans' Affairs also receives funding that is 
only slightly below the current level, with the major spending 
reductions relating to the construction of VA facilities. Our veterans 
have made numerous sacrifices on behalf of our country and we must 
ensure that the needs of veterans remain a top priority.
  Some of the provisions of the bill, however, trouble me, particularly 
funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and 

[[Page H 13758]]
the Environmental Protection Agency. The bill reduces spending for the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development by 17 percent and for the 
Environmental Protection Agency by 21 percent. The Federal Emergency 
Management Agency's funding has been cut by 17 percent.
  Furthermore, the conference report eliminates funding for the 
AmeriCorps Program, which is providing numerous opportunities for young 
people to contribute to their communities. The Community Development 
Bank initiative is also eliminated. The Community Development Banking 
Program was designed to revitalize economically distressed areas by 
providing grants, loans, and technical assistance to financial 
institutions and community development organizations in such areas.
  With respect to housing, the conference report eliminates funding for 
section 8 rental assistance contracts and hope homeownership grants. 
Low-income assisted housing programs are cut by 48 percent, public 
housing modernization programs by 32 percent, section 202 elderly 
housing by 39 percent, section 811 disabled housing by 40 percent and 
homeless programs by 27 percent.
  I do not believe that it is necessary to make these drastic cuts in 
spending. We have now learned that the economic projections provided by 
the Congressional Budget Office on the level of the budget deficit need 
to be revised.
  Other housing reforms include the suspension of the one-for-one 
replacement rule, which requires local public housing authorities to 
replace each public housing unit it demolishes with a replacement unit. 
Affordable housing should be a major priority for our country.
  In connection with the issue of public housing, I am concerned that 
the conference report contains language that states:

       That historic preservation is an admirable goal, but that 
     it is not good policy to require the preservation of 
     buildings unsuitable for modern family life at the expense of 
     low-income families in need of affordable housing.

  I believe that it is necessary that we clarify the issue of the 
importance of historic preservation to the cultural heritage of our 
country. Historic preservation guidelines contained in current law and 
regulations have not delayed the process of rehabilitating facilities 
such as Allen Parkway Village in Houston. Let me also add that many 
officials in my hometown of Houston also recognize the role of historic 
preservation in providing affordable housing to the citizens of 
Houston.
  I also believe it was unnecessary to include language in the 
conference report, at this time, that repealed the Frost-Leland 
provision, which prohibited Federal funds from being used to demolish 
Allen Parkway Village in Houston. This repeal is untimely because all 
interested parties in the effort to rehabilitate and build new housing 
at the Allen Parkway Village facility met yesterday to reach an 
agreement to move the process forward and to create a master plan. I 
recognize, however, that it is important that municipalities have the 
ability to make the best use of taxpayers funds by being able to seek 
reimbursement from the Federal Government when some of the structures 
within a housing facility must be demolished. At the appropriate time 
with the establishment of an inclusive master plan to restore housing 
for needy and working families such a repeal should be implemented.
  The provisions of the bill that relate to the Environmental 
Protection Agency greatly concern me since the bill reduces overall 
funding for the Superfund Program by 13 percent. There are several 
communities in my congressional district that have experienced problems 
with toxic waste areas such as Pleasantville and Kennedy Heights. This 
is not the time to reduce funding for the Superfund Program.
  I am concerned about the reduction in funding for State loan funds 
relating to upgrading facilities to provide safe drinking water and 
infrastructure repair such as possibly Houston's own wastewater 
project. And spending cuts for programs that enforce other 
environmental and public health standards.
  The VA-HUD appropriations bill is a comprehensive bill and a 
controversial bill. As we debate the various provisions contained in 
this bill, I hope that my colleagues will carefully consider the policy 
assumptions that were involved in drafting the bill and the potential 
impact of such policies on millions of Americans.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my very 
effective colleague from Florida [Mr. Weldon].
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the kind gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this conference bill 
and urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor 
of this.
  I was particularly pleased that the conference was able to fully fund 
the shuttle and the space station at near the request level of the 
President, and I am particularly pleased that the conference restored 
$100 million that the Senate had cut from the shuttle program.
  It allows NASA's vital field research centers to remain open so that 
they can continue to perform the important research work, and I am 
particularly pleased that there is $25 million for a VA medical clinic 
in my district. The veterans in my district have been waiting 12 years 
for a medical facility. This will allow these veterans to begin to 
receive good quality medical care that they have long deserved and they 
have long been waiting for.
  I would again urge all my colleagues to put aside their partisan 
differences and vote in favor of this bill. It is a good bill. It is 
good for veterans. It is good for NASA. I would encourage its support.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Doggett]
  Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill should be properly entitled the Unilateral 
Disarmament Act of 1995 because what it is all about is unilaterally 
disarming our capability to provide for clean air and clean water. It 
just returns to the old Gingrich-ite philosophy of the environment, 
``Polluters know best.''
  Well, we do not think they know best, and we think it is essential 
that this Nation have the capability to provide for clean air and clean 
water.
  This is a bill for unilateral disarmament. It says to those who would 
police the polluters that they will not have the resources to get the 
job done. This is the same group that tried to tie up and bind and 
shackle with 17 different binders the right to protect against the 
environment, and even some elements of their own party rebelled against 
it and said it would not stand. So now they have come back and they 
have tried every way they can to cut the power of our law enforcement 
officers to protect and preserve our environment. It needs to be 
rejected.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. President, you should veto this bill. It kills a program that 
evokes the spirit of a national service program, the AmeriCorps.
  There are many other bad aspects of this bill but eliminating 
AmericCorps is penny-foolish. It is a program that benefits the very 
heart of our communities.
  In my district in California, we have AmeriCorps workers involved in 
the Boys and Girls Clubs, in Big Brothers and Sisters, in the Food Bank 
of Monterey.
  We have 20 AmeriCorps volunteers involved in the Senior Companion 
Program. I happened to swear in as a former Peace Corps volunteer new 
AmeriCorps workers. The pledge of office is something this Congress 
ought to learn. The pledge of office to be AmeriCorps is to get the job 
done. The job that they are doing is essential to make our communities 
get back on their feet both socially and economically.
  I suggest that to eliminate that program is not a very wise thing to 
do. Mr. President, if this House cannot reject the bill, then veto it.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is an awful bill and I hope it is defeated. 
Let us look at what it does. It cuts housing programs by 21 percent. It 
cuts environmental protection by 21 percent, the Superfund by 19 
percent, homeless programs by 27 percent.
  The Republicans give our veterans an amendment against burning the 
American flag, but what do they do to veterans' needs? They cut 
construction or improvement at VA facilities by 62 percent and slash 
all kinds of other help to our veterans. It is nothing but a sham and a 
shell game that is being perpetrated on our veterans. The AmeriCorps 
Program, the community development bank initiative and dozens of 
housing programs are eliminated. All of the original 17 EPA riders 
which the House instructed to drop were removed from the bill.
  We are talking about America's future here. What we are doing is we 
are 

