[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 95 (Tuesday, June 25, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H6799-H6845]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 456 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3666.
{time} 1759
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
3666) 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, 1997, and for other purposes, with Mr. Combest in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
[[Page H6800]]
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
As we begin this evening's debate relative to the fiscal year 1997
VA-HUD and independent agencies appropriations bill, I ask my
colleagues' indulgence for just a moment so I might offer a few
thoughts myself regarding our dear friend, Bill Emerson. It occurred to
both the gentleman from Ohio, Louis Stokes, my ranking member, and
myself, that Bill Emerson would very much appreciate the work that has
been done by this subcommittee and the fashion in which this bill will
be discussed in the House this evening.
Above and beyond all things in the House, Bill Emerson cared about
public policy and solving problems with a spirit of nonpartisanship.
Indeed, my colleagues, I can say, as we have gone forward with the work
of this subcommittee, that spirit has been alive and well and it is the
likes of Bill Emerson who indeed have created an environment that will
hopefully extend itself throughout the rest of this legislative year.
As was evident by the remarks of a number of our colleagues this
evening, Bill Emerson certainly was a man who was loved and respected
by both sides of the aisle. He loved the Members on both sides and they
loved him. That quality is especially rare in this day and age where
partisanship almost for the sake of partisanship too often dominates
the scene in our Nation's Capital. Bill Emerson was first and foremost,
as has been said by colleague after colleague, a man of the House.
He began his work here, in 1954, as a page. He was on this floor the
day bullets rang out on the House floor, a bullet hole remains in one
of these drawers to this very day. Any Member who wishes can come and
examine one of Bill's experiences.
Through the years, Bill Emerson helped to shape the history of this
place as Members see the House of Representatives as an esteemed body.
Most importantly, he never forgot his roots or the people who elected
him overwhelmingly to represent them for 8 terms.
Beyond that, Bill was a Member who recognized that partisanship
indeed should have its limits. He could be tough as nails, either
within the committee or here on the floor, engaging in debate,
defending his point of view, but Bill Emerson recognized that
partnership should always stop either at the committee room door or,
indeed, when all of us leave this floor.
That is a lesson we can all learn from. I must say that Bill Emerson
has been one of my best and truest friends in the House, in spite of
the struggles that he personally has been facing. Through the good
times and these most difficult times, Bill has always been there to
offer his heartfelt support. Regardless of his problems, he had time
for yours.
Over the years, our families have grown to be very close. It was past
2 a.m. Sunday morning that his daughter Abby called Arlene and I to
share the news of his passing with us. To say the least, our hearts and
prayers go out to Jo Ann and Abby and the rest of their wonderful
family.
Mr. Chairman, it is my hope and wish that as we consider this bill
today, we will conduct ourselves in a manner that is worthy of the
legacy of Bill Emerson.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate my remarks at this time with
those of my distinguished chairman. Bill Emerson was truly one of the
finest men I have ever been privileged to serve with in this body. In
the words of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] he was truly the
epitome of what bipartisanship represented in a body of this sort.
Bill was the type of person who you knew loved this institution, who
was devoted to it and to its Members. He had had a very distinguished
career here, having served both as a page and then as a very
distinguished legislator in this body.
I recall last week that I saw him on about three different occasions.
I recall late one night, when we were working, that he came in in a
wheelchair and we came in on the first floor level, and took the
elevator up together. And I asked him, I said, Bill, how are you doing?
He said, ``Oh, I am doing OK.'' And he said he was on a new type of
chemotherapy and taking the radiation. He said, ``But I am going to be
all right.''
And I think it was that type of formidable fortitude that Bill
represented. He was always in good spirits, always of a positive
demeanor and someone who never gave up.
In the same sense that the gentleman from California has mentioned,
the way Mr. Emerson approached his responsibilities here in a
bipartisan basis, I think that is the way we think of him. Bill put the
institution first and he devoted himself to policies of the institution
and to the people who serve here. Whenever one passed by him, or had a
chance to talk with him, he was cheerful. He was someone who you grew
to not only like but really respect highly and to love and admire and
respect.
So not only has this institution lost one of the finest men to ever
serve here, the Nation has indeed encountered a great loss. All of us
who served with him in this body will certainly remember him.
I appreciate the gentleman giving us the opportunity to share our
thoughts about Bill Emerson.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from
Ohio, Lou Stokes.
Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that indeed my work with Louis Stokes this
year on this bill has been a return to a spirit that he and I have
experienced for a number of years working together. As we all know,
there was a very significant change after the last election; some of us
were surprised at it. Lou may have been, but I can tell you that I was
too in many a way. Having the privilege to serve as chairman of the
subcommittee, I was both excited, but also I found it very difficult,
and challenging. In many ways it was a painful process.
Indeed with the revolution came a difficult adjustment that caused
all of us in our new roles to look at where we had been. To suggest
that last year's appropriations process was comfortable for either Mr.
Stokes or myself would be to suggest some kind of fantasy land. It was
a painful process, especially for me.
I want Members to know that this year we have been operating in a
different environment. Lou Stokes and I have long been very, very close
friends and are most pleased to say that we have produced a product
that very much reflects the bipartisan spirit that was a part of the
life of our colleague who we have all shared thoughts about today.
So, Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to present H.R. 3666, the VA-HUD
independent agencies appropriations bill for the fiscal year 1997. I do
not intend to speak very long today because this bill, as it did in the
subcommittee and the full committee markup, should draw wide bipartisan
support on the floor.
As most of my colleagues know, this is a departure, as I have
suggested, from last year's process. But in a different spirit, we
bring this bill to you tonight. As it stands, the bill provides $64.3
billion, that is billion dollars, in discretionary budgetary authority
and is $3.2 billion less than the administration's request for the 20
agencies that fall within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. It is a fair
and equitable bill.
This legislation reaffirms our commitment to serving our veterans as
they have served us, to protecting the environment, to caring for the
poorest of the poor, to ensuring America's future leadership in space.
Most importantly, it keeps the appropriations process on track for
meeting the objective clearly stated by both the Congress and the
administration of balancing the budget by the year 2002.
This is a bill that the President can and should sign. Like last
year, we begin the process this year by reviewing every program and
every budget from the bottom up. We examine what works and what has not
worked in every agency under our responsibility. We asked NASA to begin
prioritizing its programs, for example. We began to scrutinize the
manner in which the VA is delivering care and services to our veterans.
We did all of this and more and have succeeded in identifying
[[Page H6801]]
many areas where we could make reductions in the rate of growth of
spending, a key ingredient towards balancing the budget shortly after
the turn of the century.
Through this long and sometimes difficult process, this subcommittee
alone has identified some $14.8 billion, $14.8 billion of taxpayers'
savings since we began looking at these agencies and the
responsibilities and their spending levels stemming back to the year
1995.
It has been well advertised in the press that this subcommittee
received a large increase in our 602(b) allocation relative to last
year. What has not been well advertised is the fact that our prior year
outlays over which we have virtually no control have also been
increased some $1.8 billion between 1996 and 1997. In addition, the
Congressional Budget Office has rescored a number of major accounts,
particularly VA and EPA, which has resulted in large outlay increases
even though budget authority has remained relatively constant.
All of this is to say that we have looked at each program as
carefully as possible and are attempting to make slight but meaningful
reductions where appropriate while providing as close to the 1996 or
budget request levels wherever possible.
With the indulgence of our colleagues, I would like to take just a
moment to detail the highlights of this bill. We have provided the full
budget request of over $17 billion for VA medical care. This represents
an increase of $444 million over the 1996 level and is the only
substantial increase over the 1996 level in the entire bill. One of our
amendments will make some adjustment in that.
We have also provided the budget request of 1996 levels for elderly
and disabled housing, housing for people with AIDS, drug elimination
grants, public operating subsidies, severely distressed public housing,
and virtually every other major program at HUD.
In addition, I will be offering shortly an amendment to restore $300
million to the Community Development Block Grant Program, bringing CDBG
funding to the full budget request level. We have provided $19 million
over the 1996 level for EPA's programs, including increases for science
and technology, their programs and management and Superfund. The clean
water State revolving fund and the environmental grant programs
available to the States and tribal governments are also fully funded.
The space station and the shuttle program under NASA are fully
funded. In addition, we are providing $1.2 billion for the Mission to
Planet Earth Program.
Mr. Chairman, this subcommittee has made a concerted effort to
refrain from including controversial legislative provisions in spending
bills this year. I am sure the chairman will be pleased to hear that.
In this vein, all of my colleagues know of the struggle we went
through regarding language in last year's bill. And they, too, will be
pleased to know that there are no environmental legislative provisions
which will draw controversy to this bill.
In spite of a number of difficult challenges in putting this measure
together, our final product represents a balance of common interests as
well as tough choices. Let me repeat for the record: On its merits,
this is a bill the President can and should sign.
In closing, I want to commend my ranking member, Mr. Stokes, for his
willingness to work closely with me in crafting a bill that we can both
support. I want further to thank and commend his very capable staff,
particularly Leslie Atkinson and Del Davis, for their work. I also want
to recognize my own staff, Frank Cushing, Paul Thompson, Tim Peterson,
Valerie Baldwin, Doug Disrud, Jeff Shockey, Alex Heslop, and Dave
LesStrang, for their many hours of work in putting this package
together.
{time} 1815
Together, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and I have worked to
prepare a balanced bill in the name of comity and in the truest sense
of bipartisanship. I must say that our colleagues will find before we
are through with this process that we believe, and I am sure our
colleagues will agree, that the work of this subcommittee does indeed
reflect the best of the spirit of our friend and colleague, Bill
Emerson.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3666, the fiscal year 1997
appropriations bill for the Departments of VA-HUD-independent agencies.
The bill being considered in the House today is a far cry from the bill
considered last year for the fiscal year 1996. At the outset, I want to
express my appreciation to the gentleman from California. [Mr. Lewis],
my friend, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, for the good
faith efforts and bipartisan spirit in which he approached this year's
deliberations. This was central to our ability to work together to
produce a bill which each of us can point to and find a basis to
support.
One of the major concerns I had with last year's process was the fact
that the traditional bipartisan approach to fashioning appropriations
bills in the Committee or Appropriations was basically nonexistent. I
am pleased to state to the House that at least on this subcommittee, we
have brought this bill to the floor as a cooperative bipartisan
measure. I also want to express my appreciation to the subcommittee
staff, Frank Cushing, Paul Thomson, Tim Peterson, Valerie Baldwin, Bud
Dezrine, and Jeff Shockey, for the cooperation they have accorded me
and my staff. I also want to express my appreciation to Del Davis and
Leslie Atkinson, my staff, for their outstanding work.
Mr. Speaker, as the chairman noted, this is not an easy bill to bring
to the floor. It never is. It is a tough bill. There are several areas
of this bill which are troublesome, and these are the areas in which
the chairman and I are not in agreement. However, the chairman and I
are committed to continuing to work together as this bill moves through
the entire legislative process.
Now, let me speak to a few of the areas in this bill that I believe
are important to highlight. As it relates to veterans, the bill
provides the President's request for medical care, and medical and
prosthetic research. Additional funds have been granted for the
construction of State extended care facilities, and the National
Cemetery System receives necessary funds for its operations.
As my colleagues are well aware, over the years no area has caused me
greater concern in this bill than that of housing. I feel very strongly
about our commitment to these programs, and I considered some areas to
be deficient after markup. Among those areas lacking sufficient funding
was the Community Development Block Grant Program, and, as the
gentleman has already mentioned, we will consider the chairman's
amendment which addresses our mutual concern in this area.
Another issue for which I have expressed my concern is the proposal
to restructure section 8 contract renewals that are oversubsidized and
whose contracts expire in fiscal year 1997. There is no doubt that this
issue will be key to how much funding HUD programs receive overall in
the future, not to mention all other programs in this bill. After
numerous meetings, discussions with the Department and outside groups,
and debate at markup, the chairman has decided to withdraw the proposed
legislative provision on this issue. We will discuss this action during
the debate on amendments.
With regard to housing, there are also the issues of no new section 8
incremental vouchers, and reduced funding for section 202 elderly and
section 811 disabled housing.
One main difference in this year's bill is the absence of
antienvironmental riders that created contentiousness and, later, floor
motions and ultimately a veto of last year's bill. The Environmental
Protection Agency [EPA] is funded at 93 percent of the budget request,
compared with 67 percent of the request recommended last year.
There are, however, some concerns over the reductions to important
administration priorities, like the toxic release inventory, the
environmental technological initiative, and climate programs. These
troublesome areas hopefully will be changed as the bill moves forward.
Other areas in this bill that are problematic and that the
administration deems objectionable are the reductions
[[Page H6802]]
To the President's request for the Community Development Financial
Institutions Program, NASA's Mission to Plant Earth, and the
Corporation for National and Community Service. There is also the
elimination of the Office of Consumer Affairs. These are all areas I
hope to see improved.
I want to again thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] for
his leadership on this bill. It is my intention to support the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Delay], the majority whip.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr.
Lewis] for yielding this time to me, and I appreciate all the work that
he has done and the ranking member has done in bringing this bipartisan
bill to the floor. So, I rise in support of the fiscal year 1997 VA-HUD
appropriations bill. As is the case each year, the diversity of
programs in this bill requires many difficult funding choices, from
veterans' medical care, to housing for the elderly, to Superfund, and
the exploration of space.
Once again, the chairman and ranking member of this subcommittee have
done yeoman's work in crafting a bill that addresses many of the
priorities of the American people and of the members of this House.
One of those very important priorities is NASA. NASA is one of the
few agencies in this bill where our taxpayer dollars are invested in
the future of this country. So, I am very pleased that the space
station and the shuttle programs are fully funded. The shuttle program
is in the process of transitioning to the private sector under a prime
contract structure to the United Space Alliance and eventually to
privatization.
The space station is now at a very exciting point; it is just 16
months away from launch of the first element. Undoubtedly, however, we
will continue to see misguided attempts to kill or wound this program
later as we consider some of the amendments to this bill, but I am
confident that these attempts will fail by the same large margins
demonstrated by the House on the authorization bill just a few weeks
ago because the American people are solidly behind this critical
program.
So, Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, and it deserves the support of
the members of this House. I urge my colleagues to join me in approving
its passage.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzales], the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in qualified support for H.R. 3666
which makes the appropriations for the fiscal year 1997 for VA, HUD,
and independent agencies. I offer qualified support because I continue
to be deeply troubled by the severe budgetary limitations on domestic
discretionary spending, particularly for the most vulnerable and
working families in favor of providing tax cuts for the wealthy. These
rigid and mean-spirited limitations sadly find me and many of my
colleagues cheering when the housing programs in H.R. 3666 simply hold
their own and do not face any deeper cuts than they faced last year.
That is the situation. Thankfully, the circumstances surrounding
consideration of the bill today are vastly different from those last
year. In a strange twist, I actually commend this bill to my
colleagues. It takes a very bad hand dealt from a shorted deck to the
Committee on Appropriations and turns it into a winning hand so far. I
hope that as the legislative process continues that this bill will
improve. I say this because funding for critical housing and community
development programs remains level or slightly increased from last
year. That includes public housing operating subsidies, severely
distressed public housing so that public housing eyesores can be
demolished and public housing and neighborhoods revitalized; drug
elimination grants, the modernization program, the HOME program, and
the CDBG program. However, I must note that modernization, HOME, and
CDBG funds have to cover programs that previously had their own line
items.
It also provides section 8 assistance to cover families displaced
from public and assisted housing and for replacement housing. The bill
also provides funding to renew section 8 tenant-based assistance
contracts, although for just 1-year terms.
H.R. 3666 is devoid of authorizing language that should be developed
by the Banking Committee. Indeed, the chairman of the HUD-VA
Appropriations Subcommittee has graciously agreed to strike some 17
pages of legislation that had been reported by the committee on the
very complicated issue of section 8 portfolio restructuring because he
knows that only the authorizing committee can do this important
legislation justice. Only the Banking Committee can balance all the
disparate interests of the tenants, the owners, the communities, and
the Federal Government in preserving as much affordable housing as
possible, reducing the costs to the Federal Government, reasonably
protecting the financial investments of the owners, and protecting the
tenants from unnecessary displacement.
That having been said, there are, however, I must say, two glaring
deficiencies in this bill. For the second year in a row there is
absolutely no new money for incremental section 8 housing assistance,
even in the face of continued evidence that greater numbers of very low
income families and the working poor are finding it ever more difficult
to find affordable housing. Some 5.3 million Americans have ``worst
case'' housing needs, so I find this unconscionable.
The bill also fails to provide sufficient funding for homeless
assistance programs. Requests for emergency shelter beds rises each
year, but families are turned away because of a lack of resources. Of
course, the real answer is providing sufficient funding for affordable
housing, permanent housing as well as transitional and supportive
housing, which of course this Republican Congress is unwilling to fund.
On balance, however, this bill is about as good as we can get it
under our severe and unnecessary budget constraints, and I urge my
colleagues to support H.R. 3666.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to 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. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bill.
I also thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] for yielding,
and I want to begin by commending the gentleman from California for all
of his hard work. Shepherding an appropriations bill through this
legislative process is not easy, and yet he has done it with diligence
and impartiality. I would also like to thank my good friend, the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], and his subcommittee staff for all
the extraordinary work that they have done on behalf of getting this
bill on the floor.
Mr. Chairman, the VA-HUD bill is by its very nature a difficult piece
of legislation to move. It is the catchall bill that contains many
diverse and competing priorities within its jurisdiction. Its
provisions lend themselves more to rumbling acceptance than to
enthusiastic support. Some Members will think this bill spends too
much, others too little. But I believe that this bill is right on
target and was forged in a bipartisan fashion. The bill reflects fiscal
realities, but it also leaves room for necessary expansion.
In discretionary spending the bill provides $64.4 billion in budget
authority and $78.8 billion in outlays.
{time} 1830
Those who would succumb to complaining about what is not in the bill
should think about what is in the bill. For the most part, the bill
fully funds the President's request in the areas of health, housing,
and education. In fact, roughly $38.8 billion will go to the Department
of Veterans Affairs. We can all agree that taking care of our Nation's
veterans and their dependents should be our No. 1 priority, and this
budget demonstrates our commitment to this end.
During the process of forging the bill, housing has prompted a great
deal of heated debate. But I believe that the chairman, the gentleman
from California [Mr. Lewis], again has done his
[[Page H6803]]
level best to resolve this matter within the ever present fiscal
constraints that face the entire subcommittee and Congress as a whole.
While we all have strong opinions about a number of programs, let us
not let a heated discussion about this or that program keep us from the
business at hand. Instead, let us all agree to maintain the civility
that has marked the shaping of this bill, and vote on a good and fair
bill.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the ranking member
of the Committee on Science.
(Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
I wanted to take just a minute or two, Mr. Chairman, to make a few
comments about the impact of this bill on our Nation's investment in
research and development. As we all know, the funding for NASA, NSF,
and EPA research within this bill represents a third or more of all the
civilian R&D that this Government funds. In general, I want to say that
I am satisfied with the balance this bill has struck for the competing
priorities which the appropriators have had to deal with. Overall for
NASA, NSF, and EPA research, the bill provides $17.4 billion, about
$300 million below the request level, which in these times I would
consider to be reasonable.
Although the continuing decline in Federal support for R&D is a
matter of great concern to me, as it should be to all Members, I am
very cognizant that this subcommittee had to deal with a very
restrictive allocation. I hope that in the coming year, both sides of
the aisle and the White House can come to grips with how we can reverse
the spiraling decline in our Nation's R&D development and better use
our Federal dollars to stimulate economic growth and productivity in
the future.
In fact, there is in my opinion an inadequate understanding in the
House, which I have been unable to change, as to the importance of
these investments in the future ability of our country to compete in
world markets. I think most of us can agree as to the value of research
and development in the abstract, but we must actually find a way to
accomplish this in the budget process. There are several specific areas
that I would like to call attention to in the bill and in the report.
First, this bill provides, for the first time, much needed funding for
the U.S.-Mexico Foundation.
This is a program authorized some years ago, yet it is only now
receiving the funding which was intended. There are many other notable
provisions of this bill that certainly deserve recognition.
Despite my overall satisfaction with the bill, I am disturbed over
the major reduction to NASA's Mission to Planet Earth Program and the
elimination of EPA's environmental technology initiative. I am hopeful
that the conference version of this bill will treat these programs more
favorably.
Finally, I want to restate my opposition to the practice of
unauthorized academic earmarking which I believe subverts the peer
review process and erodes the buying power of our science agencies.
Unfortunately, we are seeing a resurgence in this practice this session
of Congress. I plan on offering an amendment at the conclusion of
consideration of this bill which will eliminate one such earmark in
NASA for the Museum of Natural History in New York.
I bear no hostility towards this fine institution nor the concept of
providing Federal dollars to science educational initiatives. Indeed I
am reintroducing legislation that would make this a fair and equitable
process and allow it to operate within the guidelines of the Federal
procurement process. In this case, however, this project was not
requested, it was not authorized, it has not been peer reviewed, it
will not go through the competitive award process, and it bears no
relationship to the NASA mission. It is also a sizeable sum which I
believe can be better used for other more legitimate purposes. I hope
my amendment receives the support of my colleagues.
Once again, I want to commend the chairman, the ranking member, and
the members of the Subcommittee for their work on this bill.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen], a very
diligent and loyal member of our subcommittee.
(Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me, and I rise in support of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr.
Lewis], the chairman of the committee, the ranking member, the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], and the subcommittee staff for their
leadership and guidance. Our bill contains funding for many vital
programs for our Nation's veterans to protect and preserve our
environment, to help house the needy and disabled, and for scientific
research and discovery. It has been a difficult task balancing all the
national priorities contained in this bill. However, I believe we have
achieved this goal, and I am proud to support the final agreement.
In total, our bill provides over $848 billion for the Department of
Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and 17 independent
agencies and offices. Specifically, the bill provides funding for two
very important programs that I am very pleased to support and that I
have actively worked on throughout the hearing process: first, the
Superfund Program; and second, the program dealing with housing for
people with disabilities.
This bill dedicates $1.3 billion for the Superfund Program. All of us
know, especially those of us from New Jersey, how important this
program is. For the second time in the 104th Congress, this committee
has earmarked the most money ever for remediation, over $900 million.
This money will go a long way towards our commitment to clean up these
priority sites, and should be adequate funding to move the sites
through to completion. The time has come to reauthorize this program
and move the process forward. This bill allows this to happen.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, this bill recognizes the importance of
providing housing for people with disabilities. The committee has, for
the first time, earmarked $50 million for tenant-based rental
assistance to ensure that there is decent, safe, and affordable housing
in the community for low-income people with disabilities. Access to
housing in the community is the cornerstone for independence,
integration, and productivity for people with disabilities, the three
hallmarks of the philosophy of the disability community. This bill
strongly supports these principles, and I believe these extra dollars
will empower the community and help them achieve their goal of living
with dignity and independence.
Mr. chairman, I am proud, as a member of this committee, of the work
of this committee and I am pleased with the final product. I urge all
my colleagues to support it.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards], the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Hospitals and Health Care of the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to commend the chairman
of the committee, the gentleman from California, Mr. Lewis, and the
ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Stokes, for carrying on
the spirit of decency and civility from the life and spirit of Bill
Emerson, whom we honored just a few moments ago on the floor of this
House.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan legislation, and I
also want to pay special note to my support of the Hefner amendment,
which will be discussed in a few moments, dealing with the Office of
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. A number of major veterans service
organizations have endorsed this amendment, and that is one reason why
I hope it will pass on a bipartisan basis. Without this amendment, this
bill, in my opinion, would micromanage the Office of the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs.
This amendment, the Hefner amendment, simply lets the VA Secretary
manage his own office in a responsible manner within his given budget.
I believe Secretary Jesse Brown has earned that right. He is a combat-
wounded veteran, a marine who has served his Nation with honor and
dignity. In time of war he put his life on the line for his country. In
time of peace he has served our Nation's veterans.
I understand that some Members of Congress, and I respect this, feel
that
[[Page H6804]]
Secretary Brown has sometimes been too strong or perhaps too partisan
in his advocacy for veterans. Personally, I believe Secretary Brown has
been an outstanding leader and voice on behalf of veterans, but I
believe the Secretary would be the first to say that he fought in
combat to defend our right to debate his service. Mr. Speaker, I
believe that debate should occur in the Presidential campaign of 1996
and not in the management of the VA Secretary's office, and in a way
that, intentionally or not, could hurt our Nation's veterans.