[[Page H 13759]]
slashing all these good programs to pay for a tax cut for the rich. It 
is really a disgrace.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] for purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I appreciate the work the chairman has done to ensure that the bill 
and the managers' language reflect the House concerns about 
environmental riders. As the chairman knows, I am still a bit 
uncomfortable with the managers' language. I just want to ask the 
gentleman to make clear that report language does not have the force of 
law. So am I correct in saying that the managers' language is not 
binding and should not be interpreted by the courts as having the force 
of law?
  Mr. LEWIS. If the gentleman will yield, bill language has the force 
of law, managers' language does not, especially when recognizing the 
way the agency the gentleman is concerned about relates to the 
Congress.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank the gentleman for his response.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the distinguished ranking member of the full 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, when I first came to Congress and later joined 
the Committee on Appropriations as a very young Member of Congress, in 
fact the youngest Member of Congress at that time, I was asked why I 
had tried so hard to get on the Committee on Appropriations rather than 
some of the other committees around here. I said at that time that the 
reason I did that is because I thought that, more than anything else 
that Congress does, our budgets define what it is that we value.
  I think this bill tells a very sad story about what this Congress 
apparently values because, as the previous speaker on our side of the 
aisle indicated, this bill makes huge reductions in housing, it makes 
huge reductions in our ability to enforce environmental cleanup 
legislation. In that sense I think it will leave this country much 
poorer, both in terms of the housing stock available to low-income 
people in this society and most especially poorer in terms of the 
quality of the air, the quality of the water, and the quality of the 
living environment that our kids and our grandkids will be living.
  This bill is going to be vetoed and it should be vetoed because it 
is, I think, an abdication of our responsibilities to be stewards of 
the environment and to be stewards of the entire ecosystem.