I would like to include for the Record letters from a number of the
veterans service organizations supporting the Hefner amendment,
including letters from the VFW, the Disabled American Veterans, letters
from the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Vietnam Veterans of
America.
The material referred to is as follows:
Veterans of Foreign Wars,
The Executive Director,
Washington Office, June 24, 1996.
Hon. Bill Hefner,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Hefner: On behalf of the more than two
million members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United
States, I wish to thank you for offering an amendment to the
Department of Veterans Affairs' FY '97 Appropriations, which
will bring the funding level for the ``Office of the
Secretary'' to that of the Administration's request.
The language to the FY '97 appropriations bill limits
salary and travel costs for the Office of the Secretary--at
the FY '96 restricted levels of $50,000 for travel and $3.026
million for personal compensation. These restrictions have
placed an unprecedented burden on the Secretary's office. The
personnel ceiling does not permit the Centers for Women
Veterans and Minority Veterans to fill critical vacant
positions. Reducing the travel budget by two-thirds would
undermine the Secretary's ability to manage and lead the
second largest department in the government.
Also, as an advocate for veterans, the Secretary would be
unable to attend activities and events associated with
medical centers, regional offices, and veterans service
organizations, which ultimately impacts on employees,
veterans and their families. In addition, the Deputy
Secretary, VA's Chief Operations Officer, is also affected by
these travel cuts limiting his ability to carry out his
oversight responsibilities. Six mandated advisory committee
meetings totaling $158,000 in travel funds cannot be
scheduled under this restriction.
Again, the VFW thanks you for offering this crucial
amendment.
Sincerely,
James R. Currieo,
Executive Director.
____
Disabled American Veterans,
Washington, DC, June 24, 1996.
Hon. W.G. (Bill) Hefner,
House of Representatives
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Hefner: The Disabled American Veterans
strongly supports your efforts to amend the fiscal year 1997
appropriations bill for VA, HUD and Independent Agencies to
strike out travel restrictions the bill would impose on the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Presumably, these travel restrictions were placed on
Secretary Brown because of his outspoken opposition to the
Republican balanced budget plan which he characterized as
devastating for the VA health care system. More recently,
Secretary Brown likewise characterized the Administration's
balanced budget proposal as devastating for VA's health care
system. Obviously, Secretary Brown's singular purpose is that
of advocacy for our Nation's veterans, and such advocacy is
bipartisan in nature.
These travel restrictions severely hamper Secretary Brown's
ability to execute his duty to oversee VA's nationwide
operations. In addition to the Secretary's inability to
attend many veterans' service organizations' National
Conventions, because of these cuts, activities of the Center
for Minority Affairs and the Center for Women Veterans have
also been significantly curtailed.
Naturally, this Nation's veterans are very concerned when
members of Congress attempt to squelch the voice of those who
speak for veterans' interests.
The DAV has prepared a draft letter to be sent to the
Republican leadership in the House and Senate expressing
objections to this ill-advised action. This letter has been
provided to the other Congressionally chartered veterans'
organizations along with a request that they join the DAV as
signatories.
The DAV sincerely appreciates your efforts to correct this
injustice against Secretary Brown and America's veterans.
Please feel free to share this letter with your colleagues.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. McMasters III,
National Commander.
____
Paralyzed Veterans of America,
Washington, DC, June 24, 1996.
Hon. W. G. (Bill) Hefner,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Hefner: On behalf of the members of the
Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), I strongly support your
amendment to H.R. 3666, the Fiscal Year 1997 VA, HUD,
Independent Agencies Appropriations bill which will provide
that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs expend travel funds
beyond the arbitrary limit, $50,000, established for fiscal
year 1996.
It is essential that the VA Secretary have the ability to
travel throughout the VA system, beyond an imposed cap but
within the limits of appropriated funds, if the Secretary is
to ensure that the VA is addressing the needs of veterans.
Regardless of the rationale for the current cap, it is
incumbent that the head of a system comprised of 171
hospitals, hundreds of outpatient clinics, a nation-wide
system of benefits offices and cemeteries, and over 220,000
employees is not restricted from personal contact and
oversight of operations.
Again, on behalf of the members of PVA and all veterans, I
commend your efforts to amended H.R. 3666 and encourage all
members of the House of Representatives to support your
actions to afford the Secretary of Veterans Affairs adequate
access to funding for travel to ensure that the operations of
the VA and the needs of veterans are adequately addressed.
Sincerely,
Gordon H. Mansfield,
Executive Director.
____
Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc.,
Washington, DC, June 24, 1996.
Hon. Bill Hefner,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Hefner: On behalf of Vietnam Veterans
of America, I commend you for your initiative in proposing an
amendment to the FY 1997 VA, HUD and Independent Agencies
Appropriation bill to eliminate the limit on the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs' travel. VVA shares your concern for the
programmatic effects this restriction poses.
As the primary advocate for the establishment of the VA
Center for Minority Veterans and the Center for Women
Veterans, VVA has serious concerns about the restriction of
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs Affairs' travel. Travel
activities for these Centers falls under the Secretary of
Veterans travel account. The current bill/report language
will have the unfortunate effect of debilitating these
programmatic activities. Both offices aim to direct policy
and outreach efforts to their respective unique, under served
veterans communities. VVA is very concerned that the hard-
fought efforts to create these offices will be fruitless if
there is insufficient funding.
Additionally, the VA Advisory Committees on Minority
Veterans and Women Veterans also require funds from the
Secretary's travel accounts in order to meet and do business.
These consumer panels were established by Congress to advise
the Department on policy matters. Unless the language
restricting the Secretary of Veterans Affairs' travel is
stricken, these committees will likely be unable to meet
their statutory reporting obligations.
VVA supports your amendment, Representative Hefner, and
would further advocate that additional funds be allocated to
the VA General Operating Expense (GOE) accounts. Without
additional funding, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs will
continue to face these travel restrictions--not by law, but
by lack of funding. Eliminating the restrictive language will
provide additional flexibility, but may force the Secretary
to make difficult choices, such as cutting funding for the
aforementioned programs or cutting Veterans Benefits
Administration (VBA) staffing which would result in an
increase in the already unconscionable claims backlog.
Thank you again for your efforts to improve services to our
nation's 27 million veterans.
Sincerely,
Kelli Willard West,
Director of Government Relations.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I hope this amendment will be supported
on a bipartisan basis. I want to thank the chairman of the committee
for his leadership on this legislation, for his support for veterans,
and for his consideration of the Hefner amendment.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the distinguished ranking
member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity of the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services, one of the leading voices
and leaders in the field of housing.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first of all let me thank
my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], for his kind
words. I also want to pay tribute to my friend, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis], the chairman of the committee, for their
attempts to try to fashion a compromise on this very, very tough piece
of legislation.
I also want to take a brief moment to acknowledge the tremendous
contributions, as the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Lewis, did to Bill
Emerson, who
[[Page H6805]]
was an individual I, as well as many other people in this Chamber,
thought the world of. He obviously told me, and even in his most recent
days, talked about the fact that some of the care he got came from some
of the doctors that took care of members of my family, and he shared
that with me and other members of our family. He was just one of the
finest and most caring individuals that I think we have all had the
pleasure of serving with, and we will all very, very much miss him. I
wish the best to his wife and to all of his family.
I think Bill would also understand the fact that there are still
going to be differences and divisions, and as a fighter, Bill Emerson
was second to none. We have to continue the fights that are going to be
taking place in this country, particularly I think as a result of some
of the things that go on in this bill.
I do commend both the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis], and the ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Stokes], for their efforts to deal with a very, very bad
situation. The situation is very clear. In this legislation we see the
HUD budget cut by over $2 billion, the VA budget cut by over $40
million, the EPA cut by $500 million, the science portion by $72
million , and the CDFI Community Development Financial Institutions, by
over $80 million.
The long and short of it is that both sides of the aisle have done a
good job at trying to deal with an impossible situation. The truty is
that if we look at what this bill does to housing, it debastates
housing. It devastates a budget that was cut by over $8 billion last
year cut an additional $2 billion this year. We essentially are saying
to the poor, whose numbers are growing, by every single major study
that has been done, whose housing needs are critical, we no longer are
providing shelters to csome of the most volunerable people in this
society. The number of homeless people are rising. Yet this bill cuts
the funding for homeless programs.
This is a crazy situation. We cannot sit here and pump $13 billion
more into the defense bill than the Joint Chiefs even request and then
come to the chairman of the committee and the gentleman from Ohio and
ask them to deal with a budget that just simply does not have enough
mony in it.
People say, well, you are against the space station or against FEMA,
because they are the only funds left to take any money out of to
support housing programs. I am not against the space station. I am not
against FEMA, and I am sure the two gentleman are not, either, but the
truth of the matter is that there is just simply not enought money to
get the job done to look after the housing needs of the most vulnerable
Americans.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown].
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank Chairman Lewis and
the ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Stokes, and the
gentlewoman from Ohio, Marcy Kaptur, on the Committee on
Appropriations, and most importantly, the 600,000 veterans and their
families in northeastern Ohio for their support for a new veterans
cemetery in Guilford Township, Medina County, OH.
Ohio has only one national cemetery. It is located in Dayton, in
southwestern Ohio, over 200 miles from the 600,000 veterans who live in
northern Ohio. The Dayton cemetery is expected to reach its 35,000
gravesite capacity in less than 2 years. Once filled, Ohio will be
without an active national cemetary. These veterans and their families
will be faced with a choice of cemeteries in Pennsylvania, Indiana, or
Michigan, all places too far to visit the gravesites of loved ones.
The veterans of northeastern Ohio who braved fire on the beaches of
Normandy and the jungles of Vietnam risked everything so our children
and grandchildren could live free. By providing the necessary funds to
begin the work on this cemetery, we can offer a small down payment on
the tremendous debt we owe these people.
Again, special thanks to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman
from California [Mr. Lewis], and the ranking member, the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Stokes], for their support of this cemetery.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Lewis], chairman of the committee. First of all, I want
to thank both the chairman and the ranking member, the gentleman from
Ohio, for including language in the committee report highlighting the
situation that exists in my district in the D.J. Jacobetti home for
veterans located in Marquette, MI.
As Members know, I testified before the chairman's subcommittee last
month on a serious situation at the Jacobetti Center due to the
antiquated and undependable boiler and heating systems. Over the past
few winters veterans residing at the Jacobetti home have had to be
moved from their rooms because the temperature in their rooms would
often drop to as low as 40 degrees. It is almost ironic that the same
veterans who nearly froze during World War II will now be virtually
frozen out of their rooms at a veterans' home. This is no way to treat
our country's veterans. With outside temperatures in my district which
can drop as low as 30 degrees to 40 degrees below zero during winter in
the Upper Peninsula in Michigan, and snow levels at times exceeding 300
inches of snow in a season, I thank our colleagues and I thank them for
understanding the need to make these badly needed repairs at the
Jacobetti State Veterans Home a priority project.
{time} 1845
Clearly, such situations occurring year after year present a serious
problem when it comes to the health and safety of veterans who reside
at this home.
I am pleased that funding for this fiscal year 1997 calls on the
Department of Veterans Affairs to place projects involving health and
safety concerns on a higher priority. This change in priority is the
right thing to do for countless numbers of veterans.
I am also pleased with the level of funding being provided, over $47
million, which is equal to the funding provided in fiscal year 1996 for
State extended home care construction.
I would say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] that I seek
the support of his panel in working with Secretary Jesse Brown and the
authorizing committee in assuring that the VA's review of State
extended medical care facilities follow through on the mandate
contained in this funding measure.
I am asking for or the support of the chairman of the subcommittee,
the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], and the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Stokes], the ranking member, in working with Secretary Brown and
the authorizing committee to assure that the VA's follow through on
this.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, first, let me say to the
gentleman that I very much appreciate his concern as well as his
support for the work that we are trying to do in this committee. I will
certainly be glad to work with the gentleman regarding this matter.
I appreciate the gentleman's commitment. I want the gentleman to know
that I also want to extend my thanks beyond his effort to his
colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], of course, and the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg], for their assistance on this
important matter for veterans in the State of Michigan. We appreciate
the participation and help of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr.
Lewis].
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], the very distinguished and hard-
working member of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies.
(Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
[[Page H6806]]
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the dean of the Ohio
delegation and the ranking member on the subcommittee for yielding me
this time. I want to acknowledge his diligence and wise counsel during
consideration of the entire measure, and I would also like to commend
the distinguished chairman of our committee, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis], for being so very easy to work with during the
last several weeks on this bill.
I ask unanimous consent that my entire set of remarks be placed in
the Record.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend this distinguished chairman of our
committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], for his cordial
handling of this very complicated bill. I also want to acknowledge the
diligence and wise counsel of the ranking member, the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Stokes], on this bill.
introduction
The programs under our committee's jurisdiction provide assistance
and benefits that help millions of Americans achieve a better life.
Included are programs for medical care and benefits for our Nation's
veterans, affordable and decent housing for families and individuals of
all incomes and circumstances, a safe and clean environment, and
investments in technology and science. In addition, this bill also
continues to fund one very big-ticket item, the space station, at the
expense of other programs under the committee's jurisdiction, including
ones designed to assist the poorest, the neediest, and the most
vulnerable among us.
For the second year in a row, two programs, which I strongly support
and will vigorously work to ensure the task for which they were
intended, are carried out by the corresponding agency have not been
funded in this bill: the John Heinz Neighborhood Development Program
and the Health Professional Scholarship Program.
john heinz neighborhood development program
The John Heinz Neighborhood Development Program was authorized in the
Housing & Community Development Act of 1992. It awarded Federal
matching funds to nonprofit community-based organizations involved in
neighborhood revitalization and economic development activities.
The program spurred local initiatives by hundreds of community-based
development organizations in concert with the private sector and
empowered local communities to address specific needs of their
neighborhoods. Typically, 90 percent of the financing needed by the
nonprofit neighborhood organizations is raised within the community
itself by creating a partnership between the nonprofit neighborhood
organizations and the business community. And most importantly, it
built the technical capacity for small nonprofit neighborhood
organizations to assist in the revitalization of their community. There
are no narrowly delineated directives from the Federal Government about
what specific projects qualify for the matching funds.
National competition assured that Federal help was based on merit.
For every grant received there were four applications submitted. The
maximum grant awarded is $75,000. Currently under HUD, there is no one
program designed to perform the task of the JHNDP--to assist small
nonprofit neighborhood organizations revitalize their own communities.
In this age of empowering our communities to make decisions at the
local level, this program does exactly that. It devolves responsibility
in the hands of those who can make the differences. The JHNDP allows
nonprofit neighborhood organizations the flexibility to tell us in
Washington what is important to them, not vice versa.
health professional scholarship program
Last year, I was grateful for the chairman's willingness to work with
me to fund the Health Professional Scholarship Program. This program
assisted in assuring an adequate supply of trained health care
personnel for the VA and the Nation. To date, the program has awarded
more than 4,000 scholarships to students in nursing, occupation
therapy, physical therapy, respiratory therapy, and nurse anesthesia.
It was successful in providing a continuous stream of academically
prepared health care professionals for VA employment. Upon graduation,
students are required to complete 2 years of service in the VA health
system, and the retention rate of scholarship recipients in VA medical
centers is greater than 50 percent.
The flexibility to provide scholarships for the education of a
variety of health professionals made this program particularly useful
as changes have occurred in the delivery of health care services. As
the program identified shortages in particular categories of health
professionals, the numbers and types of scholarship awards have been
shifted accordingly.
The restoration of this program is vital to the recruitment and
retention of scarce health professionals in the VA, and it is necessary
to be responsive to the health care needs of veterans who have
courageously defended this Nation. The men and women who have served in
our Armed Forces deserve nothing less. Unfortunately, once again this
vital program has been eliminated. I am hopeful that I can work with
the VA to maintain the concept of this vital program.
ohio va cemetery
I am pleased to note that the bill funds the completion of the design
phase of the VA cemetery in Guilford Township, OH, for the over 600,000
veterans and their family members, who are eligible for burial in a
national veterans cemetery, who live in northeastern Ohio. Many of
these individuals are World War II and Korean war veterans. The closest
veterans cemetery is located near Dayton approximately 2 hours south of
Cleveland. With this cemetery nearing capacity, many veterans groups
believe that with the construction of a new cemetery, that Ohio
veterans and their families will better be served by our Nation.
drug elimination grants
I am pleased this year the subcommittee was able to fully fund the
drug elimination grants for public housing. Drug elimination grants,
which were pioneered by Jack Kemp while he was HUD Secretary, are
provided to public housing agencies and Indian housing authorities to
promote safe housing communities by ridding them of drugs and drug-
related crime. In my own district, the Toledo, OH, Police Department
saw a dramatic decrease in drug activity in areas with public housing
as a result of these grants.
conclusion
I also want to point out the excellent job that some of our smaller
independent agencies are doing like Neighborhood Reinvestment
Corporation and American Battle Monuments Commission.
I would merely say here that there is no question that the
jurisdiction of this committee provides assistance and benefits that
help millions of Americans achieve a better way of life, whether it is
veterans, whether it is affordable housing, whether it is a clean
environment; also investments in new technology and science, including
space science.
I want to thank the chairman also and the ranking member for
including the drug elimination grants which we fought so very hard for,
making sure that those were incorporated in this year's measure,
certainly for the veterans cemetery in Ohio, and I do wish to express
concern about the Health Professional Scholarship Program and its
importance.
I would like to engage the chairman in a colloquy regarding the
importance of the activities that had been funded under the John Heinz
Neighborhood Development Program. This program, which has not been
authorized, spurred local initiatives by hundreds of community-based
development organizations in concert with our private sector, as well
as provided technical assistance for small nonprofit neighborhood
organizations to assist in the revitalization of their community.
Though the administration has not requested funds for this program, nor
has it requested authorization for this program, nevertheless, in this
age of empowering our communities and their people to make decisions at
the local level, this program devolved responsibility into the hands of
those who can really make a difference.
The John Heinz Neighborhood Development Program allowed nonprofit
neighborhood organizations the flexibility to tell us in Washington
what is important to them, not vice versa, and I know that the chairman
agrees with this philosophy and would like to encourage it.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I very much
appreciate the gentlewoman's expression of concern about the items that
are part of this bill, but particularly the commitment and direction
she is attempting to have us all give to the John Heinz Program.
The gentlewoman is correct about my own view regarding that work as
we have seen it demonstrated so far. I know that this program has done
a very credible job in empowering local communities to address the
specific needs of their neighborhoods. I believe it is very important
to move in precisely that direction.
The CHAIRMAN. the time of the gentlewoman from Ohio has expired.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
[[Page H6807]]
The HOME Program and the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation are
two programs that cater to nonprofits and Community Development
Corporations that have successfully changed neighborhoods in tangible,
real ways. The CDC's that utilize the John Heinz Program are eligible
to apply for these funds.
Additionally, the CDC's are eligible also for funding from CDBG, a
program that we will be replenishing further later in our discussions
this evening.
Despite its popularity and flexibility, however, the CDBG program
should be more aggressive bout encouraging these very types of
partnerships and monitoring whether CDBG funds are spent on eligible
activities and assist low and moderate income families.
I pledge to the gentlewoman that I intend to address this concern as
this legislation moves through the appropriations process. I want to
thank her very much for brining this matter to our attention.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and look forward to
working with him to find a solution to assist nonprofit entrepreneurial
neighborhood organizations and the revitalization of their communities
across our country.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, before the
gentlewoman leaves the podium let me say that beyond just the John
Heinz Program, in which we both see a good deal of promise, I want my
colleagues to know that the gentlewoman has been a very helpful member
of our subcommittee and has made considerable contribution to our work.
We appreciate that same spirit of which we have felt a reflection this
evening. It is pleasure to work with the gentlewoman.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I thank the
ranking member for yielding me time.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], the distinguished ranking member
of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.
(Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3666, the VA, HUD, and
independent agencies appropriations bill. This fiscal year 1997 bill is
an improved bill in comparison to the radical bill passed by the
majority party of the House last year. The measure carries forward the
long sought compromise that extended debate midway into this 1996
fiscal year. I remain concerned, however, that it remains wholly out of
step with people, priorities and shared sacrifice which should
characterize reductions in spending necessary to achieve sound fiscal
balance. I do pragmatically understand, however sadly, that the votes
in this Congress simply do not reflect American public opinion and
values much less the need.
On the whole, the bill basically maintains the status quo with 1996
levels of spending; that is levels established after serious cuts of
between 20 and 30 percent were made to housing and homeless programs in
1995-96. I am pleased at the continued funding for the drug elimination
grant program for public and assisted housing. EPA funding is below the
administration's request by nearly half a billion dollars. A strong and
cost effective community program, AmeriCorp, is not eliminated but is
severely underfunded by this appropriations bill. Perhaps the only
``safe'' programs are those within the Department of Veterans Affairs
which has available most $39 billion. Even in this instance, we must
acknowledge the greater needs for veterans and these programs. Despite
funding less than administration requested, positive increases in VA
medical care and major construction of VA facilities are achieved.
As a senior member of the authorizing committee for housing programs,
I have grave concerns about a bill that maintains about $4 billion
worth of cuts from fiscal year 1995 levels and undercuts the
administration's request by $2.3 billion while at the same time
continuing to provide $5.3 billion to NASA for human space flight, the
space station, in its 10th reincarnation. Like so many before it, this
appropriations bill continues to place deficit reduction on the backs
of the most vulnerable Americans--the poor, the homeless, and even our
elderly.
Later, I will join my colleague, Mr. Joseph Kennedy, the ranking
member of the Housing Subcommittee, in offering two amendments: one to
restore funds to the McKinney homeless assistance programs at HUD to
the pre-rescission 1995 level, and the other to restore a long-time
policy to have incremental--or new--section 8 assistance in place to
serve new housing and shelter needs. Each amendment is a good faith
attempt to put a dent in the number of households that have worst case
housing needs. HUD reports to us that some 5.3 million people who do
not receive housing assistance are underhoused or are paying much too
much of their income to be housed. By treading water, this bill's
allocation for HUD espouses a policy of inadequate and limited help for
people in need of housing assistance. The Kennedy/Vento amendments
should be supported if we are to reverse course for homeless and
housing assistance spending.
Although total spending for the Environmental Protection Agency is
slightly higher than last year's level, the proposed sum is nearly half
a billion dollars under than the President's request. In addition,
funding is cut by $1.5 million for the key Community Right to Know
Program, which makes information about toxic pollutants available to
the public. I will certainly support the Durbin amendment to restore
that funding and give the American people access to information about
pollution affecting their communities.
As this bill is written, $861 million appropriated for Superfund
money can be used only if the Superfund Program is reauthorized.
Reauthorization looks unlikely at this time, so I will also support
efforts to ensure that all the funds designated for Superfund toxic
waste clean ups are available without conditions. We must continue the
clean up now, not delay it. The American people want clean air and pure
water, and EPA Superfund funding is the one of the most important means
by which we achieve those goals.
I do want to note my strong support for the $50 million of funding
for the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation and for the continued
funding, albeit limited, of the Community Development Financial
Institutions Program. Both of these represent good public private
partnerships that would be penny wise and pound foolish to further cut
or deny. I also note that the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program
has been level funded at $100 million for fiscal year 1997. Here again
is an essential program that is a very successful partnership that
should be pursued as vigorously as possible.
Mr. Chairman, while this bill is a better bill, a less contentious
bill, than last year's initial House-passed measure, I am concerned
that this bill could have far reaching effects as cuts are masqueraded
as level funding amounts. The trick is seeing the reality of those cuts
compared to a 1995 baseline. What I see is a continued reality of human
deficits and environmental tragedies that will not be assuaged or
fooled by the funding in this bill.
The infamous series of dozens of riders, environmental mostly, has
not reappeared for the most part. Apparently the majority has backed
off for now. We should completely scrub this final measure of such
policy changes. Although I do not support every aspect of the bill and
have grave misgivings about some of the programs funded, I will support
the bill based on where we have been and the realization that further
changes will be made in the House, Senate and in the final form that is
presented to the President.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman. I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis]. As the chairman knows, my concern is for the
construction funding for Perry Point VA Medical Center in Maryland. It
has been quite exemplary in treating some of our tragic victims of war.