  I also think it abdicates in many ways the responsibilities that we 
have to our veterans. It cuts $900 million from the VA request.
  It eliminates, it is true it eliminates 17 anti-environment riders 
which were earlier attached to this bill and then later stripped out by 
a motion on the House floor, and that is good. But as the previous 
colloquy indicated, many of those riders have found their way back into 
the statement of managers.
  While those riders in the statement of managers do not have the force 
of law, they certainly do place a considerable burden on the agency, in 
that they require the agency to try to take into account the opinion of 
the committee when they drafted that statement on the part of the 
managers. When we are dealing with an agency such as EPA, which has 
tended to follow guidance provided in statements of the manager in 
years past unless they are forbidden to do so by law, I think that what 
it really does is put the Congress on record in support of a good many 
anti-environmental positions which I do not believe the Congress wants 
to do, given its vote on those riders just a few weeks ago.
  Let me also note with respect to veterans that despite the fact that 
this bill had about $1.5 billion more to work with in reality than the 
bill had when it left the House, that despite that fact, veterans' 
medical care is funded $213 million below the amount originally 
contained in the House bill. I think that is wrong.
  Let me state that again. Despite the fact that the committee and $1.5 
billion more to work with than the House bill, veterans got $213 
million less than they would have gotten in the House bill for 
veterans' medical care.
  I congratulate the committee for dropping its plan to reduce benefits 
for what are known as incompetent veterans. That was also mentioned by 
one of our friends on the Republicans side of the aisle earlier. I 
congratulate the committee. As Members know, we offered an amendment on 
this side of the aisle to try to require that that provision be 
eliminated. It was not accepted on the floor. I am happy it was 
accepted now.
  But nonetheless, I do not think that we can justify cutting veterans' 
medical benefits by $213 million. My motion to recommit will eliminate 
that reduction and would restore that $213 million. I would urge that 
Members vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit and then ``no'' on the 
bill.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio].
  (Mr. LAZIO of New York asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this 
conference report with some resesuations. We need to pass this bill to 
move the process forward. Although I have the greatest respect for the 
chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee, Chairman Lewis, and I 
agree with him more often than not, I hoped the result of the House-
Senate conference on H.R. 2099 would be better.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, 
I have worked hard to make sure this legislation established 
appropriate funding levels for programs and policies and did not create 
new programs without the direction of authorizing committees.
  I remain convinced that the original House funding levels for housing 
programs supporting vulnerable populations should be maintained. 
Section 202, which provides housing support for elderly families, and 
section 811, which assists disabled families, are programs we should 
strongly support. We need to do better.
  Section 202 represents hope for many of our seniors seeking a decent 
home. These are our parents and grandparents, people whose lives were 
spent contributing to their community and who deserve our support now.
  Section 811 allows families trying to raise children with 
disabilities or disabled adults looking for supportive housing to get 
the assistance they need and the support they deserve. Again, this is 
the type of program this House must protect.
  Mr. Speaker, there are improvements in the conference agreement. The 
authorization committees are aware of the problems the appropriators 
face. In fact, we donated over a billion dollars from a change to the 
FHA assignment program inserted by the House Banking Committee to 
assist the Appropriations committees in their work. We realized the 
difficult pressures on the Appropriations Committee, and therefore we 
allowed them to claim a portion of the savings from our reconciliation 
package to benefit housing programs, to ensure that low-income families 
would not face higher rents, so that public housing authorities would 
not face new reductions in their operating subsidies without giving 
time for new reforms and deregulations to take effect.
  Obviously, we must include some provisions to alleviate difficult 
budget pressures. These provisions are good policy choices as well. 
Removing disincentives that prevent low-income tenants from going to 
work is a great step forward for this Congress and I applaud Chairman 
Lewis for working with me to correct this for fiscal year 1996. But I 
would stress that the real work of drafting policy reforms is not to be 
found here in an Appropriations bill, rather it is the subject of the 
hard work of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity is 
currently engaged in.
  I intend to work with my very distinguished colleague and chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Livingston, as well as with my 
friend, Mr. Lewis, to ensure that the House position on these areas 
that remain in conflict are maintained when the bill comes back to this 
House.
  I would ask my colleagues who vote to support this legislation today 
to withhold their support of any future bill unless changes are made to 
shift priorities back to deserving low-income families and to eliminate 
unnecessary legislative provisions.

[[Page H 13760]]


                              {time}  1245

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, first, I want to strongly support the motion to recommit 
which has been offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  I think it is important that we recommit this bill, and, therefore, I 
urge my Members and our colleagues to support it
  Mr. Speaker, it is unusual for a bill to be so bad that none of the 
Democratic conferees on the House side would sign the conference 
report. It is a bill which the President has told the conferees is so 
bad that he will veto it in its current form.
  The conference agreement eliminates funding for the President's 
AmeriCorps service program, the community development bank initiative, 
the FDIC affordable housing program. It also eliminates several other 
housing programs.
  I can understand why the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and 
Community Opportunity has just said to the House that he is voting for 
it with some very severe reservations in light of the cuts in these 
programs. I can understand why he made that statement.
  It also cuts the office of consumer affairs.
  There are provisions in the bill which will act to raise rents for 
families living in public housing, in section 8 housing.
  In a letter received from the Administration, the President expresses 
concern about the $162 million reduction in funds that were requested 
to go directly to the States and needy cities for clean water and 
drinking water needs. He cites the more than 50 percent cut for the 
Council for Environmental Quality. He also cites the failure of the 
bill to provide funding for economic development initiatives.
  Finally, in his letter or communication to us, the President says, 
and I quote, ``Clearly this bill does not reflect the values that 
Americans hold dear.'' He urges the Congress to send him an 
appropriations bill for these important priorities that truly serve the 
American people.
  This bill, in its present form, does not adequately serve the 
American people. The President is going to veto it.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, this is a very, very important vote.
  I would mention one more time to the House that any funding that is 
made available to very important programs--such as those serving 
veterans, those serving housing, those programs that involve the EPA, a 
variety of other agencies--any funds that go in the coming fiscal year 
to those programs will be voted for up or down on this vote. So if you 
are for supporting veterans, then you should be voting ``aye'' on this 
measure.
  Having said that, Mr. Speaker, the most important challenge that we 
have during this Congress, the people have said very clearly that we 
must move toward balancing the budget. The President has signed on. The 
House has committed by way of its budget actions we will move toward 
balancing our budget at least in a 7-year period.
  Beyond the rhetoric of balancing the budget, this is a time to begin 
voting. This bill, of all appropriations bills, makes the single 
largest reduction in a pattern of ever-increasing Federal spending. 
Because of that, I suggest my colleagues take a hard look at saving 
$9.2 billion below the President's request.
  This bill is an important bill because it does make a difference if 
you believe in balancing the budget.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Conference 
Report 104-353 for the VA-HUD and independent agencies appropriations 
bill for fiscal year 1996.
  According to a November 9, 1995, article in the Honolulu Star 
Bulletin:

       The Honolulu median price among existing houses and 
     apartments changing hands, $350,000, was one-third higher 
     than the next-highest city, San Francisco, where the median 
     was $263,300, according to a report today by the National 
     Association of Realtors.

  H.R. 2099, appropriates a mere $19.3 billion for the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development. This is less than either the House or 
Senate-passed versions of the bill. It is a $5.3 billion reduction from 
the fiscal year 1995 appropriation and it is $6.2 billion, or 24.3 
percent, less than the administration budget request.
  H.R. 2099 would permit the Secretary to manage and dispose of 
multifamily properties owned by HUD and multifamily mortgages held by 
HUD without regard to any other provision of law. Provisions 
established to protect the needy will be ignored.
  Assistance for homeless programs would be cut by $297,000, dropping 
funding in this area from $1.1 billion in fiscal year 1995 to $823 
million in fiscal year 1996.
  Finally, opportunities for tenant-sponsored organizations, nonprofit 
organizations, and others, to purchase the buildings they reside in, 
would be eliminated. H.R. 2099 sunsets preservation programs after 
October 1, 1996. The Emergency Low Income Preservation Act of 1987 and 
the Low Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 
1990 would be eliminated by this time next year. These programs help 
tenant-sponsored organizations, nonprofit organizations, and many 
others acquire buildings for their low-income residents.
  These cuts are not slowing growth, but deliberate and undeniable 
reductions in program funding.
  In addition to all of these cuts in the VA-HUD appropriations bill, 
the budget reconciliation bill contains further reductions and will 
eliminate the low-income housing tax credit which encourages investment 
in housing for low-income families.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this conference report.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill camouflaged 
by the military uniforms of our former service men and women. Not only 
will this bill hurt veterans, the environment, and tenants in low-
income housing, but it eliminates funding for AmeriCorps, the national 
service program.
  In my district, there are tens of thousands of veterans and military 
retirees who rely on medical assistance and quality medical facilities. 
Unfortunately, the cuts in this bill will threaten the quality care 
they depend on. For example, it cuts nearly $400 million in medical 
care from the administration's request and eliminates educational help 
for those who agree to work at VA facilities.
  Many veterans and military retirees are willing to make a sacrifice 
in the effort to end the deficit, but we should not target them 
unfairly--and, unfortunately, this bill does just that.
  This bill will also hurt the environment by cutting the EPA's funding 
by over $1.5 billion from this year's budget. In my coastal district, 
less money will be given to help local communities keep the Monterey 
Bay clean and healthy. This bill will also hurt the public by 
preventing EPA from expanding its list of the toxic chemical releases 
that companies must make public. Finally, this bill hurts our young 
people.
  As we approach a new millennium, we need to renew the spirit of our 
Founding Fathers. A program that evokes that spirit is the national 
service program, AmeriCorps. It is a volunteer program that works--it 
should not be arbitrarily cut. It is an investment in our future--
according to IBM for every dollar AmeriCorps invests, the community 
will realize a return of $1.60 to $2.60 or more in direct benefits. 
AmeriCorps workers are involved in every aspect of our communities, 
teaching in schools, feeding the homeless, and counseling troubled 
youth.
  In my district in California, we have AmeriCorps workers involved 
with the Boys and Girls Club, Big Brothers and Sisters, and the Food 
Bank of Monterey. We have 20 AmeriCorps members involved in the Senior 
Companion Program which has low-income seniors assisting other seniors, 
allowing them to lead independent lives.
  Several weeks ago I had the privilege of swearing in two AmeriCorps 
volunteers in Hollister. They will be working on developing a new youth 
center and administering the city's housing rehabilitation program. 
Unfortunately, this bill terminates funding for AmeriCorps.
  As a former Peace Corps volunteer, I know the benefits of volunteer 
service. No one can quantify the benefits an AmeriCorps worker gives to 
his or her community. Unfortunately, the communities of Hollister and 
Monterey will notice the loss of this valuable volunteer service 
benefit.
  This is yet again another example of Republican budget-cutting that 
is penny-wise and pound-foolish.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report 
on HUD-VA.
  This bill contains some of our Nation's most important priorities, 
and I was pleased that the conference agreement protects space 
research. Nevertheless, the overall cuts which were sustained by the 
EPA and Superfund are unacceptable. Preserving our environment is 

[[Page H 13761]]
too important to be traded off for other priorities. Therefore, I 
oppose this bill.
  I commend the conferees for providing funding to NASA to continue 
important work on space science and move the space station forward. I 
especially want to thank the conferees for providing $1.26 billion for 
mission to Planet Earth. The research this sponsors will greatly 
enhance weather forecasting, and allow us to protect lives and property 
by giving better advance warning before severe weather such as 
hurricanes. I am pleased that today, this bill reaffirms the importance 
of the work that is done at the Goddard Space Center.
  Nevertheless, the funding cuts for EPA in this bill are an 
unacceptable attack on our environment.
  Funding for Superfund cleanup has been cut by 19 percent. This leaves 
no flexibility to take care of sites which will be identified as 
problems in the upcoming year. The Fifth District of Maryland has five 
areas which are currently being considered for Sueprfund cleanup 
assistance. All five contain pollution which threatens the health and 
well-being of Fifth District residents. It is unfair to limit clean up 
progress to currently identified sites. This bill will exclude many 
dangerous areas from getting clean up help
  I am also concerned about the impact of EPA cuts on our ongoing 
efforts to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. Under this conference report, 
EPA funding would be cut more than one-fifth. This means that available 
funding will be directed to dealing with crises. Long-term restoration 
efforts will bear the brunt of the cuts. For example, we recently 
discovered that as much as 30 percent of the nitrogen pollution in the 
bay is due to airborne, not waterborne, contamination. The cuts in this 
bill will force the EPA to stop much of this type of research. 
Likewise, our ongoing programs to reintroduce rockfish and other 
species to the bay may also be put on hold.
  I am pleased that the Chesapeake Bay program has been funded under 
this bill. However, as any fisherman will tell you, our efforts to 
restore the bay and its oyster population are dependent upon the 
quality of the water that flows into the bay. The ultimate success of 
our efforts to restore the economic and environmental vitality of the 
bay depend on cleaning up the Patuxent, Anacostia, and Potomac Rivers. 
These are precisely the sorts of long-term projects which are most 
likely to be delayed as scarce funding turns to short-term emergency 
responses and crisis management.
  These cuts show the folly of attempting to cut taxes while balancing 
the budget. I believe we must balance the Federal budget, for the sake 
of our children and grandchildren. But I do not believe that spending 
$245 billion to give tax breaks to our wealthiest Americans is a wise 
use of taxpayer funds. These cuts are not to balance the budget--they 
are paying for the tax cut. How will our grandchildren judge us if we 
fail to preserve our Nation's environmental and economic viability? 
Will giving a tax cut be an adequate defense? I believe not, and I urge 
my colleagues to join me in voting against this bill.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the conference 
report on H.R. 2099, the fiscal year 1996 VA-HUD appropriations bill. 
While the measure before us is slightly better than the one passed by 
the House, it has a long way to go before it is acceptable. I am 
particularly concerned about the 26 percent cut in housing programs, 
the 27 percent cut in homeless programs, and the 21 percent cut in the 
programs of the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA].
  I would like to thank the chairman of the committee and the conferees 
for continuing to fund the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS 
[HOPWA] program as a separate program. The $171 million provide for 
HOPWA, the same level as the post-rescission funding in fiscal year 
1995, will help communities across the Nation as they develop local 
solutions to problems confronting people with HIV/AIDS. Because new 
communities qualify for HOPWA funds this year, the level of funding to 
communities already receiving HOPWA grants will be reduced. This 
problem could have been resolved by providing a higher level of 
funding. However, I am pleased that HOPWA is being maintained as a 
separate program and will, therefore, not have to compete with housing 
for the disabled and the elderly.
  I would also like to commend the conferees for their efforts to 
address the continuing threat to the affordable housing stock posed by 
prepayment. This conference report provides $624 million for a modified 
preservation/prepayment program. Although I am concerned that the funds 
are insufficient to meet the needs, I am pleased that the conferees 
recognized that there is a serious problem and are interested in 
developing a solution to it.
  Despite these provisions, I oppose this bill because it reneges on 
our Federal commitment to help this Nation's families. Strong families 
make our communities strong and strong communities make our Nation 
strong. For families to be strong, they must have access to the 
basics--employment, education, healthcare, and housing. This bill 
dramatically decreases the ability of local communities to provide 
access to decent, safe, and affordable housing for America's families.
  The costs to our society of homelessness are significant and they are 
long-term. At the simplest level, the costs are financial. It costs 
more to return homeless people to the mainstream of society than it 
costs to prevent them from becoming homeless in the first place. But, 
the costs to society of homelessness go far beyond financial ones.
  Children growing up homeless in the streets today will carry the 
scars of their childhood experiences and the memories of society's 
indifference to them into their adulthood. We are being willfully blind 
if we refuse to see that society's indifference today will cost us 
tomorrow.
  The conference report to H.R. 2099, like so many of the pieces of the 
agenda of this Republican-controlled Congress, targets its hardest hits 
at the most vulnerable. In the case of housing, those hit the hardest 
are the poorest residents in public and assisted housing and poor 
working families, too many of whom live on the streets. The median 
income of households receiving Federal housing assistance is $8,000. 
These households simply have no additional resources with which to pay 
for increases in housing costs.
  Currently, more than 5.6 million very-low-income households in this 
country pay half or more of their incomes for rent or live in 
substandard housing. Between 1989 and 1993, this group grew by 600,000 
households--a growth rate which will be dwarfed by the one ahead of us 
if this bill becomes law. More than 8 percent of our Nation's 
children--our future--live in these households.