Many of them, as a result of the conflicts they have experienced, have
come down with very serious psychiatric problems.
The facility was made up of buildings that were designed and
constructed during the 1930's and 1940's. Many of these buildings have
received little renovation since then. This much-needed construction
will address concerns of appearance, quality and efficiency,
[[Page H6808]]
while meeting serious handicap accessibility standards, patient privacy
standards, and replacing these aging utilities.
More importantly, there are current fire and safety deficiencies that
will be corrected as a result of this project. Unfortunately, funds for
this project are not included in the bill before us, despite its being
a longstanding priority. These funds are needed for renovation of
psychiatric wards that care for some of the most vulnerable veterans in
our society, some who suffer from dementia-related illnesses.
It is my understanding that the omission of Perry Point as a major
construction project has nothing to do with the merit of the project,
and it would be my hope that the chairman might give this project
further consideration now and before the conference.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. The gentleman is correct. The Perry Point VA
Medical Center was a priority in fiscal year 1996. However, it never
received any funding. The administration did not include Perry Point VA
in its fiscal year 1997 budget. I recognize the gentleman's concern and
I can assure the gentleman that I will work with him to seek funds for
this project as we continue in the process.
Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
amendment of the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee on
Veterans, Housing and Urban Development, Mr. Lewis, to increase total
funding for the Community Development Block Grant Program [CDBG] in the
fiscal year 1997 VA-HUD appropriation to $4.6 billion. Raising the
overall appropriation to $4.6 billion is consistent with the commitment
to the CDBG Program undertaken in the last session when it was spared
from difficult budget cuts.
Last year during consideration of the fiscal year 1995 rescissions
appropriations bill, working with Chairman Lewis, I agreed to withdraw
amendments designed to restore funding to the CDBG Program with the
understanding the funding would be restored in the conference committee
with the Senate. Chairman Lewis was instrumental in seeing to it that
commitment was met. Similarly, during negotiations on the fiscal year
1996 appropriation, and graciously accepting input from me and others
supportive of the $4.6 billion funding level for the CDBG Program,
Chairman Lewis ensured that the fiscal year 1996 program was approved
without cuts.
I am proud today to support Chairman Lewis again in our joint efforts
to maintain funding for this important program. For 22 years the
Community Development Block Grant Program has been recognized as a
model for success. It has been one of a precious few, Federal programs,
that has successfully moved people from dependency to productivity and
independence.
The CDBG Program has provided a flexible mechanism for channeling
Federal funds for local investments in community development and
revitalization activities. The point is local officials are making
their own decisions about local priorities, and achieving far greater
success than had those decisions been mandated by Washington
bureaucrats.
In my own district, the CDBG Program has been instrumental in the
provision of many much-needed projects such as senior citizens centers,
public health facilities, mental health centers, shelters for abused
children, day care centers, job training and housing improvement
activities. Without CDBG, most of these critically important facilities
and services would simply not be available today.
The people of Georgia and local officials have made great use of the
CDBG Program over the years, and they will continue to do so. It is
among the most successful of all block grant programs and perfectly in
keeping with our efforts to take power and money from the Washington
bureaucrats and return both to local officials, who know the needs of
their communities and who are directly accountable to the people they
serve.
In closing, let me once again thank the distinguished Chairman for
his leadership on this issue and for hearing the support of people of
Georgia's Seventh District in offering this amendment. I urge my
colleagues to support the chairman and pass this amendment. CDBG
funding makes it possible for people back home to break cycles of
dependency and to provide for themselves and their families.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to remind the
Republican majority of the people who will be forgotten in this
appropriation measure.
The 15,000 homeless families and the 20,000 families on the waiting
list for public housing for the city of Houston need more than this
legislation offers. The 23,641 students taught, and the 49,632 youth
helped through violence prevention programs run by thousands of
AmeriCorps workers is a testament to the vital role they play in our
communities around the country. Breathable air and safe clean drinking
water are our Nation's greatest undervalued resources. The important
scientific and technological resource that NASA represents for our
future is underfunded.
On the streets of our Nation's cities reside thousands of homeless
people, but this legislation would expand housing certificate programs
with no guarantee of recipients finding an affordable place to live.
With the documented reality of housing discrimination and red lining,
this appropriation bill does not provide sufficient funding for
programs to educate the general public on identifying housing
discrimination and the penalties for violating these laws or enough
funding for enforcement of this Nation's fair housing laws.
According to the Coalition for the Homeless of Houston (and) Harris
County, women and children comprise 49 percent of the 1996 emergency
shelter population in the city of Houston. The coalition also reported
that the number of emergency shelter beds increased by 0.4 percent from
2,338 in 1995 to 2,438 in 1996. A study on homelessness conducted by
the McKinsey & Company, revealed that on any given night about 10,000
people in Houston and Harris County are literally homeless. In Harris
County alone, the McKinsey Report further asserted that there are
150,000 individuals who are marginally homeless who depend on family
friends to keep them from falling into hopelessness. However this
legislation forces programs like the Space Station to be pitted on
Homeless Funds. We simply need more funding for the homeless without
cutting space station jobs. It can be done.
AmeriCorp is another issue that concerns me. It is the one and only
chance for many of its participants to obtain a college education. It
has been under attack from the early days of the 104th Congress for
being inefficient. The truth is that among the numerous independent
studies this year, including the one by the conservative Chicago School
economists sponsored by three private foundations confirmed that
investments in national service programs are sound, yielding from $1.54
to $3.90 for every dollar invested. In fact, a 1995 GAO report
concluded that AmeriCorps almost tripled the amount $31 million that
Congress directed them to raise by raising $91 million.
We must also carefully review this bill because there are Members of
this body who have had photo-ops painting themselves green by planting
trees, using recycled paper, adopting a highway, or visiting zoos when
their true environmental legislative color are closer to a rusk colored
brown, evidenced by the treatment of Environment Protection Agency
[EPA] funding.
The record of the 104th Congress, the first Republican-controlled
Congress in 40 years, has proposed reduced funding for water
improvement grants and elimination of funding for environmental
technology initiative [ETI]. This type of legislative approach to the
environment would decimate our Nation's need to stay ahead of the
threats to clean, safe drinking water.
The ETI was announced by President Clinton in his first State of the
Union address on February 17, 1993. The ETI is an intergovernmental
effort led by the Environmental Protection Agency with a mission of
improving the levels of health and environmental protection by
accelerating the development and use of innovative environmental
technologies.
Elimination of this program means that this Government will not be
active in the development of environmental technologies. According to
the Environmental Business International [EBI], a private industry
analyst, there was an estimated $134 billion generated domestically in
1992. The global market will grow from a 1992 sum of nearly, $300
billion, to as much as $500 billion by the year 2000.
This industry could mean billions for our economy if this body had
the backbone to say ``no'' to political convenience.
Exports of environmental technology create high-wage jobs. Research
shows that for every $1 billion worth of exports, 15,000 U.S. jobs are
created; with a 5 percent increase in U.S. environmental technology
exports, and estimated 362,000 new jobs would be created.
Clean, safe drinking water is one of the most precious commodities
this country can
[[Page H6809]]
own. With the passage of the EPA appropriation bill, as it is written,
that sad refrain ``water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink,''
could become one step closer to reality for too many residents of our
Nation. Further two areas in my district, Kennedy Heights and
Pleasantville, need Super Fund help and EPA monitoring of toxic
contamination in their neighborhoods.
Lastly, NASA allowed our Nation to see the future and say that it was
ours. It is the program that made national heroes out of America's
engineers and scientists. NASA gave us the will to follow our own
creative zeal which resulted in special projects that have lead to
technological innovation in food preservation, medical research, and
the environmental sciences.
I would like to say that I am not opposed to a reasoned well-planned
appropriations process where the benefits and costs are weighted
carefully before legislation is brought to the floor for action. The
taxpayers of this Nation deserve no less than our best efforts.
I urge my colleagues to carefully consider their vote on this bill.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises to express his thanks
to the distinguished subcommittee chairman, Mr. Lewis, and the
distinguished ranking Member, Mr. Stokes, For their efforts in bringing
this bill before us today.
This Member is particularly pleased that H.R. 3666 includes $3
million in funding for the Indian Housing Loan Guarantee program at
HUD. This very modest sum will guarantee the private financing of
nearly $37 million in housing loans for Indian families. As you know,
Mr. Chairman, there is a severe lack of decent, affordable housing in
Indian country, due in large part to the lack of private financing in
Indian country. This program provides a substantial means of bringing
much needed private financing to Indian country. This very limited
Federal funding is money well spent, and this Member commends the
appropriators for including it in this measure.
The appropriators also should be commended for increasing an
inadequate initial allocation for VA and HUD programs. However, this
Member is still seriously concerned with a number of provisions in the
HUD portion of this bill, specifically first, the restructuring of the
section 8 project-based housing program which is also know as mark-to-
market, which should be subject to hearings and legislation in the
appropriate authorizing Committee second, the dramatically reduced
funding levels for the section 202 and section 811 housing programs,
and third, the reduction in Community Development Block Grant [CDBG]
funding levels. This Member is pleased to learn that Chairman Lewis is
planning on striking the mark-to-market provisions during consideration
of the bill. This will allow the authorizing committee adequate
opportunity to investigate the issues.
Mr. Chairman, this Member is supportive of the amendment to be
offered by Chairman Lewis to raise the funding for CDBG to the fiscal
year 1996 enacted level. CDBG is a Federal program which provides grant
funds directly to large cities or indirectly to other communities
through a State agency, for community development projects. The House
Committee on Banking and Financial Services, on which I serve, has the
oversight and authorization responsibilities for all HUD programs,
including CDBG; therefore, I am interested to see these funds used
effectively for eligible purposes.
Additionally, this Member would like to express his support for the
amendments to be offered by Representative Lazio increasing funding to
the section 202 and section 811 programs. Although inadequate levels
were requested by the administration for these programs, Congress must
ensure sufficient funding to protect America's seniors and disabled.
Mr. Chairman, this Member is pleased that the legislation includes
$12.5 million for rural water training and technical assistance. This
is clearly a most cost-effective and beneficial Federal program aimed
at assisting small and rural water systems to comply with Federal
regulations and improve public health. In every State, on-site
technical assistance is the backbone of small system compliance. Small
systems have limited funds to operate and to comply with the Safe
Drinking Water Act [SDWA]. Through technical assistance, small
communities work together to conduct a statewide, peer-oriented,
grassroots assistance program. In addition, through rural community
assistance programs, multistate regional technical assistance providers
provide assistance to small communities across the country on drinking
water and waste water compliance issues.
Small communities simply do not have the engineers, the laboratories,
and the other necessary technical and financial resources of large
cities that are needed to meet Federal requirements. Such technical
assistance allows America's small communities to help each other
outside of the regulatory bureaucracy. This results in a growing number
of small systems moving into SDWA compliance. This leads to steady
improvement in water quality and a long-term solution to public health
problems.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lewis amendment to
restore $300 million to community development block grants [CDBG] which
would bring this account back up to last year's funding level and the
level of President Clinton's request for fiscal year 1997.
CDBG funds are very important to the larger communities in my
district. My district is mostly rural. The largest city, Pittsfield,
has a population under 50,000. CDBG money is critical for my [CDBG]
entitlement communities of Fitchburg, Holyoke, Leominster, Pittsfield
and Westfield.
But Massachusetts has also created a great new system for funding
called [CDBG] mini-entitlements.
Under this plan, 16 additional communities will be able to count on
CDBG funds for 2 years. These communities do not automatically receive
annual funds under the Federal block grant. But they have received
competitive CDBG money through the State for at least 3 out of the last
5 years.
Under this new plan, the communities of Gardner, Greenfield, North
Adams and West Springfield, in my district, will receive up to $600,000
each to carry out projects that make or create jobs, improve
infrastructure or provide better housing or social services to the
community. These projects could be, for example, water and sewer
upgrades, handicapped accessibility, development of downtown areas,
housing rehabilitation, revolving loan funds for business development,
or the creation of child care facilities.
These communities hope to have a 2-year CDBG commitment to carry out
their improvement plans. But that commitment depends on the Federal
level of CDBG funding.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to support sound
community development.
Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of language
included in the committee report on H.R. 3666, the fiscal year 1997 VA-
HUD appropriations bill, concerning activities within the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development to move toward Federal
regulation of the property insurance industry. I strongly oppose any
effort to weaken or delete this report language and urge the
Appropriations Committee to keep this language during negotiations with
the Senate.
HUD has undertaken several activities to involve the Federal
Government in the so-called issue of redlining, including
investigations of insurance companies and providing funds to liberal
special interest groups to prepare studies, which I believe are highly
questionable, concerning redlining. HUD has no statutory authority to
be involved in this area, and under the McCarran/Ferguson Act
regulation of insurance is the responsibility of the States.
Furthermore, the Fair Housing Act never mentions discrimination in
property insurance and does not give HUD the authority to get involved
in this area. The States are exercising the authority they were given
under McCarran-Ferguson to address redlining problems where they exist,
and Illinois in particular has been vigilant in this matter. There is
no reason for HUD to get involved in this State matter.
I strongly support the committee's report language concerning HUD's
involvement in redlining issues and thank Chairman Lewis and Rep. Joe
Knollenberg for their continued work on this matter.
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
3666, the VA-HUD-independent agencies appropriations bill for fiscal
year 1997. Preparation of this bill took a lot of sweat and tears and I
thank the chairman and his tireless staff for putting this bill
together.
Why is this a good bill? It's a good bill because it provides $84.3
billion in new budget authority, but keeps us on track toward reaching
a balanced budget.
It's a good bill because it increases funding by $444 million for
medical care for veterans. The bill also fully funds veterans
compensation and pensions, readjustment benefits, insurance and several
other veteran programs.
H.R. 3666 also ensures funding for housing of our Nation's elderly
and disabled. It maintains funding for severely distressed public
housing, homeless assistance grants, and drug elimination grants.
In addition, the bill makes a commitment to our communities,
providing $1.4 billion for the clean water State revolving fund and
$450 million for safe drinking water grants.
Last, this bill maintains our Nation's commitment to exploration in
space. Like the Sun coming up every day, we tend to take space
exploration for granted. Yet, NASA continues to make great strides,
including a liftoff last week of the space shuttle Columbia where
experiments are being conducted to study changes in the human body in
weightlessness.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is not perfect--but then again--nothing is.
The chairman and the subcommittee are committed to continue working to
see improved funding levels for the
[[Page H6810]]
community development block grant program which is important to
localities. I offer my assistance to the chairman in this effort.
This year was a challenging year, but one which brought forth good
results. H.R 3666 is one of these results, and I urge my colleagues to
support this bill.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
The amendment printed in section 2 of House Resolution 456 is
adopted.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Chairman for the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request
for a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to not less than 5
minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any postponed
question that immediately follows another vote by electronic device
without intervening business, provided that the time for voting by
electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not be
less than 15 minutes.
After the reading of the final lines of the bill, a motion that the
Committee of the Whole rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted shall, if offered by the majority
leader or a designee, have precedence over a motion to amend.
The clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3666
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 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, 1997, and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Benefits Administration
compensation and pensions
(including transfers of funds)
For the payment of compensation benefits to or on behalf of
veterans as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. 107, chapters 11,
13, 51, 53, 55, and 61); pension benefits to or on behalf of
veterans as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. chapters 15, 51, 53,
55, and 61; 92 Stat. 2508); and burial benefits, emergency
and other officers' retirement pay, adjusted-service credits
and certificates, payment of premiums due on commercial life
insurance policies guaranteed under the provisions of Article
IV of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, as
amended, and for other benefits as authorized by law (38
U.S.C. 107, 1312, 1977, and 2106, chapters 23, 51, 53, 55,
and 61; 50 U.S.C. App. 540-548; 43 Stat. 122, 123; 45 Stat.
735; 76 Stat. 1198); $18,497,854,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That not to exceed $26,417,000 of
the amount appropriated shall be reimbursed to ``General
operating expenses'' and ``Medical care'' for necessary
expenses in implementing those provisions authorized in the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, and in the
Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992 (38 U.S.C. chapters 51, 53,
and 55), the funding source for which is specifically
provided as the ``Compensation and pensions'' appropriation:
Provided further, That such sums as may be earned on an
actual qualifying patient basis, shall be reimbursed to
``Medical facilities revolving fund'' to augment the funding
of individual medical facilities for nursing home care
provided to pensioners as authorized by the Veterans'
Benefits Act of 1992 (38 U.S.C. chapter 55).
{time} 1900
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Would the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee be willing to
respond to a few questions regarding the language in the committee's
report discussing the Fair Housing Act?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I
would be pleased to join in a colloquy with my colleague from Ohio. Mr.
Stokes.
Mr. STOKES. I thank my chairman.
The committee conference report contains language expressing the
committee's concern that HUD not duplicate the State's regulation of
property insurance. However, it is the view of many members of the
committee, that HUD does not regulate insurance. The Department does
not now and will not approve rate filings or underwriting guidelines,
set licensing procedures, address financial matters related to solvency
issues, or perform any of the standard functions now performed by State
regulators.
As the Fair Housing Act requires, HUD presently investigates
complaints of unlawful discrimination that violate the act in the
provision of property insurance, enforces the act as it applies to
insurance, and has promulgated regulations that apply the act's
prohibitions against discrimination to property insurance.
Nor do the actions of HUD duplicate laws and regulations of the
States that address unfair discrimination in property insurance, as
asserted. The fact is that while most State insurance codes address
issues pertaining to unfair discrimination, these State insurance laws
generally lack the scope of protection of the Fair Housing Act: For
example, the private right of action in the Federal courts; a HUD
investigation to determine if there is reasonable cause to believe a
violation has occurred; or a right to damages and representation by the
Federal Government in an administrative hearing or in a Federal court.
Although 17 States list various protected groups under the State law,
each excludes one or some of the groups protected under the Fair
Housing Act.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is
disagreement among the members of the committee on the issue that the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] raises.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis
aware that members of the committee disagree on two assertions in the
committee report? First, the Fair Housing Act makes no mention of
discrimination in property insurance, and, second, neither the act nor
its legislative history suggests that Congress intended it to apply to
the provision of property insurance.
The fact is that both Republican and Democratic administrations,
beginning with a HUD general counsel opinion in 1978, have determined
that the Fair Housing Act prohibits insurance redlining and
discrimination in the terms, conditions, costs, or other aspects of
coverage.
Following enactments of the fair housing amendments of 1988,
President Bush issued regulations in 1989 explicitly applying the Fair
Housing Act to discrimination in insurance. Since then, two Federal
courts of appeal have determined that the act's provisions defining
discrimination apply to property insurance. In both situations, the
Supreme Court has denied a petition to consider the matter, in one case
as recently as this year.
While it is true that in the course of considering amendments to the
act, Congress has rejected provisions that would explicitly cover
property insurance discrimination, the Department testified in hearings
that the explicit mention of insurance was not necessary because
insurers were already covered by the act as were others, such as
landlords, apartment managers, title insurance companies, contractors,
housing developers, group home operators, employers who provide
financing, and State and local governments.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am aware that the committee
has substantial differences on this issue as well.
Mr. STOKES. May I also assume that my distinguished chairman is aware
that some Members disagree with the assertion that the Fair Housing Act
prohibition of discrimination in property insurance is barred by the
McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945? The fact is that McCarran-Ferguson
states that a Federal law that does not specifically relate to
insurance shall be construed so as not to invalidate, impair or
supersede any State law regulating the business of insurance.
Circuit court decisions have clearly established the applicability of
the Fair Housing Act to discriminatory insurance practices and have not
found them to be barred by McCarran-Ferguson. In the most recent
appellate decisions on the issue, the Sixth Circuit followed the
Seventh Circuit, joining a
[[Page H6811]]
long line of courts that have upheld HUD's jurisdiction. On May 1,
1995, the court found that ``HUD's interpretation of the Fair Housing
Act is consistent with the goals of the Fair Housing Act and a
reasonable interpretation of the statute. We hold that the McCarran-
Ferguson Act does not preclude HUD's interpretation of the Fair Housing
Act.'' The Supreme Court has declined to review these cases.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to leave the
wrong impression for the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], for our work
has led to a great deal of agreement across the board with a variety
and mix of difficult issues, but, yes, I am aware that on this issue
there is also substantial disagreement among the Members.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, may I also ask, is my colleague aware that,
despite the absence of any language in the appropriation measure before
us that would restrict HUD's authority to fund activities on
furtherance of the Fair Housing Act in its use of FHIP funds, report
language that is not supported by many members of the committee could
be read to seek to restrict the Department?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Stokes was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, it is the intention of this Member and
others that the Department have the authority to address all forms of
discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, sometimes referred to as
title VIII of the 1968 Civil Rights Act, as the Act has been
interpreted by the Federal courts.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I am aware, Mr. Chairman, that there is
disagreement here, too.
Mr. STOKES. I am concerned that these issues have been addressed in
report language without the opportunity for hearings on the matters
involved and involving matters upon which there is substantial
disagreement between Members. They are an attempt to revise the history
of this body to deal with an important substantive issue involving
civil rights that are critical to all of our citizens. These issues
involve matters which have traditionally been outside the purview of
this committee and more properly dealt with in legislation other than
appropriation legislation. They deserve the careful debate and
consideration that this body has provided to such issues in the past.
I thank my distinguished chairman for participating in this colloquy
with me.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to clarify the committee report language
regarding HUD's application of the Fair Housing Act to property
insurance and to engage the distinguished chairman, if I might, in a
colloquy.
First, I think it is important to emphasize that nothing in the
committee report either states or suggests that Congress is not fully
committed to the eradication of unlawful discrimination in whatever
form it may appear. In particular, the report does not suggest that
there should be any tolerance of unfair discrimination in insurance.
Rather, it specifically emphasizes the importance of the laws and
regulations prohibiting unfair insurance discrimination that are
maintained by every State and the District of Columbia. The issue dealt
with in the report is not whether unfair discrimination by insurers be
prosecuted and punished but, rather, who should undertake such
prosecution: HUD or the insurance commissioners of the 50 States and
the District of Columbia.
As I am sure the gentleman is aware, the Fair Housing Act does not,
by its very terms, apply to property insurance. The statute expressly
prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. It also
specifically prohibits discrimination in mortgage lending and the
services that mortgage brokers provide. It does not, however, mention
property insurance at all. There is ample indication in the legislative
history of this statute that Congress was intentional in omitting any
such reference. First, when the Fair Housing Act was enacted in 1968,
it was expressly the view of this House floor that property insurance
was excluded from its scope. Second, in the same legislative session,
Congress specifically addressed the issue of property insurance
availability through a separate law, the Urban Property Protection and
Reinsurance Act, choosing that measure, rather than the Fair Housing
Act, as the appropriate way to deal with the issue.
Third, while there have been several attempts since 1968 to include
property insurance under the umbrella of the Fair Housing Act, each of
them failed at some stage of the legislative process. Finally, last
year the House voted 266-157 against funding HUD activities involving
the application of the Fair Housing Act to property insurance.
Am I correct in assuming the gentleman agrees that the legislative
history of this issue suggests Congress never intended the Fair Housing
Act apply to the business of insurance?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. The gentleman's assumption is correct. The
legislative history of the Fair Housing Act demonstrates that Congress
has on many occasions decided not to apply the act to insurance.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, while the legislative history is quite clear, the
situation in the courts is less so. Recently, two circuit courts
reached the conclusion that the Fair Housing Act applies to the
business of insurance. Those courts strictly followed the doctrine of
judicial deference to agency decisionmaking. They apparently felt
constrained by the fact that HUD, the agency that was charged with
implementing the Fair Housing Act, had declared that the law should be
applied to insurance. Rather than contradict HUD, the courts determined
that they should follow HUD's rule at least until Congress expressly
makes clear that HUD's interpretation is wrong.
Before HUD issued its 1989 rule stating that the Fair Housing Act
applies to insurance, the prevailing view in the Federal circuit courts
was that the act does not apply to insurance. It was only after HUD's
rule was promulgated that the courts decided otherwise. HUD, therefore,
was essentially responsible for triggering the court decisions finding
that the Fair Housing Act applies to insurance.