  In this Nation, we already have at least 4.7 million fewer affordable 
rental units than we need, and more than 1.5 million households are on 
waiting lists for public or assisted housing. This number will increase 
dramatically and quickly if this bill becomes law. Under the funding 
levels contained in this bill, no additional families will receive 
Federal housing assistance, and for those families who have been on 
waiting lists, sometimes for years, their hopes for decent housing grow 
even dimmer.
  These cuts would be bad enough if they were being done on their own. 
They are not. Coupled with the dismantling of the Federal safety net 
and draconian cuts in Federal programs contained in other legislation 
passed by Congress--including cuts in welfare, food stamps, the Earned 
Income Tax Credit, Medicaid, education and job training--the cuts in 
housing and homelessness programs in this bill add up to disaster. 
These cuts create insurmountable odds for America's struggling working 
lower income families and increased demand for local community 
assistance, with no hope of Federal assistance. The needs do not go 
away because Congress has taken the money away. In many cases, the 
needs will grow. This bill is cruel and cold-hearted. It does not 
reflect American values.
  I also oppose the provisions in this conference report which would 
cut the funding levels for the Environmental Protection Agency by 21 
percent.
  These provisions not only severely limit the agency's ability to 
protect our lands, air, and water; but they also continue the full-
scale assault on the environment that began on the first day of the 
104th Congress.
  Poll after poll has indicated that the American people favor strong 
environmental laws. We should not be willing to sacrifice the health 
and safety of our children. For the families, children, and citizens of 
America, I urge my colleagues to oppose this conference report.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise some strong concerns I 
have with language contained in the conference report on H.R. 2099 
concerning the ongoing efforts in the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development to move toward Federal regulation of so-called redlining 
within the property insurance industry, an area of regulation 
traditionally left to the States.
  The VA/HUD bill approved by the House earlier this year contained 
language requested by me, Representative Knollenberg, and a number of 
other Members from throughout the country which would have 
reestablished the States' right to regulate the insurance industry and 
address rules dealing with any redlining problems in their respective 
States, and prohibited HUD from spending fiscal year 1996 dollars on 
promulgating redlining regulations and funding projects by activist 
groups. I commend and thank Chairman Lewis for working to include this 
language in the House bill.
  HUD has no statutory authority to be involved in this area, and under 
the McCarran/Ferguson Act regulation of insurance is properly handled 
by the States. The States are exercising that authority to address 
redlining problems where they exist, and there is absolutely no reason 
for HUD to get involved.
  The House of Representatives clearly endorsed this view when it voted 
266 to 157 

[[Page H 13762]]
against an amendment to strike this section from the bill. The Senate 
bill did not contain similar language when it went to conference.
  I am deeply distressed that the conference committee not only deleted 
this section, but replaced it with report language which takes a 
position directly opposite of the House-approved language prohibiting 
redlining regulation. In particular, the language calls for 
congressional committees to take action ``so that a clear statutory 
basis of regulation can be provided, and effective antidiscrimination 
regulation of insurance activities enforced'' with respect to 
redlining. This is a position with which I vehemently disagree and 
which is diametrically opposed to the position taken earlier by the 
House.
  I have every confidence that if this bill is vetoed by the President, 
as is expected, this matter will be addressed again by the 
Appropriations Committees. I thank Chairman Lewis for his support and 
look forward to working with him in the future to include the 
previously adopted language to prohibit HUD for regulating property 
insurers in any future version of this legislation.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
VA-HUD appropriations conference report.
  This bill makes dangerous and unnecessary cuts in programs protecting 
the health and welfare of our Nation.
  It decimates important environmental protection programs by cutting 
EPA funding by 21 percent--the largest targeted cut for any single 
Federal agency.
  It also slashes public housing programs by 21 percent and homeless 
programs by 27 percent, at a time when public housing needs are rising, 
not falling.
  The impact of these cuts will be felt in urban and rural areas 
throughout the Nation. For example, in Los Angeles County alone, 
reductions in the incremental section 8 housing program will deny 
rental assistance to 40,000 individuals and families currently on the 
county's waiting list.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the flawed funding priorities 
reflected in this bill by defeating the conference report.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle are playing an increasingly dangerous game with 
public health and the environment.
  Every poll shows that Americans oppose the weakening of environmental 
standards. In fact, an ABC/Washington Post poll showed that 70 percent 
of respondents felt that the Federal Government has not done enough to 
protect the environment. If you ask questions about the protection of 
communities and employees from hazardous industries and substances, the 
public support is even higher.
  And yet the Republican leaders of this Congress, beginning with the 
blatant efforts to repeal much of the Clean Water Act as part of the 
Contract With America, have unleashed an unprecedented assault on the 
safety of America's communities. That assault has been promoted, 
drafted, and financed by the very industries and special interests that 
are benefiting from the Republican revolution.
  This conference report is a startling example of this capitulation by 
the Republican Congress to the special interests who have long 
challenged the authority of public entities to regulate the safety of 
the workplaces, the safety of their products, and the safety of their 
operations. Provisions in this report hamstring the ability of the 
Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the laws that keep our water 
clean, our air safe, and our communities free from toxic dangers.
  This conference report bars EPA from protecting wetlands, limits 
EPA's authority to list new hazardous waste sites, and bars the 
issuance of new standards to protect the public from drinking water 
contaminated by radon.
  As a representative of a heavily industrial district where 
constituents have often been subjected to health hazards both on the 
job and in the community, this legislation contains unacceptable 
waivers from basic laws intended to protect the public from serious 
threats to health and safety. Instructions buried in the legislative 
history of this conference report direct EPA to: Exempt the oil and gas 
industry from requirements to develop accident prevention plans; excuse 
the oil and gas industry from reducing toxic air pollution from 
refineries; and infringe on the public's right to know by limiting the 
kinds of information about air and water pollution that industries must 
report for the Toxic Release Inventory.
  The Seventh District of California--like much of the San Francisco 
Bay area--has had a long and unhappy history with industries that have 
leaked, spilled, spewed, emitted, discharged, and released up to 40,000 
tons of hazardous materials, with serious results on our community. 
Indeed, our region has been affected by dozens of releases of hazardous 
chemicals and other substances into our water, our air, and our lands.
  The San Joaquin River, which discharges into the fragile Sacramento-
San Joaquin Delta, dumps the following loads every year into that 
estuary: arsenic, 12 metric tons; chromium, 66 tons; lead, 51 to 55 
tons; and nickel, 51 tons.
  In 1993, the General Chemical Co. of Richmond, CA, released a huge 
amount of oleum into the air, forcing 24,000 people to seek medical 
attention. General Chemical was charged with numerous violations of 
civil and criminal law, including failure to maintain equipment, 
failing to provide adequate employees training, failure to provide 
employees with protective equipment, and negligently emitting an air 
contaminant.
  The General Chemical crisis illustrates the accuracy of the 
principle: prevention pays. General Chemical was required to pay $1.18 
million in fines to the Government agencies and recently agreed to a 
$180 million settlement with thousands of its victims. For a small 
amount of that money, General Chemical could have had in place the 
safety policies and technology that would have prevented the release, 
and the subsequent damage and costs, in the first place.
  There are those who believe that industry will act to minimize risks 
to its employees, the community, and the environment without the 
compulsion of safety regulations. They are sadly naive. Time and again, 
in my community and around this country and indeed the world, we have 
learned the lesson that removing safety regulations invariably leads to 
short cuts and practices that endanger thousands of lives. Those who 
seek, in this legislation, to pare back the important work of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, or elsewhere attack the Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration or the Mine Safety and Health 
Administration, would do well to consider this record.
  The Shell refinery in Martinez, CA, like other local refineries, 
discharged large amounts of selenium into local waterways, with 
potentially serious results on waterfowl and other marsh wildlife. 
Shell, like Unocal and Exxon, failed to meet a 1993 deadline to reduce 
selenium discharges. Some also charge the refineries with the release 
of dioxins that have been linked with cancer and other serious health 
problems.
  Earlier this year, a pipeline leak at the Dow Chemical plant in 
Pittsburg, CA, released dissolved chlorine hydrochloric acid and carbon 
tetrachloride, affecting nearby residents. The examples go on an on: 
Unocal of Rodeo dumped 200 tons of toxic chemicals onto surrounding 
communities over a 16-day period. Although plant managers were aware of 
the leak and workers informed their supervisors, the leak was permitted 
to continue for 16 days before the damaged unit was finally shut down, 
leaving hundreds of people with longstanding illnesses.
  There are a lot of people in this House who obviously do not believe 
our communities, our constituents, or our employees need or deserve the 
protection of their Government from the contamination and poisonings 
associated with industrial actions. I do not know if they are 
misinformed, naive, or swayed by the special interests who are behind 
the weakening of the EPA and behind this legislation. But the effect is 
the same.
  Laws written to protect our citizens and our communities are being 
trampled by special interest money and influence and, quite literally, 
people are going to die as a result of this capitulation to corporate 
interests.
  I recognize everyone in this House can point to some example of 
another of bureaucratic overstepping, and we need good faith efforts to 
minimize that kind of obstructionism and redtape. But protecting our 
constituents from the well-documented cases of industrial contamination 
and poisoning by undercutting the EPA is irresponsible and condemnable. 
We should vote against this legislation and stand up for the men and 
women who work in our factories, live in our communities, and look to 
their Government to provide them with a basic amount of protection and 
security.
  I urge the House to reject the conference report.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, last month I had the honor to host in my 
district one of the finest public servants who has ever served the 
combat veterans of this Nation--the Honorable Jesse Brown.
  Secretary Brown did not just talk to the veterans at the VFW hall in 
Davison, MI--he took the time to carefully listen to the concerns of 
each veteran who attended the town hall meeting. He talked individually 
to literally dozens of the veterans that day.
  But now some Members of Congress want to muzzle Secretary Brown 
because he has become a real advocate for the veterans and their needs.
  In yet another attempt to stifle opposition to their agenda, these 
Members of Congress want to severely cut funding for the veterans 
Secretary's office as a means of sending Jesse Brown a message.
  These cuts in the Secretary's personal office are in addition to the 
harsh cuts already contained in the appropriations bill.
  Mr. Speaker, such behavior should be beneath the dignity of this 
House.
  I urge Members to join me in opposition to this attack on the 
Secretary of Veterans' Affairs--and oppose this appropriations bill.