Am I correct again, Mr. Chairman, in assuming that the gentleman
agrees that the courts have sent mixed signals on this issue?
Mr. LEWIS of California. The gentleman is correct. I have reviewed
the information provided to me. The 6th and 7th Circuits found--after
the implementation of HUD's rule--that the Fair Housing Act applies to
property insurance, while the 4th Circuit found--before the rule--that
it does not. I would also say to the gentleman that it is my hope that
the Supreme Court will weigh in on this issue so that the uncertainty
can be dispelled.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I again thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, by its terms the McCarran-Ferguson Act renders any
Federal statute inapplicable to the activities of insurance companies,
if, one, the Federal statute does not specifically relate to insurance;
two, the challenged activity constitutes the business of insurance;
and, three, the Federal statute would invalidate, impair or supersede
State insurance law. An examination of these factors suggests that the
application of the Fair Housing Act to property insurance practices is
barred by the McCarran-Ferguson Act. As I previously stated, the Fair
Housing Act makes no mention of property insurance. Secondly, the
pricing, underwriting and marketing of property insurance policies
clearly constitutes the business of insurance.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Knollenberg] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Knollenberg was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Finally, Mr. Chairman, the courts have held that a
Federal statute will be deemed to invalidate, impair, or supersede
State law whenever the State has regulated the same general subject
within the business of insurance. Currently, all States specifically
forbid unfair discrimination in the issuance or termination of property
insurance. Thus, it
[[Page H6812]]
appears that HUD's activities pursuant to the Fair Housing Act
constitute a dual Federal-State system of regulating insurance
discrimination, contrary to the letter and spirit of the McCarran-
Ferguson act.
Does the gentleman again concur that HUD's application of the Fair
Housing Act to insurance is fundamentally at odds with McCarran-
Ferguson?
Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman will yield further, I would
say to the gentleman, his contention that application of the Fair
Housing Act to property insurance runs counter to Congress's intent
embodied in the McCarran-Ferguson Act is reasonably founded.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman
for engaging me in this colloquy.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
readjustment benefits
For the payment of readjustment and rehabilitation benefits
to or on behalf of veterans as authorized by 38 U.S.C.
chapters 21, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 39, 51, 53, 55, and 61,
$1,227,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That funds shall be available to pay any court order, court
award or any compromise settlement arising from litigation
involving the vocational training program authorized by
section 18 of Public Law 98-77, as amended.
veterans insurance and indemnities
For military and naval insurance, national service life
insurance, servicemen's indemnities, service-disabled
veterans insurance, and veterans mortgage life insurance as
authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 19; 70 Stat. 887; 72 Stat.
487, $38,970,000, to remain available until expended.
guaranty and indemnity program account
(including transfer of funds)
For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, such sums as
may be necessary to carry out the program, as authorized by
38 U.S.C. chapter 37, as amended: Provided, That such costs,
including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as
defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, as amended.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct and guaranteed loan programs, $105,226,000, which may
be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``General operating expenses''.
loan guaranty program account
(including transfer of funds)
For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, such sums as
may be necessary to carry out the program, as authorized by
38 U.S.C. chapter 37, as amended: Provided, That such costs,
including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as
defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, as amended.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct and guaranteed loan programs, $33,810,000, which may
be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``General operating expenses''.
direct loan program account
(including transfer of funds)
For the cost of direct loans, such sums as may be necessary
to carry out the program, as authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter
37, as amended: Provided, That such costs, including the cost
of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided
further, That during 1997, within the resources available,
not to exceed $300,000 in gross obligations for direct loans
are authorized for specially adapted housing loans.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct loan program, $80,000, which may be transferred to and
merged with the appropriation for ``General operating
expenses''.
education loan fund program account
(including transfer of funds)
For the cost of direct loans, $1,000, as authorized by 38
U.S.C. 3698, as amended: Provided, That such costs, including
the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in
section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as
amended: Provided further, That these funds are available to
subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount of
direct loans not to exceed $3,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct loan program, $195,000, which may be
transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``General operating expenses''.
vocational rehabilitation loans program account
(including transfer of funds)
For the cost of direct loans, $49,000, as authorized by 38
U.S.C. chapter 31, as amended: Provided, That such costs,
including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as
defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, as amended: Provided further, That these funds are
available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal
amount of direct loans not to exceed $1,964,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct loan program, $377,000, which may be
transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``General operating expenses''.
native american veteran housing loan program account
(including transfer of funds)
For administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan
program authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 37, subchapter V, as
amended, $205,000, which may be transferred to and merged
with the appropriation for ``General operating expenses''.
Veterans Health Administration
medical care
For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of
hospitals, nursing homes, and domiciliary facilities; for
furnishing, as authorized by law, inpatient and outpatient
care and treatment to beneficiaries of the Department of
Veterans Affairs, including care and treatment in facilities
not under the jurisdiction of the Department; and furnishing
recreational facilities, supplies, and equipment; funeral,
burial, and other expenses incidental thereto for
beneficiaries receiving care in the Department;
administrative expenses in support of planning, design,
project management, real property acquisition and
disposition, construction and renovation of any facility
under the jurisdiction or for the use of the Department;
oversight, engineering and architectural activities not
charged to project cost; repairing, altering, improving or
providing facilities in the several hospitals and homes under
the jurisdiction of the Department, not otherwise provided
for, either by contract or by the hire of temporary employees
and purchase of materials; uniforms or allowances therefor,
as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; aid to State homes as
authorized by 38 U.S.C. 1741; and not to exceed $8,000,000 to
fund cost comparison studies as referred to in 38 U.S.C.
8110(a)(5); $17,008,447,000, plus reimbursements: Provided,
That of the funds made available under this heading,
$570,000,000 is for the equipment and land and structures
object classifications only, which amount shall not become
available for obligation until August 1, 1997, and shall
remain available until September 30, 1998.
medical and prosthetic research
For necessary expenses in carrying out programs of medical
and prosthetic research and development as authorized by 38
U.S.C. chapter 73, to remain available until September 30,
1998, $257,000,000, plus reimbursements.
medical administration and miscellaneous operating expenses
For necessary expenses in the administration of medical,
hospital, nursing home, domiciliary, construction, supply,
and research activities, as authorized by law; administrative
expenses in support of planning, design, project management,
architectural, engineering, real property acquisition and
disposition, construction and renovation of any facility
under the jurisdiction or for the use of the Department of
Veterans Affairs, including site acquisition; engineering and
architectural activities not charged to project cost; and
research and development in building construction technology;
$59,207,000, plus reimbursements.
transitional housing loan program
(including transfer of funds)
For the cost of direct loans, $7,000, as authorized by
Public Law 102-54, section 8, which shall be transferred from
the ``General post fund'': Provided, That such costs,
including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as
defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, as amended: Provided further, That these funds are
available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal
amount of direct loans not to exceed $70,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct loan program, $54,000, which shall be transferred from
the ``General post fund'', as authorized by Public Law 102-
54, section 8.
Departmental Administration
general operating expenses
For necessary operating expenses of the Department of
Veterans Affairs, not otherwise provided for, including
uniforms or allowances therefor; not to exceed $25,000 for
official reception and representation expenses; hire of
passenger motor vehicles; and reimbursement of the General
Services Administration for security guard services, and the
Department of Defense for the cost of overseas employee mail;
$823,584,000: Provided, That of the amount appropriated, and
any other funds made available from any other source for
activities funded under this heading, not to exceed
$3,206,000 for personnel compensation and benefits and
$50,000 for travel shall be available in the Office of the
Secretary: Provided further, That during fiscal year 1997,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the number of
individuals employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs
(1) in other than ``career appointee'' positions in the
Senior Executive Service shall not exceed 6, and (2) in
schedule C positions shall not exceed 11: Provided further,
That funds under this heading shall be available to
administer the Service Members Occupational Conversion and
Training Act.
{time} 1915
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hefner
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
[[Page H6813]]
Amendment offered by Mr. Hefner: Page 10, line 10, strike
``; Provided, That'' and all that follows through
``Secretary'' on line 15.
(Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.]
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I hope this amendment will not take that
long.
This restriction was placed in the fiscal year 1996 omnibus bill and
it has caused problems. It harms the veterans and when our Secretary
would like to visit different areas of the country. I will place in the
Record a letter listing the people that are supporting this: The
American Legion, the Paralyzed Veterans, the VFW, Vietnam Veterans, and
the DAV. I would hope that the committee would see fit to accept this
amendment, which I think helps the bill tremendously.
The letter referred to is as follows:
The American Legion,
Washington Office,
Washington, DC, June 25, 1996.
Hon. W. G. Bill Hefner,
U.S. House of Representatives,
2470 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Hefner: The American Legion fully
supports your proposed amendment to the FY 1997 VA, HUD and
Independent Agencies appropriations bill, which would strike
the restrictions on limitations to the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs travel budget.
The VA's FY 1997 appropriations bill limits the travel
budget for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to $50,000. The
American Legion believes that limiting the Secretary's travel
budget would have an adverse impact on his ability to ensure
the Veterans Administration provides quality services to
America's veterans. Personally visiting with veterans, their
families and VA employees allows the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to better address and properly correct their
concerns.
The proposed limits on the travel budget will also force
the Secretary to significantly alter his managerial and
leadership styles and ultimately penalize VA career
employees. VA employees do their jobs, day-in and day-out,
without regard to partisan politics and most have served
under several administrations. Their common goal is service
to America's veterans and their families.
Thank you for taking the views of The American Legion under
serious consideration as you consider the FY 1997 VA budget.
Sincerely,
Steve A. Robertson, Director,
National Legislative Commission.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. As the gentleman knows, there were Members
of the body who were greatly concerned with the way some of these
responsibilities were being exercised by the Secretary. We have
communicated in some depth over the last year or so. I believe and hope
that we are making progress in that connection, so both in the spirit
of comity between both sides of the House but also an effort to improve
communication between the administration and myself, I am inclined to
accept the amendment and I believe my colleague is of the same view.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman on his
amendment. I thank the chairman for accepting this amendment and also
the ranking minority member.
Mr. LEWIS of California. We accept the amendment.
Mr. HEFNER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
gentleman's hard work that he has done on this particular bill, and the
ranking minority member here. But this is something that I think
strengthens the bill. I think it does a service to the veterans and
certainly we do not argue about trying to get different secretaries'
attention over the years, because we have had people that have had a
tendency to get involved in politics probably when they should not have
been getting involved in politics. But this is something that is
special for our veterans. Secretary Brown is much decorated; he is a
veteran. He also is a handicapped veteran, and I think he has done a
tremendous job for the veterans.
I again want to thank the chairman of the committee for accepting
this amendment and for the ranking minority member, who I suppose is
going to go along with accepting this amendment. I thank the gentleman
for what I think is an effort to strengthen the bill to make it more
palatable.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased and want to commend the
gentleman for his amendment. I also want to express my appreciation to
the chairman for accepting it. We also accept it.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman will yield further, I
appreciate very much the gentleman's contribution as well. Indeed, he
is assisting us in this effort to one more time deal with veterans'
matters as well as the rest of the work of this committee in a highly
bipartisan as well as nonpartisan fashion.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
national cemetery system
For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of
the National Cemetery System, not otherwise provided for,
including uniforms or allowances therefor; cemeterial
expenses as authorized by law; purchase of two passenger
motor vehicles for use in cemeterial operations; and hire of
passenger motor vehicles, $76,864,000.
office of inspector general
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, $30,900,000.
construction, major projects
For constructing, altering, extending and improving any of
the facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the
Department of Veterans Affairs, or for any of the purposes
set forth in sections 316, 2404, 2406, 8102, 8103, 8106,
8108, 8109, 8110, and 8122 of title 38, United States Code,
including planning, architectural and engineering services,
maintenance or guarantee period services costs associated
with equipment guarantees provided under the project,
services of claims analysts, offsite utility and storm
drainage system construction costs, and site acquisition,
where the estimated cost of a project is $3,000,000 or more
or where funds for a project were made available in a
previous major project appropriation, $245,358,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That except for
advance planning of projects funded through the advance
planning fund and the design of projects funded through
the design fund, none of these funds shall be used for any
project which has not been considered and approved by the
Congress in the budgetary process: Provided further, That
funds provided in this appropriation for fiscal year 1997,
for each approved project shall be obligated (1) by the
awarding of a construction documents contract by September
30, 1997, and (2) by the awarding of a construction
contract by September 30, 1998: Provided further, That the
Secretary shall promptly report in writing to the
Comptroller General and to the Committees on
Appropriations any approved major construction project in
which obligations are not incurred within the time
limitations established above; and the Comptroller General
shall review the report in accordance with the procedures
established by section 1015 of the Impoundment Control Act
of 1974 (title X of Public Law 93-344): Provided further,
That no funds from any other account except the ``Parking
revolving fund'', may be obligated for constructing,
altering, extending, or improving a project which was
approved in the budget process and funded in this account
until one year after substantial completion and beneficial
occupancy by the Department of Veterans Affairs of the
project or any part thereof with respect to that part
only.
construction, minor projects
For constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of
the facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the
Department of Veterans Affairs, including planning,
architectural and engineering services, maintenance or
guarantee period services costs associated with equipment
guarantees provided under the project, services of claims
analysts, offsite utility and storm drainage system
construction costs, and site acquisition, or for any of the
purposes set forth in sections 316, 2404, 2406, 8102, 8103,
8106, 8108, 8109, 8110, and 8122 of title 38, United States
Code, where the estimated cost of a project is less than
$3,000,000; $160,000,000, to remain available until expended,
along with unobligated balances of previous ``Construction,
minor projects'' appropriations which are hereby made
available for any project where the estimated cost is less
than $3,000,000: Provided, That funds in this account shall
be available for (1) repairs to any of the nonmedical
facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the
Department which are necessary because of loss or damage
caused by any natural disaster or catastrophe, and (2)
temporary measures necessary to prevent or to minimize
further loss by such causes.
parking revolving fund
For the parking revolving fund as authorized by 38 U.S.C.
8109, $12,300,000, together
[[Page H6814]]
with income from fees collected, to remain available until
expended, which shall be available for all authorized
expenses except operations and maintenance costs, which will
be funded from ``Medical care''.
grants for construction of state extended care facilities
For grants to assist States to acquire or construct State
nursing home and domiciliary facilities and to remodel,
modify or alter existing hospital, nursing home and
domiciliary facilities in State homes, for furnishing care to
veterans as authorized by 38 U.S.C. 8131-8137, $47,397,000,
to remain available until expended.
grants for the construction of state veterans cemeteries
For grants to aid States in establishing, expanding, or
improving State veteran cemeteries as authorized by 38 U.S.C.
2408, $1,000,000, to remain available until expended.
franchise fund
(including transfer of funds)
There is hereby established in the Treasury a franchise
fund pilot, as authorized by section 403 of Public Law 103-
356, to be available as provided in such section for expenses
and equipment necessary for the maintenance and operation
of such administrative services as the Secretary
determines may be performed more advantageously as central
services: Provided, That any inventories, equipment and
other assets pertaining to the services to be provided by
the franchise fund, either on hand or on order, less the
related liabilities or unpaid obligations, and any
appropriations made hereafter for the purpose of providing
capital, shall be used to capitalize the franchise fund:
Provided further, That the franchise fund may be paid in
advance from funds available to the Department and other
Federal agencies for which such centralized services are
performed, at rates which will return in full all expenses
of operation, including accrued leave, depreciation of
fund plant and equipment, amortization of automated data
processing (ADP) software and systems (either acquired or
donated), and an amount necessary to maintain a reasonable
operating reserve, as determined by the Secretary:
Provided further, That the franchise fund shall provide
services on a competitive basis: Provided further, That an
amount not to exceed four percent of the total annual
income to such fund may be retained in the fund for fiscal
year 1997 and each fiscal year thereafter, to remain
available until expended, to be used for the acquisition
of capital equipment and for the improvement and
implementation of Departmental financial management, ADP,
and other support systems: Provided further, That no later
than thirty days after the end of each fiscal year amounts
in excess of this reserve limitation shall be transferred
to the Treasury: Provided further, That such franchise
fund pilot shall terminate pursuant to section 403(f) of
Public Law 103-356.
administrative provisions
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 101. Any appropriation for 1997 for ``Compensation and
pensions'', ``Readjustment benefits'', and ``Veterans
insurance and indemnities'' may be transferred to any other
of the mentioned appropriations.
Sec. 102. Appropriations available to the Department of
Veterans Affairs for 1997 for salaries and expenses shall be
available for services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
Sec. 103. No appropriations in this Act for the Department
of Veterans Affairs (except the appropriations for
``Construction, major projects'', ``Construction, minor
projects'', and the ``Parking revolving fund'') shall be
available for the purchase of any site for or toward the
construction of any new hospital or home.
Sec. 104. No appropriations in this Act for the Department
of Veterans Affairs shall be available for hospitalization or
examination of any persons (except beneficiaries entitled
under the laws bestowing such benefits to veterans, and
persons receiving such treatment under 5 U.S.C. 7901-7904
or 42 U.S.C. 5141-5204), unless reimbursement of cost is
made to the ``Medical care'' account at such rates as may
be fixed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Sec. 105. Appropriations available to the Department of
Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 1997 for ``Compensation and
pensions'', ``Readjustment benefits'', and ``Veterans
insurance and indemnities'' shall be available for payment of
prior year accrued obligations required to be recorded by law
against the corresponding prior year accounts within the last
quarter of fiscal year 1996.
Sec. 106. Appropriations accounts available to the
Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 1997 shall be
available to pay prior year obligations of corresponding
prior year appropriations accounts resulting from title X of
the Competitive Equality Banking Act, Public Law 100-86,
except that if such obligations are from trust fund accounts
they shall be payable from ``Compensation and pensions''.
Sec. 107. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
during fiscal year 1997, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall, from the National Service Life Insurance Fund (38
U.S.C. 1920), the Veterans' Special Life Insurance Fund (38
U.S.C. 1923), and the United States Government Life
Insurance Fund (38 U.S.C. 1955), reimburse the ``General
operating expenses'' account for the cost of
administration of the insurance programs financed through
those accounts: Provided, That reimbursement shall be made
only from the surplus earnings accumulated in an insurance
program in fiscal year 1997, that are available for
dividends in that program after claims have been paid and
actuarially determined reserves have been set aside:
Provided further, That if the cost of administration of an
insurance program exceeds the amount of surplus earnings
accumulated in that program, reimbursement shall be made
only to the extent of such surplus earnings: Provided
further, That the Secretary shall determine the cost of
administration for fiscal year 1997, which is properly
allocable to the provision of each insurance program and
to the provision of any total disability income insurance
included in such insurance program.
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Housing Programs
annual contributions for assisted housing
(including rescission)
For assistance under the United States Housing Act of 1937,
as amended (the ``Act'' herein) (42 U.S.C. 1437), not
otherwise provided for, $5,372,000,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That of the total amount provided
under this head, $4,572,000,000 shall be for assistance under
the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437) for
use in connection with expiring or terminating section 8
subsidy contracts of which $975,000,000 shall be available on
September 15, 1997: Provided further, That the Secretary may
determine not to apply section 8(o)(6)(B) of the Act to
housing vouchers during fiscal year 1997: Provided further,
That of the total amount provided under this head,
$800,000,000 shall be for amendments to section 8 contracts
other than contracts for projects developed under section 202
of the Housing Act of 1959, as amended: Provided further,
That 50 per centum of the amounts of budget authority, or in
lieu thereof 50 per centum of the cash amounts associated
with such budget authority, that are recaptured from projects
described in section 1012(a) of the Stewart B. McKinney
Homeless Assistance Amendments Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-
628, 102 Stat. 3224, 3268) shall be rescinded, or in the case
of cash, shall be remitted to the Treasury, and such amounts
of budget authority or cash recaptured and not rescinded or
remitted to the Treasury shall be used by State housing
finance agencies or local governments or local housing
agencies with projects approved by the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development for which settlement occurred after
January 1, 1992, in accordance with such section.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Lewis of California
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Lewis of California: On page 19,
line 9, strike ``$5,372,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof
``$5,272,000,000''. On page 19, line 11, strike
``$4,572,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof
``$4,472,000,000''. On page 19, line 15, strike
``$975,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$875,000,000''.
On page 28, line 20, strike ``$4,300,000,000'' and insert
in lieu thereof ``$4,600,000,000''. On page 28, line 21,
after ``1999,'' and insert ``of which $300,000,000 shall
become available for obligation on September 30, 1997, and''.
On page 74, line 5, strike ``$1,320,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$1,120,000,000''.
Mr. LEWIS of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment restores
funding for a very effective and broadly supported program known as the
Community Development Block Grant Program. This amendment adds $300
million to CDBG. The budget authority offsets are taken from two
accounts; $100 million is from the annual contributions account, and
$200 million from the FEMA disaster relief account.
As most of my colleagues know, the CDBG program is one of the most
popular at HUD, for a variety of reasons, including the fact that it is
the most flexible program.
I have received any number of requests to restore funding to the $4.6
billion level which is the 1996 appropriations level as well as the
President's request for fy 1997.
In addition, I promised the ranking member of this subcommittee, as
well as members of the full committee in our discussion there,
including the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], that I would
continue to work to find offsets to fully fund CDBG. I am pleased to
say that we are able to accomplish this at this time rather than
waiting until conference.
This amendment being responsive to the work of my colleagues,
especially
[[Page H6815]]
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], I am happy to be able to say
that we are keeping the first among a number of commitments to the
members of the full committee.
Fulfilling this promise, however, has come at some cost. I was
extremely reluctant to reduce the annual contributions account from the
President's request of $5,597,000,000 because of the staggering
commitment that account will have to bear next year as more section 8
contracts begin to expire. Failing to renew these contracts will mean
the potential of widespread displacement of very poor families with
children, as well as elderly and disabled persons. This is the first
point at which we will discuss that problem as ongoing and a serious
growth problem with HUD programming. The renewal contracts under
section 8 are about to put pressure on HUD programs that, over time,
could indeed squeeze out many, maybe most, maybe even all of those
programs, if we do not find a solution.
Beyond the section 8 question, Mr. Chairman, we are reducing the FEMA
disaster account, which means reducing the level of commitments to
areas hit by disasters last year. As most of my colleagues know, we
found ourselves in a circumstance at the big budget conference where
FEMA funding was used as a set-aside in that entire package, putting
pressure on the FEMA accounts that is very severe.
We have to be very cautious as we move down this pathway. FEMA
eventually has to pay the piper, too. So this is a very delicate and
difficult amendment trying to meet both the requests as well as the
challenges of the House insofar as CDBG is concerned.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the chairman's
amendment to increase the funding for the Community Development Block
Grant Program by $300 million, and restore funding the fiscal year 1996
level. I am pleased that this amendment takes significant positive step
to improve this bill. In fact, this issue is one of the most critical
areas that I have advocated my support of since the subcommittee
markup.
CDBG funds are necessary to maintain the infrastructure of cities
throughout the Nation. Cuts to this program would have greatly hampered
the maintenance and improvement of communities across the country. In
my own district in Cleveland, OH, the city relies on these important
moneys for revitalization activities. Without the full benefit of these
dollars, the renaissance occurring there would be severely diminished.
Mr. Chairman, money from CDBG leverages even greater resources from
State, local, and private sources, and has far-reaching effects upon
the quality of life for residents in hundreds of cities and towns. I am
pleased to support this amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to acknowledge as well that the gentleman
from California offers an excellent amendment. In fact, it looks very
similar to an amendment I was considering, and now I will not have to
offer that amendment and give a very good speech in support of it,
which I am sure would have won the gentleman from California over.
But I can tell Members that this effort to restore the $300 million
in CDBG funds is one that is bipartisan and it is one that is
supported, obviously, at the Federal level by the President and by the
administration, but I think of equal force, Governors and mayors across
the country feel very strongly about the CDBG program.
Mr. Chairman, I received a letter from the mayor of the city of
Chicago, Mayor Daley, recently elected head of the Mayors' Conference
nationwide, and he made it clear how important these funds are for the
city of Chicago. This block grant program will allow Chicago to fund
programs as diverse as daycare, senior services, economic development,
and housing.