[[Page H 13763]]

  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I support passage of the VA-HUD conference 
report to H.R. 2099. I want to thank Chairman Lewis and the conferees 
for their diligence on this bill, and their willingness to work with me 
and members of the Oklahoma delegation, to incorporate report language 
compelling the EPA to properly notify corporations or persons as a 
potentially responsible party [PRP] for facilities on the Superfund's 
national priorities list.
  I know that the House Commerce and Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committees are currently in the process of reauthorizing and reforming 
the Superfund Program which is in critical need of improvement. 
However, for some unfortunate parties, Superfund reform may be a case 
of too little--too late.
  Presently, there are policies which the EPA should be implementing 
that would save a great deal of time, money, and legal maneuvering in 
the context of reform and good government. Superfund's overreaching, 
illogical, and unfair liability snarls have deflected the program from 
its intended function: to protect human health and the environment in a 
realistic cost-effective manner. Despite the expenditure of at least 
$25 billion in Federal and private funds over the past 15 years, 
cleanup construction has been completed at only 291 out of nearly 1,300 
sites--a whopping 12 percent success rate.
  I wholeheartedly concur with the conference report language which 
states,

       Potentially responsible parties [PRP's] have a reasonable 
     expectation to be notified by the EPA in a timely manner and 
     within a time frame that permits participation in remedy 
     selection and execution. In particular, it is inequitable and 
     unconscionable for the agency to identify a PRP without the 
     means to effectively participate in remedy selection and 
     execution and then, after the remedy has been substantially 
     completed, to attempt to identify other parties to pay for 
     remedial activity.

  Additionally, the report language makes clear that the EPA should 
review all of its activities to determine the extent to which such 
situations have occurred and, in conjunction with the Department of 
Justice, make every effort to remedy such actions in a 
nonconfrontational, nonlitigious manner.
  I strongly encourage EPA Administrator Browner to abide by the spirit 
of this language and not take any premature actions which may lead to 
innocent corporations or persons expending unnecessary legal costs for 
a problem they did not have any association with and/or did not create.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Speaker pro tempore. (Mr. Emerson). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.


                 motion to recommit offered by mr. obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
  Mr. OBEY. That is safe to say, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves to recommit the conference report on the 
     bill H.R. 2099 to the committee of conference with 
     instructions to the managers on the part of the House to 
     insist on the House position on Senate amendment numbered 4.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, 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 SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, 
nays 208, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 829]

                               YEAS--216

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Burr
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--208

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

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Fattah
     Flake
     Hefner
     Roth
     Seastrand
     Towns
     Tucker
     Volkmer

                              {time}  1311

  Messrs. LINDER, SALMON, FOLEY, LEWIS of Kentucky, RIGGS, and BILBRAY 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. KENNELLY, Messrs. ROEMER, BARCIA, FUNDERBURK, HAYES, GOODLATTE, 
FOX of Pennsylvania, MURTHA, MANZULLO, GOODLING, HILLEARY, and 
STOCKMAN, and Ms. 

[[Page H 13764]]
ROYBAL-ALLARD changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________