I salute the gentleman from California for this amendment. I happily
support it, and I am glad that we have come together.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I want to take just a moment to commend the
gentleman from Illinois for his leadership in this area. The gentleman,
at the full committee level, had an amendment relative to this matter
and had planned to offer one here on the floor. It is your strong
leadership that has helped both the chairman and I to be able to work
together toward this amendment sponsored by the chairman here on the
floor. So I salute the gentleman for his hard work in this endeavor.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank my colleague
from Ohio, and I am happy this has become a bipartisan effort. It is a
bipartisan program, it should remain that.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, we are happy to receive
assistance from whatever corner of the Capitol we can find it.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment offered by Mr. kennedy of massachusetts
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts: In the
item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT--Housing Programs--annual contributions for
assisted housing'', after ``$5,372,000,000'' insert
``(increased by $174,000,000)''.
In the item relating to ``INDEPENDENT AGENCIES--National
Aeronautics and Space Administration--Human Space Flight'',
after ``$5,362,900,000'' insert ``(decreased by
$174,000,000)''.
{time} 1930
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this amendment I will try
to explain very briefly. This amendment moves $174 million out of the
space station account and into the housing certificate fund at HUD. I
would like to make clear that my intention for this money, if this
amendment passes, should be used to fund 30,000 new section 8 rental
certificates or vouchers.
Mr. Chairman, last year, for the first time in 20 years, this
Congress turned its back on a 20-year bipartisan commitment to
providing section 8 voucher assistance to millions of people suffering
from severe housing needs. A recent HUD study shows that as of 1993,
5.3 million households live in extremely rundown housing or pay more
than half of their incomes in rent, an all-time high.
These families are one illness, one bout of unemployment, or one
unforeseen circumstance away from homelessness. Over 40 percent of
those households are families with children and 75 percent are very
poor. While this number has been growing, the stock of affordable
housing has been dropping. In 8 years, from 1985 to 1993, the
affordable housing stock fell by 425,000 units.
If it is true, Mr. Chairman, that an ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of cure, then this modest increase in the incremental assistance
will pay us back many times over as we stabilize families and prevent
the horrible dislocation and destruction that homelessness causes.
Additional section 8 assistance will go to many important uses that
nearly everyone in the body can support. These rental certificates will
be used to help get disabled people out of elderly public housing, and
more quickly, and without the concerns that we will be throwing them on
to the street.
Housing certificates have played an essential role in the health care
of people with AIDS, people who are homeless and have AIDS, with a life
expectancy of just 6 months, yet many of these same people could live
productively for years if they had a stable home that this housing
assistance could provide.
HUD has proposed a new initiative called Welfare To Work. This
involves coordinated efforts among State welfare agencies, public
housing authorities, and counseling organizations to help transition
welfare recipients off of welfare and into work. Section 8 is a key
component of this because housing is not often affordable to many of
the people who are seeking these low-wage jobs.
[[Page H6816]]
Rental assistance, particularly mobile, tenant-based assistance, that
enables a welfare recipient to move closer to a job and educational
opportunities can help make this transition possible. For example, a
majority of section 8 rental housing vouchers and certificate holders
live in low poverty areas, where the poverty rate is less than 25
percent. This means that better schools and more jobs are available. It
likely means that less crime will take place and there will be more
stable neighborhoods. Everyone knows this is a better situation in
which to raise children.
The Section 8 Program creates an environment for stability and for
family. With a housing certificate, a family that is today paying more
than half their income in rent can avoid the type of rent stress that
leaves them in constant danger of falling behind or moving to avoid an
eviction. Think about what happens to the children in these cases.
Schooling is disrupted, friends are lost, everything that we take for
granted for ourselves and our children and our grandchildren are out of
the reach of millions of Americans.
Mr. Chairman, I understand how the space station has become
sacrosanct, and I said in my remarks during the general debate that
this entire bill is underfunded, but we cannot meet the most basic test
of calling ourselves a civilized society if we cannot provide for our
children, our disabled, and our poor with basic decent shelter. This
amendment would help meet that goal in a small but significant way, and
I urge the passage of this amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, as we discussed in our general debate, this is an
extremely difficult bill that involves a combination of veterans
medical care concerns and public housing concerns which are critical to
the service we are providing many of the poorest of the poor. There are
also a number of major issues that involve our scientific community,
the National Science Foundation, NASA's work as well and the work of
EPA.
When we have limited dollars, we tug and pull and attempt to balance
between those accounts. In this case, and in a rather straightforward
manner, my colleague from Massachusetts is suggesting that housing
programs of a special form are of high enough priority that there is
money available in our bill for NASA funding that he prefer to set
aside and put into those housing accounts. I understand that relative
priority.
HUD requested $290 million for new incremental voucher assistance. Of
that amount $116 million was requested for assistance to families that
became displaced due to changes in the project's status. The remaining
$174 million was requested in two new programs: $145 million for a new
initiative called Welfare To Work and $29 million for a new initiative
to provide rental assistance for welfare mothers with children.
The committee's recommendation reflects the position that HUD does
not have the capacity to administer new programs. In fact, both the HUD
Inspector General and the General Accounting Office has stated that HUD
is an agency in serious disrepair. It was the committee's considered
opinion that funding new programs was extremely unwise given HUD's poor
past performance.
Furthermore, neither of these programs have been authorized by the
housing subcommittee. In fact, the funding requested for incremental
units to fund these new programs, in effect, creates two new Federal
preferences, a policy which this Congress eliminated last year with the
repeal of Federal preferences. Both housing bills sponsored in the
House and the Senate specifically eliminate Federal preferences in
favor of locally decided preferences.
This amendment should be opposed on the grounds that it is bad policy
and it will result in appropriating an unauthorized program. Beyond
that, we have given priority relative to human space flight within the
NASA portion of this account. To essentially take that on head-on-head
against housing programs not only does not reflect the priorities of
the subcommittee, it frankly is dealing with NASA programs, from my
perspective, in a relatively unfair manner. So I would oppose the
amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
gentleman yielding.
I want to point out what we have seen happen in this appropriations
bill over the course of the last year and a half. Last year we saw a
quarter of the Nation's Federal housing project cut without a single
hearing, without a single taking of any testimony by the authorizing
committee. We then have seen this year an additional $2 billion cut out
of the Federal housing program.
I understand that the gentleman is under a great deal of pressure and
these accounts are in vital need of new funds, but the truth of the
matter is that given the structure that we have, where we have to
offset either the space station or FEMA or the veterans in order to get
the money for housing, it seems to me that we are sort of put between a
rock and a hard place.
Of course people do not want to put the money into public housing.
The only other major housing program we have is the voucher program,
and that is why we have asked for funds to go into this voucher
program.
I know the gentleman from California is sympathetic and knows a great
deal about this issue, and the truth of the matter is that I believe
the space station can take a $200 million cut if the ultimate cut on
Federal housing dollars is over $10 billion over the course of the last
year and a half.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me say
to my colleague, I know very well how sincerely he is involved in and
concerned with these programs. Let me say that in the time that I have
had the chance to chair this committee, it has been frustrating for me
to see that we find ourselves appropriating some 250 housing accounts,
billions of dollars flowing, and in many cases we wonder whether those
monies are really getting to the people we purport to serve in the
first place.
We are in the process of attempting to reexamine many of those
appropriations. Indeed, we are looking forward to leadership and
guidance from the authorizing committee when they finally get all of
that together. In the meantime, we are asked to appropriate. It seems
to me we should be very careful about examining existing programs that
work versus those that are not working well before we move on to
funding new programs.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote on the gentleman's amendment, even
though well intentioned.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike that last word.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a good one and I'm pleased to join
Representative Joe Kennedy of Massachusetts in offering it. It will
shift funds from the space station to about 30,000 in new section 8
housing assistance. Such a switch would be a better use of public
dollars for the public good.
A couple of years ago, I had the privilege of chairing a task force
on homelessness. So much of what we looked at was how people became
homeless. We found that in order to really be successful in ending
homelessness we needed to get upstream of the waterfall; to do real
homeless prevention with housing and other utility assistance. Without
new section 8 assistance, we are not addressing the stream at all. The
section 8 units would result in assisted private sector housing
vouchers that otherwise would not be available for housing low income
families.
Some 5.3 million Americans are in ``worst case'' housing situations
in our country. Those are people on the precipice of becoming homeless.
In the Twin Cities of St. Paul Minneapolis, 43,700 people are ``worst
case'' in terms of their needs. For the predominant majority of them,
affordability is the problem: meaning excessive rend burden. Section 8
assistance is about bridging the gap between affordability and worst
case housing--or sometimes worst worst case--homelessness.
Mr. Chairman, reducing the space station from $5,362,000,000 by 3.2
percent and instead providing 30,000 tangible units of tenant-based
assisted housing to the needy in our Nation is a common sense and
balanced approach. Certainly, I'm no fan of the space station because I
believe that a project of this nature ought to be rooted in the
[[Page H6817]]
reasonable application of science not merely the space spectacular
genre that has come to dominate NASA for the past three decades. The
space station has symbolic value but the practical applications are a
real stretch with little positive return for the public purpose and the
common good.
It is clear that the enthusiasts for such projects have long ago lost
touch with down to earth common sense. They are in outer space for
certain when it comes to our Federal budget priorities. The least we
can do is to adequately house the low-income people in this Nation and
while section 8 assisted housing is not a perfect program, it's the
only program with a chance of helping. This Congress will have no new
units for section 8 absent this very modest Kennedy-Vento amendment.
I urge my colleagues in their zeal to conquer space not to use the
homeless as rocket fuel. The space program and especially this 10th
version of the space station may yet get into orbit, but let's not
forget the folks upon whose shoulders you are standing--the taxpayers.
The cost being paid and scarce dollars allocated for this space station
program are not solely about research and new knowledge but rather
development, training, and operating costs which are being borne by the
Federal Government, not the market place. In many respects this program
represents just another type of subsidy, another type of dependency.
One I would suggest that flows to the few and the power elite in this
Nation. Our constituents have little direct benefit--the jobs produced
are few and far between and when the project is all done, its likely to
be more in competition for attention and bragging rights with Steven
Speilberg than the real research and science that advances the welfare
of people
I argue that we should the market place work for the space station.
We as a Nation and Federal Government have real limits and must make
tough choices. These choices must be rooted in real need, not the
development and expenditures based on space toys but the boys and
girls, the children, the poor and the homeless that perceive the
indifferences and the careless priorities.
Today, the Federal Government can not do it all. Our responsibilities
and wish lists are out of balance and out of order. Clearly Federal tax
dollars and expenditures for housing of homeless persons or any low-
income persons must be dealt with a priori--far ahead of the capricious
curiosity inspired together by the self-interested and self absorbed.
{time} 1945
Mr FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to my colleagues from Massachusetts and
Minnesota for offering this amendment because it gives us a chance to
make a point that must be made again and again. The debate that is now
taking place in this Congress is not over whether or not to reduce the
deficit and get to a balanced budget. The debate is over how we do
that, what choices do we make.
What is being proposed in this overall budget is a continuation of
the assault on the notion that the Federal Government should help
people in economic distress with housing. What this amendment would do
would be to make a fairly small reduction in the space station so that
we can provide desperately needed assistance to working families to
lower-income wage earners and their children, particularly those who
live in parts of the country where housing is a very expensive cost.
We know that there are in this country millions of people who work
very hard every day at difficult jobs. They clean. They manufacture.
They serve, and they work at low wages. What this amendment tries to do
is to reach out to tens of thousands of families, not nearly enough but
at least something, and say to them that we will make it a little
easier for them to live.
What is the alternative? It is the space station. Now, having people
living in outer space serves some useful psychological and scientific
purposes. But the choice is precisely whether we will spend billions of
dollars so a few people can live in outer space in relative comfort or
if we will use some of that money, a small percentage of it, for hard-
working people so hard-working people and their children can live here
in minimal comfort at home.
Let us be very clear. Members can decide this is a bad idea, that
sending this money into space is more important. But let us be clear
what the opportunity cost of that is, in economist terms, what do we do
by keeping that money in the space station. This is beyond dispute.
Will we say to tens of thousands of Americans, you will continue to
live in great deprivation and poverty, because that is the option. We
can increase the number of people who receive housing assistance or we
can say, no, not that important, sorry about that.
Remember, we are talking here about units that are available for
families. We are talking about poor children. We are talking about all
of the values that get a lot of support in principle from Members in
this House, but tragically little in practice. That is what is served
here.
We are not even talking about building new units. We are not talking
about putting Government back into the business of constructing public
housing. We can talk about that at other times. This is the privatized
program. The section 8 program is one whereby this is for tenant-based,
as we call it. This would give to individual families the ability to go
out into the private rental market and pay no more than 30 percent; I
think it is still 30 percent. I do not know. Did we raise that
percentage lately? We have this tendency to raise the rent percentage.
The last I looked it was still 30 percent. It may be going up.
But for these poor people, even if we get it up to 35 percent or
whatever the latest ploy will be, it is still very, very important. So
that is the choice.
This has nothing to do with balancing the budget. This has nothing to
do with reducing the deficit. Those issues are neutral here. The
question is this: Do you maximize the speed by which we have a few
people living in outer space when that means that tens of thousands of
working poor people, people who labor hard, who do everything you tell
them they are supposed to do, but find because of circumstances beyond
their control that they are not able financially to live as they
should?
Do we condemn their children to substandard and unsafe housing
conditions or do we take a small percentage away from the space
station? Maybe it takes them a couple of months longer to get there,
and instead make a very real difference in the lives of the working
poor?
I do not think we will have in this budget season many more graphic
choices between people whose values are somewhere out beyond the limits
of the atmosphere and those of us who are concerned that working
Americans here ought to have some compassion and some concern.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to this amendment because it is
something of great importance in terms of our housing policy not just
this year but in the years ahead. We have had a great debate on the
floor of this House about the tools that should be made available to
local communities in order to react to their own local problems, in
order to craft local solutions for local problems and give them the
flexibility that they need to move ahead.
We have talked about bringing hulks of buildings down. The only way
you can bring hulks of buildings down when there is residents inside is
if you give them the ability to move out. The only way to do that, to
bring meaning to people's lives, is by extending incremental
assistance.
I would like, if I can, to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman
from Massachusetts with respect to this matter. If I could ask the
gentleman, is it his intention in moving money to this account that it
be targeted to incremental assistance which is also known as vouchers
and certificates to most of us?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely the
purpose of this amendment. I want to
[[Page H6818]]
thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community
Development for speaking in favor of this amendment.
I do think that it is very, very important and the point the
gentleman makes is excellent, that we have spent far too much time
talking about and condemning public housing when the solutions that the
gentleman so articulately made on the House floor a month ago, when we
discussed the authorizing bill, came down to the fact that we need, if
we are going to shut down that housing, we are going to need to move
people into assisted housing.
This is the assisted. This is not public housing, this is the
assisted housing account which will allow people the flexibility that
has been called for by so many of the, even the most innovative right
wing think tanks of this country have called for this kind of housing
policy.
I appreciate the gentleman, my friend from New York's endorsement of
this amendment.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman. I also would note that the House has expressed its will on
incremental assistance in a vote of 315 to 105 or 107 overwhelmingly
supporting 2406 which has authorized incremental assistance moving
forward.
For that reason, because the House has expressed its will and because
of the need for this incremental assistance to give meaning to people's
lives, to provide for hope not just for individuals but for
communities, I support this amendment.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
(Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment indicates the
difficulties that someone such as myself is placed in with regard to
trying to balance the budget within the context of one particular
appropriation bill. Everything that the last four speakers have said,
the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, the gentleman from
Minnesota, Mr. Vento, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank, and
our distinguished colleague on the Republican side, Mr. Lazio of New
York, I agree with. We need these additional funds to provide the kind
of assistance to the needy and the homeless of this country that we, as
a great country, ought to be providing.
For me the problem is that I have spent the last 30 years trying to
protect the scientific base of this country including the programs in
space, which were the brainchild of a great President by the name of
Kennedy. This amendment tears me apart because it seeks to meet a need
I agree with by taking money from other programs I believe to be vital
to our future.
We cannot balance the budget and provide for all of the social
programs and the housing programs, the veterans programs, that are
needed if we only look at this one bill. I must oppose this amendment
because I think that it is impossible to achieve its objective within
the narrow scope of this one appropriation bill.
To begin with, the amendment proposed, a modest $174 million, which
is reported to be a small fraction of the cost of the space station, is
actually about a 10 percent cut in the 1997 budget of the space
station, which is about $1.8 billion. This is a very substantial
fraction of its budget. It is not a small fraction.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that,
first of all, obviously the space station over a period of years is a
50-plus-billion-dollar program; is that not correct?
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, it depends on who one's
accounting adviser is.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I will use the gentleman.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, the cost of the construction
of the space station is nowhere near that amount, but to build it and
to operate it for X number of years could reach that amount, depending
on the number of years of operation we want to count and what programs
we include in the operation.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. BROWN of California. The gentleman's amendment is not actually
directed at just the space station. It is directed at the entire human
space flight agenda, which is over $5 billion. And that means the space
shuttle as well.
If we take proportionately from each one, we endanger both programs.
We endanger the ability to complete the space station, even though the
cut is relatively minor. We endanger the safety and the success of our
space transportation system, which is a matter of great importance to
all of us. It is already operating at the margin and all of its
reserves are being stretched thin.
If Members want a really good comparison, let me suggest that they
compare the amount the gentleman is proposing, $174 million, with the
additional amount that is in the defense budget above the President's
request. That amount is about $12 billion, and the $174 million cut in
NASA would amount to about 1.5 percent of the increase in the defense
budget above the President's request.
In my opinion, if we were rational, we would make a small cut in the
DOD's $12 billion increase above the President's budget request, and
use that amount to provide for these important programs for poor and
the needy. I would look at it that way. I would support an amendment
which was designed to do that.
Unfortunately, we cannot address that kind of an amendment in
connection with the bill that is before us here. This is why I have to
express my admiration for the balancing act which has been done by the
distinguished chairman of this committee with the help of the ranking
member.
But it would be to me extremely inappropriate to endanger an
enterprise such as the space program, which has evolved over many
years, by cutting it to the level where it's successful completion is
threatened.
I could recite what this failure to complete the project would do to
the United States as a world power. But in the interest of time, I will
revise and extend my remarks.
{time} 2000
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my
distinguished ranking committee colleagues, the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Vento], to provide $174 million for new section 8 rental assistance
contracts. There is so much talk in this Congress from both sides of
the aisle about moving people from welfare to work, but if we deny
people the tools to make the transition, we decrease their chances of
making the move successfully.
We all know that in real dollars housing costs have skyrocketed in
the last two generations. That makes it tougher for people who are
trying to work their way up the ladder. There are 5.3 million
Americans; many of these people are working poor who are paying more
than 50 percent of their income in rent or are forced to live in
substandard housing for lack of any alternatives. Many of those
Americans are young children who are at a greater risk for a host of
health and emotional problems, and with these harrowing problems right
at our doorstep, only 28 percent of families eligible for section 8
actually receive it, and the average time on a waiting list is 40
months. In New York City it is years.
Decent housing is not a luxury, it is a necessity.
So, Mr. Chairman, this is not the time to back away from a 20-year
bipartisan commitment to provide new section 8 rental assistance
contracts, and I am pleased that the chair of the subcommittee, the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] has joined us in support of this
amendment in a bipartisan spirit. I urge my colleagues to join in this
effort to continue it.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to end by saying that we are spending
multibillions for space station, a motel in the heavens, and we do not
have money here on Earth for affordable housing, so I certainly support
wholeheartedly this shifting of funds from a motel in space to needed
housing here on Earth.
[[Page H6819]]
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy], my colleague and sponsor of this amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] yielding.
First of all, I want to again thank the ranking member of the
committee, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], for the efforts that
he makes in trying to make sure that we do end up with some money going
to the housing programs of this country, and he has been a great leader
on those issues for so many years, and all of us on the authorizing
committee appreciate the help and assistance he and his staff give us
on these issues.
But the truth is, on this issue it is black and white; it is just so
clear what the issues are. The issues are whether or not we are going
to balance the budget by gutting the homeless by gutting the housing
policies of this country, or whether we are going to stand up and say
that the biggest institutions, those that receive all the defense money
in this particular case, and I know my friend, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Brown], does well in trying to defend this as a science
program, but the truth of the matter is that we have got to have some
sense of compassion towards the poor.
Mr. Chairman, this budget has cut $10 billion out of the budget for
assisting those poor and vulnerable people in this country with their
housing needs. We have done it without any sense of what we are going
to do when these people become homeless and they exist on out streets.
Where are they going to live? Who is going to pick them up?
Housing is not being built for poor people. We are not providing
programs to incentivize private landlords to build the housing, we are
not giving the money to public housing, we are gutting homeless
programs, and now we are gutting the assistance programs. That is it.
There is nothing left.
We can talk about 270 programs being in the budget, but all those
programs come down to specific programs in three different areas:
public housing, assisted housing, and this particular kind of housing
that serves the homelessness.
Now, if my colleagues ask me, it is important that this country
maintain some kind of basic social compact. This budget, this minor
proposal, is a step in the right direction. The chairman of the
authorizing committee supports it; I as a ranking member on the
authorizing committee support it. We have cut too far, too deep in the
areas of assisted housing, and I plead with the Members of this body to
please make sure that we do not abandon the housing needs of our
country.
I understand it is a tough vote with regard to standing up to the
space station, but my gosh, let us not find ourselves in this choice
between the devil and the deep blue sea. Let us stand up for the
housing needs of the people of America.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, shifting gears here just a
moment, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Kennedy] be permitted to offer amendment No. 27, notwithstanding
that that paragraph of the bill is not yet considered as read and
without prejudice to further amendments to those paragraphs not read in
title II of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
amendment offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts: In the
item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT--Community Planning and Development--homeless
assistance funds'', after ``$823,000,000'' insert
``(increased by $297,000,000)''.
In the item relating to ``INDEPENDENT AGENCIES--National
Aeronautics and Space Administration--human space flight'',
after ``$5,362,900,000'' insert ``(decreased by
$297,000,000)''.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this amendment restores
$297 million to the homeless budget, making it fully funded. These
homeless programs, known as the McKinney programs after a former
Republican Member of the House, were cut by 27% in the 1995 rescissions
bill.
The amendment will make over 10,000 additional transition housing
units available; over 10,000 additional units of permanent and
supportive housing available; and assist about 80,000 more homeless
people at any one point in time.
Mr. Chairman, there is something a little strange going on here. Last
year, we cut 25 percent out of the housing budget without so much as a
single hearing. This included funds to run, rebuild and revitalize
public housing. it included funds for new rental assistance contracts.
It included funds for elderly housing and the disabled.
At a time when every study shows that the need for affordable housing
is getting more acute, this Congress cut the programs to create that
housing to shreds.
Then, when we have pulled the rug out from under poor Americans by
cutting public and assisted housing, including working poor families,
we now go and cut the homeless budget by 27 percent.
And the need for the McKinney programs is getting more serious.
Between 1985 and 1990, up to 7 million Americans experienced
homelessness, while about 600,000 people lack permanent shelter on any
given night.
In 1995, demand for emergency shelter has increased by over 10
percent according to the annual survey of the Conference of Mayors, yet
20 percent of these requests must go unmet due to lack of resources.
When services are available, in 64 percent of the cities surveyed
families have to be broken up to be served. That is not family values.
Yet, we know what works. The McKinney programs provide a vast array
of services to the homeless, including emergency shelter, transitional
shelter, permanent housing, job training and education, substance abuse
treatment, and whatever else is needed to move people off the streets
and into stable, permanent housing with the jobs necessary to pay the
rent.
I would bet that any Member in this Chamber can go back into your
communities and find your own success stories. In Boston, we have a
program called IMPACT, funded in part by McKinney, which just placed
its 500th homeless person in a job since 1994. The homeless have an 80
percent job retention rate and the average wage is $8 per hour.
In the past 3 years, the McKinney programs have delivered more
housing and homeless service more cost effectively than at any time in
the past. Local governments and non-profit providers served 14 times
the number of people in 1995 with these programs than were served in
1992, but at only 2 times the cost.
Two reports evaluating McKinney programs show that they help the
severely mentally ill achieve stable lives in supportive housing 83
percent of the time. This cuts their inpatient hospital use by 50
percent.
When we cut homeless funding, we are condemning tens of thousands of
families with children to lives of desperation and hopelessness.
Homeless children suffer from worse health; being homeless means a
child is twice as likely to suffer from upper-respiratory infections,
gastrointestinal disorders, and other health problems.
Homeless children suffer from inadequate medical care even before
they are born. A study of New York City pregnant homeless women showed
that 33 percent received no prenatal care. Infant mortality is more
than double the city's average.
Homelessness means a child is much more likely to suffer from hunger:
43 percent of 1- and 2-years-olds living in New York City shelters
suffer from iron deficiency or anemia.
HUD has made homelessness a top priority. They have streamlined and
improved the delivery of homeless assistance by urging local
governments and non-profit providers to coordinate their efforts to
provide a ``continuum of care'' that addresses all the needs of the
homeless to get off the streets and become self-sufficient.
[[Page H6820]]
We know what works. All we need is the will to provide the funding.
Support this amendment. Help fight homelessness.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise with great reluctance
to oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. Chairman, during the time I served on this subcommittee, one of
the most frustrating experiences of this Member has been to watch us go
forward in a variety and mix of programs under the jurisdiction of this
bill that deal with housing problems in the country. Indeed, within
that mix we have progressively delivered a great deal of money to a
problem that has been mushrooming in communities across the country
that we give the title and handle ``the homeless of America.'' In the
last decade, we have committed over $10 billion to solving this
problem, and it is presumed by many that the problem has to do with
bricks and mortar alone.
Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the homeless problem is a major challenge to
our society and a difficulty that we need to get to the heart of by
many an avenue, not just by way of building facilities or finding
locations for people we choose to define as homeless.
The committee, in this bill, has recommended funding for the homeless
account for fiscal year 1997 at the 1996 enacted level of $823 million.
Last year the committee followed the request of HUD to consolidate the
four separate homeless accounts into one account. This consolidated
account makes it possible for HUD to operate more efficiently,
hopefully.
Additionallly, consolidating the programs enables the nonprofits that
supply homeless assistance to do so with greater efficiently.
Certainly it is almost impossible to argue against increased funding
for the homeless when we see people sleeping on grates in our parks and
cities around the country. At the same time, all of us ofttimes lightly
talk about the fact we just cannot throw money at problems. Indeed we
have very few answers here. We have delivered a good deal of money and
found little or no solution to this growing difficulty.
I would suggest that this is a part of our need to review this
complex problem. The committee continues with its financial commitment.
There is funding here that is of part of the delicate balance that the
gentlemen from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and I had attempted to put together.
To suggest that anyone in this body who has looked on either side of
the aisle could care less would be indeed more than a mistake. We do
care, and indeed, working together, I think we can find solutions.
But we need to do a lot better than we have with the money we have
spent so far, so I urge the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]
to be patient with us as we go forward.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
gentleman's words, and I would never suggest that the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis] would be callous towards the homeless, and I
know that the gentleman has tried hard to meet the need. But, I say to
the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], let me point out that there
are solutions to homelessness. Homelessness is a problem that we have
largely created as a result of Federal policies. If my colleague looks,
in the last years of the Carter administration prior to the time when
there was the kind of homeless population that we see living on our
city grates and the like, he will find that this country under--I mean
if the gentleman was here at the time--providing over 300,000 units of
affordable housing each year for poor people.
We have not built that housing, and if we look at the total number of
housing units that we have not built in this country over the course of
the last 15 years, it coincidentally happens to add up almost exactly
to the estimates of the number of homeless families.
{time} 2015
Yet, despite that, given the resources that the gentleman has
allowed to go into these issues, we have now seen a much more
sophisticated antihomelessness effort created across this country that
has done remarkably well at getting people out of homelessness and into
jobs and becoming productive citizens. This is a problem where
solutions do work, if we are willing to pay for them.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me say
to my colleague that I believe that there are public policies that have
begun to have an impact on these subject areas, but I also believe very
strongly that a portion of the problem stems from public policies that
have gone awry.
I must confess that I was a part of an effort in California some
years ago in the legislature to deal with a social problem that we saw
as very real. There was a propensity to institutionalize people in
California and other States who had difficulties, emotional
difficulties, some alcoholism and otherwise. There was a pattern of
institutionalizing people.
The goal of the legislature was to make it difficult to
institutionalize, let people go back to their communities and their
families, to build clinics to solve their problems. We
deinstitutionalized in California but we failed to follow through on
medication and clinics, et cetera. States across the country have
followed our suit and suddenly, homelessness became an even greater
problem.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
(Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I would just follow on with the gentleman. I
appreciate it. It was the right decision, incidentally, to
deinstitutionalize. I as a State legislator had to face the same
programs with the SLICK programs and others that have been put in
place, which have not been adequately funded through the various
programs. Yet, again, this Congress is not facing up to that funding
issue.
I would suggest to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, having worked with
the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, and others on this
problem for many years, having actually named this program after my
colleague from Connecticut, the McKinney Act, and the good work that
was done by one of the gentleman's predecessors, Eddie Boland, and the
gentleman from Ohio, Lou Stokes, in terms of the FEMA moneys, very
often it is pretty hard to tell whether someone is mentally ill and on
the street for that reason or mentally ill because they are on the
street.
I remember very prophetic testimony concerning a sociologist, Louisa
Stark from Arizona, commenting on the phenomenon in terms of what it
means to be placed on the street without even shelter over your head,
and the stripping of the dignity of people in our society. This problem
is one that cannot stand.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much what
the gentleman is saying. I remember, however, many pictures on
television in the winter in California, where we sent out moving vans
to pick up people from the cold who were homeless. They ran away from
the vans because they were worried about being placed in an
institution.
There are many complications here. The answer here is, one more time,
more money taken away from NASA programs that my colleague, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], spoke so articulately about
earlier. It is not a fair tradeoff. We are trying to achieve balance
here. Indeed, I think we have met a balance. But the solutions are a
way off. I would urge that we work together.
Mr. VENTO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just suggest to
my colleague that this, indeed, is a fight between David and Goliath. I
crossed that out and said no, it is a fight between the ordinary Joe
and the NASA labyrinth. It is not a blame game in terms of whose fault
it is, it is a phenomenon of the social and economic casualties that
are occurring in our society. This problem did not exist in the early
1970's, and it does exist today. We need to address it.
They may have run away and they may not care about themselves, but I
think as a society and as the values that we hold as a people, we care
very
[[Page H6821]]
deeply about people who are in such a state of despair, who are ill and
have these problems. We really cannot accept that. I cannot accept that
as a person, as a policymaker representing my district, and I am sure
it is the case for many of us. This particular measure we are talking
about here helps the poorest of the poor. If we do not have the money,
I think the proper priorities really do fall in this direction. I am no
fan of the space station.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, I certainly do look forward to working with the gentleman and
the other members of the authorizing committee as they go forward with
their work. Indeed, we need action by the authorizing committees to
help us better get a handle on the policy directions we ought to be
taking if we are spending this money. But the gentleman's point is
appreciated.
Mr. VENTO. I appreciate the chairman's response to my support for
this. I would just suggest, we have done a lot of work on this. This is
a bottom-up program. This is built on the nonprofits and local
governments that are providing it. It is leveraged money. It is those
particular agencies, I would just tell my colleague and others that are
listening, that in fact, they are operating on overload today. For this
century and the past they have been able to afford some shelter to
those who have been without shelter, but they are operating on overload
today. They are working very hard.
These dollars are leveraged. They are essential moneys that are
trying to meet the very basic human needs in our society. While we can
find imperfections in many programs in terms of housing, the last
amendment which was considered would have been upstream. Clearly, if we
can keep people off the street, we can deal with it.
One of the problems with housing, quite frankly, is the convergence
of myriad problems that are coming to HUD dealing with health care,
dealing with education, dealing with social disorder and crime, and all
of these mental health problems, these income problems that are
occurring. But once those persons are on the street, the problems are
compounded many, many times over. That is why we need to work to
prevent homelessness where we can, to restructure our programs, to take
those scarce dollars.
We are at a point, and these are tough choices that have to be made.
These are tough choices. But I feel we just made the wrong choices in
terms of these priorities, quite frankly. I think we need to challenge
the space programs and the development of projects specifically in
terms of marketplace terms of application when we have these types of
choices. If our economy is not growing at the rate we should, then we
are facing that we cannot do everything for everyone. We cannot do the
type of subsidies and types of issues. Yes, we can do science and basic
research but we have to have a new policy.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Vento was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, we have a new predicate in terms of how we
move in dealing with this issue, but not on the backs of the homeless.
This particular amendment would help 100,000 people that are homeless.
It is an enormously important amendment to try and provide the funding,
the leverage, for the private sector, to empower those people towards
self-sufficiency and out of a dependency.
We do not accept the predicate that somehow these people are homeless
by choice. What a choice. Some choice. To leave people in despair of
that nature I think is simply not akin to our values. When we look at
space station development and other programs related to man in space,
and look at $5.3 billion, the homeless program is only 20 percent of
that amount. Where are our priorities? If we have to make tough
choices, let us not make them and take them from the poorest of the
poor.
I think if we look at the other subsidies, the tax breaks the private
sector and others receive in terms of these types of subsidies, we have
to reorganize this. We do not have enough to do it all, and we are not
meeting the very basic needs of people in our society, and therefore I
think we have a right and a responsibility to expect others that are
engaged in this type of development of science to do it.
I am a science teacher. I very much advocate the position in terms of
science, but I also understand that fundamental to that is that we do
not stand on the shoulders of the scientists that come before us, we
are standing on the taxpayers' shoulders. We are standing on the
shoulders of those who are homeless, that do not have a job, that need
the type of help that is being pro-offered by the Kennedy amendment in
this issue. We have to get that done.
I know the gentleman has made tough choices, but fundamentally I must
raise this particular question as a core value, a core value of the
American people, who will not accept the type of problems that we have
with people on the streets of this United States and this Nation in
1996.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a little like David versus Goliath or
should I say an ordinary Joe versus the N.A.S.A Labrynth--the homeless
versus the space station. It will simply restore McKinney homeless
assistance dollar levels to the pre-rescissions, fiscal year 1995
level. Help for the poorest of the poor, those without a roof over
their heads.
Most of our nonprofit groups in our communities are operating on
overload, and yet so many policies, actions, and events continue to
shift more responsibilities and costs to them. Unless the Federal
Government steps up to the plate and does the very best that we can,
State and local governments, and other entities struggling with shelter
needs will be overwhelmed.
HUD, despite all the criticism and congressional failure to
restructure the McKinney programs, has served as a lifeline and a
leader with regards to responding to homelessness. What they have done
within their limits is encourage comprehensive homeless assistance
plans in local communities and a streamlining of the programs
themselves. Last year, for the 1996 appropriation we were told it
wasn't a cut because of money in the pipeline, now the amount remains
unchanged, with different excuses and a dry empty pipeline.
If passed, the Kennedy-Vento amendment will make over 10,000
additional units in transitional housing available; over 10,000
additional units of permanent supportive housing; and, about 80,000
more homeless people at any one point in time that will be assisted. In
other words, help 100,000 homeless Americans.
It is a sad commentary that homelessness persists, but the McKinney
programs have been a good use of scarce Federal funding, leveraging
meaningful local matching resources and private sector nonprofit funds.
The homeless programs work and are vitally needed by people in this
Nation who land outside the bounds of our social safety net of limited
Federal-State resources. As a grass roots program, McKinney funds
represent a cooperative Federal approach building on nonprofit and
local government initiatives and programs, in some cases with personnel
in place. These empower those in need toward self-sufficiency and free
them from dependency.
The opposition to this amendment will lament that while these
homeless programs are worthy, that indeed, the appropriators had hard
choices to make and no doubt commitments to keep, and that in the
process of balancing the budget and priorities, the space station must
have a bare bones minimum of $5,362,900,000 and the homeless, a
whopping $823,000,000.
Mr. Chairman, we are all likely fans of science and discovery.
Certainly as a science educator I share that interest. Many of us want
the Federal Government to play an active role in support of cutting
edge science research. But this amendment would only bring the homeless
programs to about 20 percent of the space station which will still be
funded at over $5 billion. The question really is how much more do we
need to support the private entrepreneurs in space in funding dollars,
in generous tax breaks, in tangential benefits from significant
military and commerce spending and in SBA programs for the smaller
scale. Beyond this, there is the issue of foreign investment and, of
course, the private sector.
I suggest that its far more likely that private funds will be
attracted to the space station than to housing the homeless, indeed the
economic and social casualties in our society represent the greatest
challenge to our Nation. The frontiers of space are hardly wrapped up
with the space station but the values and conscience of this Nation are
surely tested by the least among us, the homeless. The vote I ask you
to cast today is for the dispirited people who are too important to
abandon. Our responsibilities and priorities should be clear. Vote
``aye'' on Kennedy-Vento amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
[[Page H6822]]
Mr. Chairman, I thought there was to be a speaker on the other side.
I misread his body language and I apologize.
Mr. Chairman, I very much support this amendment. I understand the
frustration that the gentleman from California talked about. He is
trying hard, it is true. There is nothing logical that says we will
take the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Environmental Protection
Agency, NASA, and HUD and throw them together. That is not rational and
we should try to change it. But I have to be intellectually honest and
say that if I had the whole budget to choose from, I would still look
to the space station, particularly the manned space part.
Sending human beings into space is a reasonable thing to do, it is
something in which we can take pride. I have never heard any argument
that it was close to a necessity. We are not talking about continued
exploration of space, but whether or not we have the manned space
operation.
On the other hand, we have what I would hope this society would think
is a necessity: alleviating the suffering of small and innocent and
helpless children. The homeless are not always the most attractive
people. When we think about the homeless, people think of some whose
behavior is unfortunate. It is true, there is nothing about adversity
that guarantees that you will not be obnoxious. But a significant
percentage of the people who would benefit from this amendment made one
mistake in life: they were born in the wrong circumstances, and they
are children. They are children condemned to a terrible existence. This
amendment would alleviate it somewhat.
Mr. Chairman, I want to address some of the reasons that have been
given, not by the gentleman from California, because even when I
disagree with him I find him fair and thoughtful, but here are
arguments that say, you know, these programs, they have not been run
well, so let us not give them money. As opposed to the space program?
If we were to do comparative disasters, problems, misspending, I think
the manned space program would be right up there with the homeless
program.
We have this interesting intellectual divide in our public policy. If
you are trying to help the poor and you make a mistake in the program,
the answer is to give that program less money. But is you are building
a space station, or a weapon, or if you are part of the intelligence
agency and you screw up badly, then the answer is to give you more
money. We are told, gee, money is not always the answer. Well, money is
the answer, apparently, for the Defense Department, for NASA, for the
politically favored departments.
The notion that because we have not spent some of this money as
wisely in the past as we should have, we will therefore make it right
by denying funds that can go to alleviate the misery of 10- and 12- and
5- and 4-year-olds, totally escapes me.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my friend
that while these are very difficult areas, I think the gentleman will
agree and acknowledge that the administration very strongly supports
NASA's work as well. NASA has been a leader in reinventing and
reforming Government. Since 1993 NASA has reduced its budget
requirements through the fiscal year 2000 by $43 billion. So the charge
by some that NASA has not contributed to balancing the budget does not
reflect what they have tried to do. The tradeoffs are tough, but that
is what this bill is all about. We have tried to do a decent job.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the
gentleman, do not take it personally. He is a good fellow. He has done
a decent job. But that is not enough. I think where we have poor
children going without desperately needed services, our egos have to
bend a little.
As far as the administration is concerned, I am sure the
administration may have somewhat different priorities. I don not accept
them in this case. As far as NASA giving up $43 billion, do Members
know what you have to have before you can give up $43 billion? A lot
more than $43 billion. I wish the homeless could have given up $43
billion, but they never got that much to give up. The poor people never
make budget sacrifices like that because their budget never gets so
stratospheric.
The fact is that we have a choice: Do we put human beings in space at
the current schedule, as attractive as that is for the national
psychology and the national morale, and as helpful as it will be for
science, or do we put the first priority an alleviating the poverty
here at home?
I want to add another argument that was made. One argument was these
programs were not well run so let us take the money away. Another is
that private charity will do it. People argue that private charity can
do it.
I want to quote here from the National Conference of Catholic Bishops
in that wonderful pamphlet they put out about this year's election
issues. This year I do not agree with all of them. There was one point
that I thought was essential to be made.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Frank] has expired
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Frank was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, they noted that the
Catholic Church is, by far, the largest provider of private charity in
the United States. Based on that experience, and out of the compassion
and concern for social justice that motivates them to do that, they
repudiate the notion that there is no need for Government assistance.
Let us be very clear. We may not comfort ourselves when we think of
the small children who will be denied services if this amendment is
defeated by the notion that somehow private compassion and charity will
take it up. Yes, we should be doing everything we can to encourage
that. But, as the Catholic bishops pointed out, as the largest provider
of private charity in this country, there is simply no way we can
expect the gap to be repaired if the Government backs out to this.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
{time} 2030
Mr. VENTO. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, because if we went on
a current services budget since 1981 when housing was cut, it was at
$30 billion a year at the time, we would have a $2 trillion cut in
housing. Now, was all of that cutting wrong? No, but it is $2 trillion.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would correct the gentleman on one
thing. Remember, when we take programs for the poor and we do not keep
them up with inflation, that is not a cut, that is an increase. It is
only a cut when we fail to give an inflationary increase for the
military and for science and for agriculture.
So the gentleman should be clear. When the poor people fail to get
enough money to keep up with inflation, they should be grateful for the
little we gave them in the first place. It is only when the military or
science or those other favored programs do not get inflation that an
increase is a cut.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I
would just point out that the bill is $19 billion in 1997; we were
spending $30 billion in actual dollars. So even on those terms, however
we want to add it up, if we do not want to do it on current services,
it still is a significant reduction.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would agree.
Let me just say in closing that this amendment, if it is defeated, is
one more sign that compassion, that concern for helpless, innocent
children has simply gone politically out of fashion. We will be
inflicting, if we defeat this amendment, misery and deprivation on
children who deserve far better of us.
(Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, may I say to my good friend, the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], that I do not want him to take any of what I
say personally just because I am opposed to his position, or the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] or the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Vento] or any of the others.
[[Page H6823]]
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I am not a homeless child, so I do not
take it personally.
Mr. BROWN of California. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, as I look around, I do not see anybody on this floor
who has spent more time over more years than I have fighting for the
rights of the poor and the homeless, the deprived, those who are
discriminated against. I have supported every program since 1963, and
there are a half dozen who have been here longer, but I do not see any
of them on the floor.
I do not think that my credentials in support of all of these
programs can be questioned. I think I am also free to say that most of
them have not achieved their goals, unfortunately. I think that what is
being proposed here tonight is an effort to see another great program
aimed at showing that this country is a world leader in a number of
fields of science. I think that we are going to see this program fail
if this amendment succeeds. It is only a 15-percent cut, as the
gentleman said, in the space program or the space station, if you apply
it to the space station.
I can assure the gentleman that he would be far better off, and I am
going to urge my colleagues to all support the amendment coming up to
just cancel the space station. Most of my colleagues have admitted that
they do not think much of it anyway, so why not cancel it. We will save
$1.8 billion in the 1997 budget, plus or minus. With that $1.8 billion
we can fund the housing program and we can plus up the other social
programs that we are interested in.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the
gentleman that I certainly do support the space station. What I am
saying to the gentleman, however, is that when we put it in the context
of having to judge between the space station and homeless programs, it
is a very different equation. If I can choose between the space station
and putting $13 or $11 or $12 or $13 billion more into the defense
bill, then the choice it seems to me is very easy: Let us pay for the
space station.
However, that is not what we have before us. What we have is a choice
between whether or not we are going to fund $200 million more into the
space station, or whether we are going to take $297 million and put it
into making sure that very poor kids are going to have a shelter over
their heads. That is the unconscionable choice that is before us, but
it is before us and we have to make that decision.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I hate to tell my colleague
from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, this, but the path he is pursuing is
not going to achieve his ends. If he were to succeed, then the space
station fails, our partnership agreements with the rest of the world,
that includes the Japanese, the Europeans, and the Russians, would all
collapse. They would begin their own independent programs to achieve
what we have been trying to achieve as partners with them in space.
They would never again trust us as a reliable partner on any major
activity. We could begin to see the decline of the United States as a
world power, and we would not achieve the goal of providing for the
homeless that we want because that depends upon our economic leadership
in the world, our ability to compete, and we would have lost it.
Now, I am concerned about more than just the space program. I see the
next 5 years for all of federally supported R&D going down in real
terms by 25 percent, and I think the entire industrial base of this
country is likely to suffer as a result of that.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
gentleman yielding, and I have very strong concerns about the R&D
budget of this country. But to suggest that by putting $297 million
into the homeless budget that we are somehow going to lose our
preeminent position of economic leadership throughout the world is
utter hogwash. We give these cuts to the Japanese and everybody else on
trade agreements all the time.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and he is taking a
very statesmanlike position on this issue, understanding what is
happening here. No gentleman more than the gentleman from California
[Mr. Brown] understands the delicate balance between all of these
programs, particularly in the sense of the space program.
That is taking that $297 million out of the space program, that I
might say in answer to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank],
moneys have been taken from NASA because of some of their actions in
wasting money.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown]
has expired.
(On request of Mr. DeLay, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Brown of
California was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] suggested that the
science program, the defense program is so wasteful and we still pump
money into it. Not in the case of NASA. We have ratcheted down NASA to
the point that they are lean and doing an incredible job on much less
money. But, if you cut them any more, if you take this almost $300
million out of a program that is barely working and working well, I
might say, the shuttle program would result in reduction of the flag
rate, reductions in personnel, and would adversely affect and possibly
eliminate some of our science commercial and education customers as the
gentleman has pointed out. So I just compliment the gentleman on his
stand in support of his position.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I certainly am proud of the record of the
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] in terms of support of social
programs. I know what a painful choice this is, but this is a point
that is being superimposed by virtue of the budget.
I would disagree with my colleague in terms of the effectiveness of
many of the social programs we have. I think all too often we look at
the problems and not really the success. But the problem is we keep
getting people out of the programs that are getting educated, but then
there are more coming into the program.
The fundamental concern that I see here between a Mr. Kennedy and a
Mr. Brown, who are both friends of mine, is we have to make choices;
and unfortunately they are being superimposed because they do not have
the courage to go out and raise the money that they need to sustain the
programs in this Congress.
If we are going to take apart the Federal Government, then we are not
going to be able to preserve programs that deal with fundamental, core
American values like the homeless and like NASA and space programs that
I agree that we need. But I am sort of an unreconstructed federalist,
as the gentleman in the well is. The fact is, we have to make these
tough choices. We have to make them today and we have to make them on
this basis. I very much regret it, but I understand it. I think that we
have a chance here to go to the private sector and get some money. The
homeless do not have that choice.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown]
has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Brown of California was allowed to proceed
for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I understand the predicament
that we are all placed in here. As I have said earlier, it tears me up
as much as anybody. But the fundamental problem that I see is rather
deeper than what we have said.
The American economic system has really failed in terms of supporting
the kind of economy that provides good jobs, the hopes of a career, the
opportunity for advancement and progress
[[Page H6824]]
that we would like to have to provide. It is my very honest conviction
that until we can establish the basis for a growing productive,
peacetime economy, we are going to continue to suffer and see the
deterioration of our cities, the failure to provide to the poor, a
decreasing ability to provide good education to the people of this
country.
It boils down to whether we can provide that kind of a society, that
kind of an economy, and that we can build the strong communities and
the strong families that we need.
Government cannot build strong communities and strong families. It
can help to provide the incentives to build the economic infrastructure
and provide the opportunity for individual initiatives that will do
that, but we have not succeeded.
Now, the scapegoat is being made against R&D. Well, I have the
feeling, I would say to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy],
that we are saying that the priorities are such that we cannot continue
to fund the R&D programs.
Now, the NASA program is about half or a third of all of our civilian
R&D. His amendment would kill NASA's reason for existence, basically,
and I do not like to consider that possibility. But if his sense of
priorities is such that he wants to do that, let us meet it head on.
And when the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] offers his amendments,
let us cancel the space program.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, let us deal with the
truth of the matter, which is, as has been pointed out, my colleague is
a stalwart supporter of programs that look out after the poor. No one
in this Chamber can stand up to his record, and I certainly do not mean
to try.
What I would point out is that I think that we are playing right into
the hands of those that would provide tens of billions of dollars'
worth of tax breaks that go to the wealthiest people in this country at
a time when we are talking about cutting the homeless budget by 27
percent. That is what this is all about.
For one of the leaders of the Republican Party to stand up here and
try to suggest that he is really looking out after the homeless is
utter hogwash. What is going on here is we have set up a devil's
choice. We have said we are going to have to cut the space station or
the NASA programs or we are going to have to cut the homeless. What we
are really doing is providing a tremendous tax cut to the wealthiest
people in the country. That is what this is all about.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown]
has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Brown was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, as much as I respect the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], I think he is deviating a
little bit from the central issue before us right here. I think the
gentleman stretches what is happening a little more than we need to. We
do need to make choices, and I respect those who feel that our
priorities are somewhat distorted.
Generally speaking, I agree with those who feel that way. But I do
not think we are going to correct those priority problems on this bill.
As I indicated earlier, it is my personal view, and I do not think
the majority agree with me, that a 1-percent cut in the Defense
Department is a much more reasonable way to set our priorities straight
and will also allow us to continue to develop the momentum that will
produce that best economic system on Earth here, and the best paid
workers and the best cared for children and families. And it is that
that I am looking for here.
I may be hitting my head against a brick wall, but I am not opposing
any of the programs my colleague wants. I am saying we have to look for
more effective ways of funding them.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown]
has again expired.
(On request of Mr. Lewis of California, and by unanimous consent, Mr.
Brown of California was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I really
asked the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown,] for this time because
I want to express my deep appreciation for the sensitivity that he
brings to this issue. All of us are concerned about the homeless
problem, and we are providing as much money over time as we conceivably
can use effectively. In the meantime, Mr. Brown and his Committee on
Science have spent years developing America's capability in all of
those technical fields that are critical to our economic future.
Indeed, his leadership has been very important. Nobody but nobody can
say they care more about these social problems than Mr. Brown has
expressed by action as well as votes over the years.
At the same time, the gentleman expresses here this evening good
sense. America has many a challenge and to make this kind of exchange
does not reflect the real world that we have to deal with in this bill.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield? Will the
gentleman yield me 30 seconds?
Mr. BROWN of California. Not if the gentleman is just going to stand
there and praise me for my long and distinguished service.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I am a Democrat. My colleague only gets
praised by Republicans tonight.
Mr. BROWN of California. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to interrupt
this praise, but I have to differ with my friend. Tell me that we need
the money for the space station and therefore cannot afford to put it
here, and I will disagree. But it seems to me that is within the realm
of factual accuracy. But I do not think that it is fair to say that we
are giving these programs as much as they can use.
We should not comfort ourselves with the notion that, if we did not
give them extra money, they could not use it well. That simply is not
true. Say that we have a tough choice to make and I agree, but do not
say that they could not use it if we gave it to them.
{time} 2045
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kennedy-Vento
amendment. To many Americans, the homeless are faceless individuals we
pass on the streets as they move through the hidden recesses of alleys
or abandoned buildings searching for food or shelter. More often than
not, we turn our heads and forget.
Occasionally, there is a more direct one-on-one encounter when we are
approached for a handout. At that moment, we are forced to recognize
their existence and decide whether to help or to ignore them and move
on.
For many of us, this is the closest we ever come to what can only be
characterized as one of our Nation's greatest tragedies, the homeless.
For the reality is that there is a story of hardship and misfortune
associated with every homeless person. The homeless population is
comprised of elderly persons, families with children desperately
seeking to break out of the cycle of poverty, and men and women with
mental illnesses or addictions who have been forgotten by our society.
The reductions in homeless assistance programs contained in this bill
cannot be justified because over the past year alone, the demand for
emergency shelter by homeless families has risen by 15 percent. On any
given night in America, more than 700,000 men, women, and children are
forced to live on the streets. In Los Angeles County, there are
anywhere between 17,000 to 42,000 homeless individuals, 3,800 of whom
are children.
The homeless families of this country need our help. HUD's homeless
assistance programs must be restored to the levels requested by
President Clinton. These funds will provide 10,000 additional units of
transitional housing, 10,000 units of permanent supportive housing, as
well as a continuum of supportive services to help the homeless move
into transitional or permanent housing and toward self-sufficiency,
providing hope and opportunity to needy American families.
The passage of this amendment is critical to our efforts to fight
hopelessness and restore dignity to the poorest
[[Page H6825]]
of the poor. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Kennedy-Vento
amendment.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts. Around here we never have perfect
choices. Everybody likes to stand up in the well and say, I prefer this
offset to this offset and this perfect choice to this budget cut. The
fact of the matter is we all know that we do not live in a perfect
world. That is why we have so many homeless people in America today.
All of our Members know about Apollo 13 and Tom Hanks. We like to go
see those fun movies. We all know about the excitement, about going to
see a space launch down in Florida, and we feel pride about that; we
feel pride in our space program.
How many of us go into the homeless centers? How many of us see the
growing need in our homeless centers, in our cities, to take care of
some of these people for a temporary time period to get them back on
their feet and get them back to their families?
I have been in our homeless center in South Bend, IN, and there are
more children, there are more families, there is more need for the
homeless people in our society today than there was 2 years ago, or 3
years ago. I beg my colleagues, I implore my colleagues, I urge my
colleagues, do not just go see Tom Hanks and the Apollo 13 movie, go
see what is happening in America today with some of our families.
We all talk about how close we are and how many families are one
paycheck away from a homeless center while many of those families are
in homeless centers today, with their children.
I am concerned about the NASA budget, too. I am very concerned about
space shuttle safety. I am concerned about some of the programs, the
faster, better, cheaper programs that we are putting together. But we
have to make tough choices as Members of Congress, first, to get to a
balanced budget, and, second, to be fair with our resources.
This space station does not deserve $297 million. It is $80 billion
over budget from when it was first designed in 1984. It has gone from
eight scientific missions to one scientific mission, and we are cutting
our homeless centers by 25 percent since 1995. Now that is not justice
and that is not fair choices. That is the easy way out.
So I would encourage my colleagues here, one, if they are interested
in balancing the budget, you do yourself a favor by getting rid of the
space station in the NASA account and, second, if you are interested in
fairness and if you are interested in children and homelessness in this
society, vote for the Kennedy amendment. It is just, it is fair, it is
not a perfect choice, but I think it moves this country in a more just
situation and a fairer allocation of resources than what we currently
have with this space station.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 138,
noes 277, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 270]
AYES--138
Ackerman
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bilbray
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Camp
Campbell
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Dingell
Duncan
Durbin
Engel
Ensign
Evans
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Hefner
Heineman
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Martini
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Rivers
Roemer
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Smith (NJ)
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer
NOES--277
Abercrombie
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brown (CA)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cunningham
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Gekas
Geren
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lofgren
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meek
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--18
Berman
Browder
Coleman
Cubin
Fields (TX)
Ford
Hayes
Houghton
Lincoln
McDade
Peterson (FL)
Rose
Schiff
Schumer
Sisisky
Torricelli
Towns
Wilson
2110
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Towns for, with Mrs. Cubin against.
Mr. de la GARZA changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. ZIMMER, GILCHREST, SCOTT, and WAMP and Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move the strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of all Members, I would like to
announce the schedule for the rest of the evening.
[[Page H6826]]
It is our intention to finish title II tonight; that is, finishing
the housing portion of this bill. There will be no more rollcall votes
tonight, and any demands for rollcall votes will stacked tomorrow.
Members with amendments to title II or who wish to speak to such
amendments should plan to stay for a while.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of Members, I want to make
clear that it is the intention of the committee to proceed no further
than the end of title II tonight.
Mr. LEWIS of California. It is our intention to proceed no further
once we finish title II tonight.
Mr. OBEY. All Members with amendments to title II should be aware of
the need to stay here tonight if their rights are to be protected to
offer those amendments.
Mr. LEWIS of California. The gentleman is correct. Members who have
problems with title III or interest in it will not be so pressed.
{time} 2115
amendment offered by mr. lazio of new york
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Lazio of New York: Page 19, line
9, after ``$5,372,000,000'' insert ``(reduced by
$140,000,000)''.
Page 19, line 19, after ``$800,000,000'' insert ``(reduced
by $140,000,000)''.
Page 20, line 18, after ``$595,000,000'' insert
``(increased by $100,000,000)''.
Page 20, line 24, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $40,000,000)''.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I am here today to talk about an
issue as chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community
Opportunity of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services for this
Congress that I feel very strongly about. These are issues I felt very
strongly about in the first session, and I feel equally strongly about
them in this session.
For a year and a half I have worked with colleagues on both sides of
the aisle, with local, State, and national leaders, with community
activists and people deeply committed to ensure that our country has
housing policies that provide adequate opportunity for all American
families and protection for the most vulnerable of American families.
I rise today to offer an amendment not because I have tremendous
disagreement with the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] or because
I believe he has done a poor job. In fact, I think my good friend from
California has produced a solid bill. I know that my friend from
California has a difficult job, but this evening we are talking about
people who do not have the ability to transition back into the
marketplace, to take another job, to go to work, to afford their own
unit. We are talking about helping the disabled and the elderly.
This bill before us. Mr. Chairman, I think is basically solid, but it
has one or two misplaced priorities affecting those very citizens that
we should be doing our utmost to protect. The amendment I am offering
will mean more housing for American families who truly need it. Based
on the per-unit cost, this amendment will mean 2,000 new units of
elderly housing and housing for the disabled.
These are the last programs, Mr. Chairman, that we have that will
develop new housing. Over the life of these buildings, that means that
tens of thousands of our Nation's seniors and our Nation's disabled
will have housing opportunities they otherwise would not have.
Thousands of people will benefit from this.
Mr. Chairman, as we have witnessed over the last 10 years, as States
have made decisions leading to the deinstitutionalization of people who
are mentally challenged, we see the increase of homelessness. People
who are thinking deeply about these issues are increasingly talking
about providing shelter for people that gives them the maximum ability
to ahve meaningful lives. There is a movement toward community homes.
Mr. Chairman, the only way that we take people off the streets, the
very people in our own neighborhoods who, unfortunately, are affected
with mental and physical disabilities, is to give them the means to
have these types of community homes, to give them the homes they need
to live in, to give them the opportunity to have meaningful lives. The
only way we can do that is through proper funding of the section 811
program, which is the last remaining new production that will allow for
new units to be developed to provide housing, affordable housing, for
the disabled.
Mr. Chairman, at the same time, we are trying to struggle to meet the
needs, the almost overwhelming needs of our Nation's elderly
population. Year after year the needs outstrip our ability to provide
more units. In just about every community in the Nation there are needs
that are unmet for both the senior and the disabled population.
As we begin to struggle with the policies to house Americans, and in
particular the most vulnerable Americans, our first priority has got to
be the people who cannot take care of themselves because of age and
because of disability. If we cannot meet those needs, we should not be
attending to the other priorities in the bill before us.
Some will argue, Mr. Chairman, that the cut in housing for the
elderly and the disabled is justified because it meets the President's
request. There is not a person in this Chamber that votes consistently
in support simply because the President proposes a reduction in
spending. In this case it is a 32-percent reduction in spending for the
disabled.
Some would suggest that we cannot spend any more. Well, that also is
false, Mr. Chairman. Every year what is called a NOFA is sent out,
Notices of Funding Availability, and last year that was subscribed, and
to the extent that we are able to have the resources in place that we
once had, we will also be able to meet that need.
My last statement, Mr. Chairman, is that we now need to step forward
to help those people who cannot help themselves. They are relying on
our intervention, the disabled and the senior population.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Chairman Lazio's amendment
to restore senior and disabled housing funding to their 1996 levels.
I have been a strong supporter of efforts to put us on track to a
balanced budget, and I do not question the need to reduce Federal
spending. However, in this year's VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies
appropriations bill, Housing for our Nation's elderly and disabled has
been unfairly targeted.
Our Nation's vulnerable population depends on public housing
programs. The section 202 and 811 programs are two of HUD's most
effective, well-run programs. They have served the elderly and disabled
well--providing them with housing that otherwise would have been
unattainable.
There are some Government programs that are wasteful or only benefit
a select few, and those are the programs we should target. However,
important programs like sections 202 and 811 must be maintained.
Housing for the elderly and disabled provide invaluable assistance to
millions of people across our Nation. If we allow these funds to be
cut, many of those who depend on public housing will be denied shelter
or forced into unsafe or unsanitary conditions.
Those who have been disabled or are elderly deserve the peace of mind
of knowing safe, affordable housing is available to them. I do not
think we should turn away the disabled or the elderly when they come to
us for assistance. But this is what housing authorities across the
Nation will be forced to do if we do not restore section 202 and 811
funds to last year's levels.
I strongly support fulfilling our commitment to the elderly and
disabled of this Nation by standing in support of Chairman Lazio's
amendments.
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to go on record as supporting the amendment
of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], here this evening, and I do
it knowing full well that this whole discussion, the VA-HUD and
Independent Agencies appropriations bill is probably one of the most
difficult for all of
[[Page H6827]]
us to talk about of all the bills we work with.
The gentleman from California, Chairman Lewis, has worked tirelessly
with all groups in this Congress on both sides of the aisle, from all
sections of the country. He has heard our pleas, he has listened to us
in private meetings and in public meetings, and I thank him and applaud
him for the work that he has done on a difficult, difficult bill. But
for those of us who come from local government and have seen section
811 and section 202 work in our towns and villages and counties across
the country, disabled and elderly people must have us stand up for them
at this time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to join those who support the Lazio amendment
this evening.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly but very
strongly to oppose this well-intentioned amendment.
Mr. Chairman, by way of this amendment offered by my friend, the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Housing and Community Opportunity of the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services, he is suggesting that we decrease assistance for
section 8 multifamily housing by an amount of some $140 million total.
He takes $100 million and transfers it to elderly and $40 million and
transfers it to disabled housing.
It is important for the Members to know that this bill and the entire
housing effort in the House faces a very, very serious challenge
because of that which is occurring within the very accounts that the
chairman has chosen to tap. The committee has recommended funding the
section 202 housing for elderly programs at the level requested by the
President. This amount is, as has been suggested, below the level
appropriated in 1996, but the administration request is based on the
fact that this level of funding represents the amount of activity the
Department actually can undertake during this fiscal year.
In the past, a significant portion of the money appropriated for this
account has been carried over from year to year when the funding has
not been obligated. On the other hand, the funding level for the annual
contributions account, some $5,272,000,000, is necessary to protect
low-income families that are already dependent upon certificates,
vouchers or project-based assistance. Decreasing these accounts could
result in the Department being unable to meet its already very
difficult obligations. If this account is reduced significantly,
families could be displaced.
Now, the point is that section 8 multifamily housing programs need
serious reform. Already because we now tend to go put off that reform,
the requirements for the 1997 and 1998 bills are escalating very, very
rapidly. I would suggest unless we have money banked to meet those
challenges, we are literally going to be forced, regardless, we are
going to be forced to displace families already receiving services no
later than 1998.
The committee has recommended creating an account of $875 million
that may be used by HUD as of September 15, 1997. The recommendation to
create the savings account was decided upon knowing that next year the
President will have to request $10,793,000,000-plus in 1998 to renew
existing certificates, vouchers and project-based rental contracts or
face cutting off assistance to low-income families, which is an
unacceptable eventuality for this chairman, and I believe unacceptable
to the authorizing chairman as well.
The problem we face is that reform is absolutely needed now, and yet
there is little doubt that a housing bill dealing with these reforms
will not move through the process very likely until the next session of
Congress. We will probably be dealing with the 1998 year. That is going
to assure displacements of families; that is, families losing their
housing, unless we build some kind of a bank account.
To tap these accounts now is essentially saying we are concerned
about people this week instead of recognizing the real crises here,
which I think is very shortsighted.
The President will have to request almost $11 billion to reset this
need in 1988. The committee's recommendation was following the reforms
in section 8 tenant-based or project-based programs. These adjustments
are extremely unlikely, as I have suggested, because of what is
happening on the authorizing side.
I compliment the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Opportunity of the Committee on Banking and Financial Service
for his willingness to address this measure, but frankly the time is
now and the crisis is urgent.
{time} 2130
We cannot afford to wait until 1997. In fact, if we, by eliminating
the reforms that this committee recommended for section 8 project-based
programs, in section 204 and 205, really at the request of Mr. Lazio,
we have increased the budget authority needs for certificates, vouchers
and project-based assistance by $136 million.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Lewis of California was allowed to proceed
for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, with that kind of automatic
increase, therefore, it is even more important that we plan for the
future. The section 8 certificate, voucher and project-based programs
serve some 2,750,000 households. Of these families, 40 percent are
elderly and disabled. If the assistance for these families is decreased
or is unavailable, the impact is undeniable. The families lose their
assistance immediately. The 202 program is a grant program for
nonprofits to renovate or build new apartment buildings for elderly
residents. Because of the nature of the program, it takes at least 18
months before the money is obligated and sometimes more than 24 or 36
months before the elderly households are actually assisted under the
program.
It is absolutely imperative that the Members recognize that we are
facing a crisis here and that crisis is going to fall on the heads and
the backs of those families already desperately in need and who are
receiving assistance currently.
This problem is not going to go away by some short-term fix that
meets very short-term needs that may not be able to be spent by the
administration in terms of their present availability of workload as
well as opportunity.
I strongly urge a no vote on this very well-intentioned but, I think,
misguided amendment.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Chairman
Lazio's amendments to raise the level a modest increase by any
standards of funding for Section 202 Elderly Housing and Section 811
Disabled Housing Programs.
This amendment will mean 2,000 new units of housing for the elderly
and the disabled.
The Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program was
reduced by $422 million in the fiscal year 95 recission bill from
$1,279 million to $857 million, and was further reduced in the 1996
omnibus appropriations bill to $830 million. The Appropriations
Committee now proposes to reduce funding in 1997 to $595 million--less
than half the pre-rescission amount. Seniors are one of the fastest
growing segments of our communities. Sharp reductions such as those
experienced by the Section 202 Program in the last 2 years will only
mean even greater political and social difficulties in the years to
come. Americans did not mean by their call to balance the budget that
we should deprive the elderly and the disabled of basic housing. This
is unconscionable.
The Section 202 is a successful program that helps to meet an acute
housing need for a very frail, very low-income, very vulnerable
population. Deep cuts in the Section 202 Program will hurt the very
people that so desperately need our help. Not only will these cuts
seriously jeopardize our ability to provide suitable and affordable
housing for our nation's elderly, but it is counterproductive to our
long-term care strategies.
Let's get our priorities straight. Support the Lazio amendment.
[[Page H6828]]
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. ROUKEMA. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey
for yielding to me.
I also rise in strong support of the Lazio amendment, not out of
disrespect for my good friend from California but because I believe,
precisely as the gentlewoman says, the senior population is growing at
an incredible rate.
This is a question of where we place priorities. Given the fact that
the senior population continues to rise in a burgeoning fashion, given
the fact that we do need to supply housing for the disabled, I believe
that this amendment is well thought out, well reasoned and, therefore,
I support it.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona, and I
yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio].
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make some
points in reflection with respect to the comments of the gentleman from
California, my friend, Mr. Lewis. It is in fact true that it takes some
time to develop these projects. As Mr. Lewis said, it takes 18 months,
sometimes as long as 36 months to spend. That time is very long, as
much as 10 percent of the spending in any one year. This is a bricks
and mortar provision.
Also with respect to the area that we are taking this out of, it is
not contract renewals, it is an amendment provision where we will still
leave enough money in this area that it is over the 1996 appropriated
level.
I also would like to note within this contract renewal portion, last
year HUD received $4.4 billion. In the end, they rescinded, because it
was unspent, $477 million, meaning that their guess was off by over 10
percent. We are asking for $140 million to help our most vulnerable
citizens, our seniors, the elderly and the disabled. It seems entirely
appropriate, given the fact that these numbers have been off by this
extent, that this modest amendment is supported.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the gentlemen who are the chairman and ranking member,
the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Stokes], have a difficult time with this balancing of
appropriation matters. There is no doubt about it. I am almost always
in agreement with them. This time I am not in agreement with their
priorities. I speak as vice chairman of the authorizing subcommittee. I
would like to mention a few things about the recent funding pattern.
Let us take a look at the housing for the seniors, which is one of
the two components of the Lazio amendment. In fiscal year 1995, the
funding was $1,279,000,000. Rescission took it down to $857 million.
Then, in fact, the administration came forward for fiscal year 1997 at
a suggested $595 million which is, I think, consistent with what the
subcommittee has in the legislation.
That is less than half of the prerescission amount of fiscal year
1995, a dramatic reduction. The same sort of general trend is apparent
in the housing for disabled persons. It was $387 million in fiscal year
1995, reduced by rescission to $259 million. Now the administration is
requesting $174 million, a figure that is included in the
recommendations found in this legislation. Again, that is less than
half of the prerescission amount of 1985.
Mr. Lewis and the staff have said that the cut in housing for elderly
is justified and they point to the President's budget justifications.
According to the President, we should cut funding for senior and
disabled housing because HUD last year did not spend all of the money
it was allocated. I think that is unacceptable. I refuse to let the
administration punish the elderly and the disabled families simply
because HUD bureaucrats cannot do their job quickly enough. If you take
a look at the notices for funding availability, that was the problem.
The nonprofits are out there available to spend the funds, as I
understand it.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I asked the gentleman to yield
because I very much appreciate the point that he is making. There is
not any question that one of our great frustrations is that there are
lines waiting for elderly housing. Yet there is no doubt that the
administration and this department have not been able to obligate these
moneys over time. In the meantime, because you serve on the authorizing
committee, you know full well it takes time to deliver those programs,
but the section 8 crisis is not waiting. It is catching up with us, and
sooner or later, we have to pay the piper. That crisis is going to put
real pressure on seniors who are receiving services.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I agree with half of what the gentleman
said, the problem with respect to the elderly and disabled programs.
But, of course, the gentleman from New York is proposing that the
offset come from the annual contributions for assisted housing. That is
the very important program that funds section 8 contract renewals and
section 8 amendments. But the expenditure patterns for that program are
also among the most unclear.
For all practical purposes, the President's budget in this area is
nothing but a guess. Last year, for example, here it parallels the
disabled and senior housing situation, HUD received 4.4 billion for
contract renewals. They rescinded 477 million. Why did they do that?
Well, they were off 10 percent from the total amount, and they
rescinded it because they were not spending in this program either. So
maybe there is just the same kind of inefficiency in the section 8
related programs as well.
This year the committee is proposing more money which means there is
even a greater level of uncertainty. If they had to rescind it 477
million over one-tenth of what they appropriated last year for this
program where Mr. Lazio is taking the money, I suggest to Members, they
are no more likely to use the funds in section 8 programs than they did
last year.
For these and other reasons, I reject the administration's
recommendations that we downsize so dramatically over a 2-year period
of time the funds that are available for disabled housing and for
senior citizen housing. I urge my colleagues to support the Lazio
amendment.
Mr. BLUTE. Mr.Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my
good friend from New York which would increase elderly housing
assistance by $140 million. My support is not intended to in any way
diminish the excellent job Chairman Lewis has done in developing this
bill but simply to give more priority to our senior citizens.
These additional funds will reverse some of the reductions that have
been proposed for senior citizens at the same time their population is
increasing at a double-digit pace.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Bereuter was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].
Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment will mean that an additional
2,000 units of elderly housing will be built which translates into tens
of thousands helped over the life of the buildings and will give more
of our parents and grandparents the ability to live with peace of mind.
This Congress, under the leadership of Chairman Lazio, has taken
strong actions to protect seniors and others in senior housing. This
Congress has ended the unwise policy of mixing seniors with drug and
alcohol abusers. Senior housing is becoming safer and seniors are
returning in large numbers.
At this time, we need more housing opportunities for seniors, not
less. I urge my colleagues to approve the Lazio amendment. We cannot
afford to shortchange our senior citizens at a time of increasing need.
[[Page H6829]]
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for
his comments.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask the chairman of the authorizing
committee, Mr. Lazio, if he would have a colloquy with me.
I have looked at your amendment very closely and very carefully. I
think I understand what the gentleman is trying to do and, in fact, I
am in sympathy with what he is trying to do.
At the same time, I have some very mixed feelings about us taking
money out of one housing account and moving it over to another housing
account. That is, removing it from an account that helps the poorest of
the poor, and moving it over to another program for the poor and the
elderly. Obviously, that really is no real decision for any of us. It
creates an atmosphere opposite of the bipartisan approach between the
chairman of the committee and myself, and the spirit in which we are
trying to move. At the same time, it creates a problem for me to see
the authorizing committee and the appropriations committee chairmen at
loggerheads, when I know that both of you are really concerned about
the same issues and the same type of people, and wanting to help them.
I am just wondering, in the spirit of comity and the spirit of
bipartisanship that we are trying to establish here, if this is not the
type of amendment that you might want to consider withdrawing. Chairman
Lewis and I, in conference and working along with you, can then see if
we can work out this problem rather than create the kind of
divisiveness that is going to occur over a vote.
I can already see this amendment lining up for many good Members in
this House, who do not want to be on either side in a case like this.
It really is no decision for us. I am just wondering if that is
something we could ask the gentleman to consider.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STOKES. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I greatly respect and appreciate
and am gratified for the level of comity that you have not just with
the chairman of the subcommittee but also with all of us.
If this were a matter of something personal in nature, I would be
very glad to give it up in order to further that comity. But there is
something deep inside, when we talk about the disabled, people who are
mentally disabled, people that are physically challenged, people that
are quadriplegic, people that were formerly in institutions that we now
have the ability to give permanent housing solutions for, that we must
meet.
{time} 2145
If we do nothing else, we ought to be doing this. If I thought it was
politically expedient, that we can take from some of the other
accounts, and we just saw the last amendment go down, I would not have
selected from this housing account. But of the choices that I thought
were politically feasible in order for us to honor what I consider my
personal obligation as a public official to the very people that I come
to this body to serve, the people who do not have the ability to speak
for themselves, the elderly, the people who struggle, the disabled, I
feel it is my duty to try and press for this so that we meet our
obligation.
Now, I am not asking for more money, I would say to my distinguished
colleagues. I am asking just to go back to our 1996 levels, and not
even fully there; only 50 percent of our 1996 levels, which I think is
an incredibly moderate view in terms of restoring a very small amount
of funds for the most vulnerable people in our population.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Lazio] for his reply, and I appreciate very much the personal
perspective from which he is coming.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STOKES. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much my
colleague from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], yielding. The point that was made in
the appeal is very much to the heart of our frustration here. There is
no doubt our purpose is to try to flexibility provide adequate housing
for a cross-section of people who are the poorest of the poor in our
society, and at the same time we have great difficulty with a growing
aging population and the like. The item that is very difficult to get
across, for these are complex areas, is that in that section of our
housing programs known as section 8 multifamily housing, in the past we
have set up a process that almost leads those who are trying to serve
for a fall. We originally encouraged people to build these facilities
on 40-year contracts, on 40-year mortgages, and yet in the meantime
people signed up with 40-year contracts in order to delay the
foundation for paying those mortgages. Those contracts are coming due,
and as a result of that there is a huge escalation of cost in those
programs, and, as those costs increase, it puts pressure on HUD's
ability to meet their contracts and their obligations with housing
authorities, et cetera, et cetera. And unless they are able to meet
those obligations, they could very well push the people who are
currently living, currently served, in those----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Lewis of California, and by unanimous consent, Mr.
Stokes was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, we could push those people out
on the street, and remember that 40 percent of those very people living
in those facilities, beyond being among the poorest of the poor, are
also elderly and disabled, and we cannot find ourselves in that
position.
But earlier I discussed with the chairman the feasibility of our
trying to make changes in the difficulties with section 8, and he asked
us to let the authorizing committees have a short, and frankly we are
going to have an amendment here that takes out any language that
relates to that to respond to that. But there is little doubt that next
year we will be here at this time talking about the 1998 bill, and the
costs will have escalated because it takes time to get that kind of
work through the authorizing process.
So it is the elderly and the disabled who are going to be hurt either
way, and frankly the people who are currently being served are the ones
at greatest risk, and it concerns me that we must protect that
population being served first.
Mr. STOKES. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I
think we all knew that one day the chickens were going to come home to
roost in terms of this section 8 assisted housing account. I knew it
when I was chairman and was utilizing that account to help some parts
of the budget, and the gentleman has had to do the same thing. Of
course, I know that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] realizes
that when he goes back into the same account. In 1998, when we have to
find $10 billion and to try to help poor people find housing, we are
all going to be confronted with a real problem.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STOKES. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out once
again that what we are talking about is not contract renewal account.
We are targeting the offset to the amendments area, which is a distinct
area within the contract renewal. There is no effect on our ability to
fund contract renewals going forward, and of course I understand this
dramatic problem within the context of our market-to-market issue.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, this is a visionary amendment. This represents two of
the most sensitive populations that we in Congress have to be
understanding for and represent, and that would be the seniors and
disabled. There is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is a
people's issue. We need to work together. The Lazio amendment will mean
more housing for American families who need it: 2000 new units of
elderly housing and housing for disabled.
[[Page H6830]]
Our senior population, as my colleagues have heard previously, is
growing at an enormous rate, already in double digits and getting
higher every year. Accordingly, we need to increase senior housing
opportunities. We only have to look to the American Association for
Homes and Services for the Aging and find that in their discussion to
Congress about this legislation they support strongly the Lazio bill
because it will restore $235 million to the section 202 program.
Then look into the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities. They
say we need to have the $84 million in the section 811 for the
disabled. It is significant to note that the continuing depletion of
our Nation's low-income housing stock and the growing need for tenant-
based rental assistance nationwide shows that there must be a Federal
priority to help low-income Americans obtain decent safe affordable and
accessible housing.
People with disabilities face even more desperate housing situation
and stand to face a chronic problem of inadequate housing and increased
homelessness for the foreseeable future without greater priority being
placed on housing assistance. People with disabilities want the
opportunity to live and work in their communities, and housing is the
cornerstone for that independence. If a person has access to decent,
safe and affordable housing, then he or she can concentrate on
education, job training, and thereby empower themselves to become
working and taxpaying citizens and thus more integrated into lives of
the communities.
So I think for the reasons of the seniors and for disabled, the Lazio
amendment is one that we should all support.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and
pending that I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 456, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio]
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the
gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I will only take about 1\1/2\ to 2 minutes.
I would ask my colleagues on the other side, how many of them when
they were children themselves or when they raised their own children
bought these little vinyl venetian blinds. Remember looking through the
windows and popping them down and looking through, and even at times
our own kids would sit there and chewed on these things as they were
looking out the window?
Well, we all know that lead is poisonous to children, and a new study
by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Window Covering
Safety Council determined that when these vinyl blinds deteriorate that
there is lead poisoning that affects children, and we did not expect
it. It is going to take some money to replace them, and apparently
almost every set of these inexpensive vinyl miniblinds in America today
deteriorates into dust which contains lead.
Lead dust is poisonous to young children, and Americans have
installed over a hundred million sets of these particular blinds. The
CPSC recommends that these blinds be removed in homes with children of
age under 6.
Today, as we consider this appropriation through the leadership of
the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], these appropriations help
make housing and home ownership affordable and available for Americans.
The VA subsidizes home mortgages, and I have been through that program
myself, and HUD helps low- and middle-income Americans buy homes
through FHA loans and rent housing through section 8.
Mr. Chairman, this Congress should urge CPSC and work together with
HUD-VA mortgage and combat the potential hazard that lead and vinyl
miniblinds may have to many young children. We should direct particular
attention to low-income housing.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, first let me say I very much
appreciate the interest of the gentleman from California [Mr.
Cunningham] in this very important subject area. I appreciate also or
as well his commitment to America's children.
I agree that our Federal agencies should cooperate with one another
and with State and local governments to continue fighting lead
contamination in homes with children. We all know about lead-based
paint, and we have taken action against it through public information
campaigns and the HUD office of lead-based paint. Furthermore, all
consumers have a responsibility to take informed and appropriate action
against this new lead hazard of vinyl miniblinds, and in many cases
these miniblinds can be replaced for about $10 per window. In the
interests of our children's health, I agree that the CPSC should work
to keep the Nation's housing agencies informed about this issue, to
stay in close cooperation with them and to help end lead poisoning
among America's children.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this paragraph?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
housing for special populations: elderly and disabled
For capital advances, including amendments to capital
advance contracts, and for project rental assistance and
amendments thereto, for Supportive Housing for the Elderly
under section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959, as amended,
$595,000,000, to remain available until expended.
For capital advances, including amendments to capital
advance contracts, and for project rental assistance and
amendments thereto, for Supportive Housing for Persons with
Disabilities under section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable Housing Act, $174,000,000, to remain
available until expended, of which 25 percent shall be used
for tenant-based rental assistance under section 8(o) of the
United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437(o)), in
addition to any other amounts available for section 8(o).
The Secretary may waive any provision of section 202 of the
Housing Act of 1959 and section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable Housing Act (including the provisions
governing the terms and conditions of project rental
assistance) that the Secretary determines is not necessary to
achieve the objectives of these programs, or that otherwise
impedes the ability to develop, operate or administer
projects assisted under these programs, and may make
provision for alternative conditions or terms where
appropriate.
flexible subsidy fund
(including transfer of funds)
From the fund established by section 236(g) of the National
Housing Act, as amended, all uncommitted balances of excess
rental charges as of September 30, 1996, and any collection
during fiscal year 1997, shall be transferred, as authorized
under such section, to the fund authorized under section
201(j) of the Housing and Community Development Amendments of
1978, as amended.
rental housing assistance
(rescission)
The limitation otherwise applicable to the maximum payments
that may be required in any fiscal year by all contracts
entered into under section 236 of the National Housing Act
(12 U.S.C. 1715z-1) is reduced in fiscal year 1997 by not
more than $2,000,000 in uncommitted balances of
authorizations provided for this purpose in appropriations
Acts.
Public and Indian Housing
housing certificate fund
For tenant-based assistance under section 8 of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f), as amended,
$166,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That of the total amount provided under this head,
$50,000,000 shall be for nonelderly disabled families
relocating pursuant to designation of a public housing
development under section 7 of such Act: Provided further,
That the remainder of the amount provided under this head
shall be used only for housing assistance for relocating
residents of properties (i) that are eligible for assistance
under the Low Income Housing Preservation and Resident
Homeownership Act of 1990 (LIHPRHA) or the Emergency Low-
Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987 (ELIHPA) in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the tenth and
eleventh provisos of the second undesignated paragraph under
the head ``Annual Contributions for Assisted Housing'' in
Public Law 104-134; (ii) that are owned by the Secretary and
being disposed of; (iii) for which section 8 assistance is
allocated under subsection (f) of section 204 of this Act
(relating to portfolio reengineering); or (iv) subject to
special workout assistance team intervention compliance
actions: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other
provision of law, a public housing agency administering
certificate or voucher assistance provided under subsection
(b) or
[[Page H6831]]
(o) of section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as
amended, shall delay for 3 months, the use of any amounts of
such assistance (or the certificate or voucher representing
assistance amounts) made available by the termination during
fiscal year 1997 of such assistance on behalf of any family
for any reason, but not later than October 1, 1997, with the
exception of any certificates assigned or committed to
project-based assistance as permitted otherwise by the Act,
accomplished prior to the effective date of this Act:
Provided further, That section 8(c)(2)(A) of the United
States Housing Act of 1937, as amended (42 U.S.C.
1437f(c)(2)(A)) is further amended--
(1) in the third sentence by inserting ``and fiscal year
1997'' after ``1995''; and
(2) in the last sentence by inserting ``and fiscal year
1997'' after ``1995''.
public housing operating fund
For payments to public housing agencies and Indian
housing authorities for operating subsidies for low-income
housing projects as authorized by section 9 of the United
States Housing Act of 1937, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1437g),
$2,850,000,000.
public housing capital fund
(including transfers of funds)
For the Public Housing Capital Fund program under the
United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended (42 U.S.C.
1437), $2,700,000,000, to remain available until expended, of
which $2,415,000,000 shall be for modernization of existing
public housing projects; $200,000,000 for Indian Housing
Development; $50,000,000 for grants to public housing
agencies (including Indian housing authorities), nonprofit
corporations, and other appropriate entities for a supportive
services program to assist residents of public and assisted
housing, former residents of such housing receiving tenant-
based assistance under section 8 of such Act, and other low-
income families and individuals, principally for the benefit
of public housing residents, to become self-sufficient;
$20,000,000 for technical assistance for the inspection of
public housing units, contract expertise, and training and
technical assistance directly or indirectly, under grants,
contracts, or cooperative agreements, to assist in the
oversight and management of public and Indian housing
(whether or not the housing is being modernized with
assistance under this proviso) or tenant-based assistance,
including, but not limited to, an annual resident survey,
data collection and analysis, training and technical
assistance by or to officials and employees of the department
and of public housing agencies and to residents in connection
with the public and Indian housing program or for carrying
out activities under section 6(j) of the Act; $10,000,000 for
the Tenant Opportunity Program; and $5,000,000 for the Jobs-
Plus Demonstration for Public Housing families: Provided,
That all obligated and unobligated balances as of the end of
fiscal year 1996 heretofore provided for the development or
acquisition costs of public housing (including public housing
for Indian families), for modernization of existing public
housing projects (including such projects for Indian
families), for public and Indian housing amendments, for
modernization and development technical assistance, for lease
adjustments for the section 23 program, and for the Family
Investment Centers program shall be transferred to amounts
made available under this heading.
revitalization of severely distressed public housing (hope vii)
For grants to public housing agencies for assisting in
the demolition of obsolete public housing projects or
portions thereof, the revitalization (where appropriate) of
sites (including remaining public housing units) on which
such projects are located, replacement housing which will
avoid or lessen concentrations of very low-income families,
and tenant-based assistance in accordance with section 8 of
the United States Housing Act of 1937; and for providing
replacement housing and assisting tenants to be displaced by
the demolition, $550,000,000, to remain available until
expended, of which the Secretary may use up to $2,500,000 for
technical assistance, to be provided directly or indirectly
by grants, contracts or cooperative agreements, including
training and cost of necessary travel for participants in
such training, by or to officials and employees of the
Department and of public housing agencies and to residents:
Provided, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the funds made available to the Housing Authority of New
Orleans under HOPE VI for purposes of Desire Homes, shall not
be obligated or expended for on-site construction until an
independent third party has determined whether the site is
appropriate.
drug elimination grants for low-income housing
(including transfer of funds)
For grants to public and Indian housing agencies for use in
eliminating crime in public housing projects authorized by 42
U.S.C. 11901-11908, for grants for federally assisted low-
income housing authorized by 42 U.S.C. 11909, and for drug
information clearinghouse services authorized by 42 U.S.C.
11921-11925, $290,000,000, to remain available until
expended, $10,000,000 of which shall be for grants, technical
assistance, contracts and other assistance training, program
assessment, and execution for or on behalf of public housing
agencies and resident organizations (including the cost of
necessary travel for participants in such training),
$5,000,000 of which shall be used in connection with efforts
to combat violent crime in public and assisted housing under
the Operation Safe Home program administered by the Inspector
General of the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
and $5,000,000 of which shall be transferred to the Office of
Inspector General for Operation Safe Home: Provided, That the
term ``drug-related crime'', as defined in 42 U.S.C.
11905(2), shall also include other types of crime as
determined by the Secretary.
indian housing loan guarantee fund program account
For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by section
184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (106
Stat. 3739), $3,000,000: Provided, That such costs, including
the costs of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in
section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as
amended: Provided further, That these funds are available to
subsidize total loan principal, any part of which is to be
guaranteed, not to exceed $36,900,000.
Community Planning and Development
community development block grants fund
(including transfer of funds)
For grants to States and units of general local government
and for related expenses, not otherwise provided for, to
carry out a community development grants program as
authorized by title I of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, as amended (the ``Act'' herein) (42
U.S.C. 5301), $4,300,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 1999, of which $61,400,000 shall be for grants
to Indian tribes notwithstanding section 106(a)(1) of the
Act: Provided, That $2,100,000 shall be available as a grant
to the Housing Assistance Council, $1,000,000 shall be
available as a grant to the National American Indian Housing
Council, and $49,000,000 shall be available for grants
pursuant to section 107 of such Act, including up to
$14,000,000 for the development and operation of a management
information system: Provided further, That not to exceed 20
percent of any grant made with funds appropriated herein
(other than a grant made available under the preceding
proviso to the Housing Assistance Council or the National
American Indian Housing Council, or a grant using funds under
section 107(b)(3) of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974, as amended) shall be expended for ``Planning and
Management Development'' and ``Administration'' as defined in
regulations promulgated by the Department: Provided further,
That for fiscal year 1997 and thereafter, section 105(a)(25)
of such Act, shall continue to be effective and the
termination and conforming provisions of section 907(b)(2) of
the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act shall
not be effective: Provided further, That section 916(f) of
the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act is
repealed.
Of the amount made available under this heading,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, $20,000,000 shall
be available for youthbuild program activities authorized by
subtitle D of title IV of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act, as amended, and such activities shall
be an eligible activity with respect to any funds made
available under this heading.
Of the amount made available under this heading,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, $60,000,000 shall
be available for the lead-based paint hazard reduction
program as authorized under sections 1011 and 1053 of the
Residential Lead-Based Hazard Reduction Act of 1992.
Of the amount made available under this heading,
$40,000,000 shall be available for Economic Development
Initiative grants as authorized by section 232 of the
Multifamily Housing Property Disposition Reform Act of 1994,
Public Law 103-233, including $11,000,000 of the foregoing
amount shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, be
used for Economic Development Grants in accordance with the
terms and conditions specified for such grants in the Report
accompanying this Act.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Lewis of California
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Lewis of California: ``On page 30,
strike lines 9 through 17 in their entirety.''
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment eliminates the
set-aside within CDBG'S account for the Secretary's economic
development initiative known as EDI. Taking this action does not reduce
the CDBG account, but rather it will eliminate the set-aside for this
particular program, making more funds available on a more flexible
basis for CDBG.
I have decided to take this action knowing that several Members
intend to amend the committee's recommendations to identify specific
EDI grants. Let me explain the recommendations of the committee.
{time} 2015
Mr. Chairman, the economic development initiatives program allows the
Secretary of HUD to choose awardees based on the following competitive
criteria: The extent of the need for the assistance, the level of
distress in the
[[Page H6832]]
community, the quality of the plan, and the capacity of the applicant
to carry out the plan. Each of the programs selected by the committee
for special EDI grants meet these criteria.
Furthermore, activities planned in special EDI grants meet the
objectives of the EDI program, including the creation of jobs, the
revitalization of neighborhoods, leveraging private investment from
partners at local levels, and providing opportunities for low-income
youth and families. The only substantive difference between the special
EDI grants identified in the committee report and the regular EDI
grants is who chooses the recipient, the Secretary or the Congress.
Therefore, if the choices of the Congress are considered pork,
clearly it is only fair that the Secretary's choices must be pork as
well, and the entire set-aside should be eliminated. Eliminating the
EDI set-aside within CDBG accounts will have the effect of making $40
million more available for the CDBG program rather than the special
awardees chosen by the Congress or the Secretary.
Mr. Chairman, what I am attempting to avoid here is that there are a
number of Members who are looking at individual projects that are
selected by the Congress and the committees and suggesting that they
are pork. Frankly, we have evaluated them, they meet the criteria, and
so on, but I can understand where Members are coming from.
So it is our choice, then, instead to go back and say, let us put all
of this into the CDBG pool, take the whole $40 million, and not have it
be part of that account. And incidentally, that sets aside the need for
5 or 7 or 8 or 10 amendments here on the floor, both in the interests
of time, but also putting it back into the CDBG pool with some
flexibility seems to me to meet at least the intention of those Members
who are concerned about the question of pork.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I first would like to begin by stating that I and
several other Members who have been active in looking for earmarks that
might violate some of the principles we have used in this body would
like to applaud the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis] for his action. We respect his decision, and
will not offer, obviously, any of the amendments that we had
anticipated offering.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly engage the chairman in a
colloquy with respect to his action. It is my understanding, I would
say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], that as a result of
his amendment, which I expect will be adopted, that the projects
identified in the report language, which the gentleman has indicated
meet the criteria in the statute, will compete with projects from other
States across the Nation and other communities across the Nation, so
that it would truly be a level playing field at that point in time with
respect to all projects being proposed by communities for this
particular type of funding.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MINGE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman
that if any of those projects were proposed within the CDBG pool, they
would have to meet the criteria and be a competitor in that mix. But,
frankly, we are attempting to avoid the controversy here of pulling out
individual projects and suggesting they might be bad, and if a vote
went against them, then they not only would not fare well in that
competition, they might very well be set aside entirely.
Mr. MINGE. So the fact that these eight projects are listed in the
report language does not, as to the gentleman's understanding of the
situation, after the amendment is adopted, provide these eight projects
with some type of special status?
Mr. LEWIS of California. We are striking all that language. They will
not be a part of this report or this bill as it goes forward.
Mr. MINGE. So even that portion of the report language----
Mr. LEWIS of California. The report does not change, this is the
legislative language.
Mr. MINGE. It is the bill language that is being deleted?
Mr. LEWIS of California. That is correct.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, going back to my question, the effect of
deleting these lines in the bill would mean that these projects
identified in the report language would at that point compete with
projects from other districts, other States throughout the country, on
a level playing field or equal basis, is that correct?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, If the gentleman will yield
further, I would say, in theory, yes. I must say that with our history
around here relative to departments and report language, they might
even be a bit disadvantaged.
Mr. MINGE. Or they might be advantaged.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Possibly. But, frankly, I have a feeling
that under this scenario, if it is put back in this pool and they do
meet the criteria, and we believe that they do, then they would be on a
level playing field.
Mr. MINGE. I thank the gentleman very much. I would like to thank the
gentleman for his statesmanship in taking this action.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I certainly appreciate the gentleman's
expression, and I hope that he will be supporting this amendment.
Mr. MINGE. I shall.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
For the cost of guaranteed loans, $31,750,000, as
authorized by section 108 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974: Provided, That such costs, including
the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in
section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as
amended: Provided further, That these funds are available to
subsidize total loan principal, any part of which is to be
guaranteed, not to exceed $1,500,000,000, notwithstanding any
aggregate limitation on outstanding obligations guaranteed in
section 108(k) of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974. In addition, for administrative expenses to carry
out the guaranteed loan program, $675,000 which shall be
transferred to and merged with the appropriation for salaries
and expenses.
home investment partnerships program
For the HOME investment partnerships program, as authorized
under title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable
Housing Act (Public Law 101-625), as amended, $1,400,000,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That
$21,000,000 shall be available for grants to Indian Tribes:
Provided further, That up to 0.5 percent, but not less than
$7,000,000, shall be available for the development and
operation of a management information system: Provided
further, That $15,000,000 shall be available for Housing
Counseling under section 106 of the Housing and Urban
Development Act of 1968.
homeless assistance funds
For the emergency shelter grants program (as authorized
under subtitle B of title IV of the Stewart B. McKinney
Homeless Assistance Act (Public Law 100-77), as amended); the
supportive housing program (as authorized under subtitle C of
title IV of such Act); the section 8 moderate rehabilitation
single room occupancy program (as authorized under the United
States Housing Act of 1937, as amended) to assist homeless
individuals pursuant to section 441 of the Stewart B.
McKinney Homeless Assistance Act; and the shelter plus care
program (as authorized under subtitle F of title IV of such
Act), $823,000,000, to remain available until expended.
housing opportunities for persons with aids
(including transfer of funds)
For carrying out the Housing Opportunities for Persons with
AIDS program, as authorized by the AIDS Housing Opportunity
Act (42 U.S.C. 12901), $171,000,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That any amounts previously
appropriated for such program, and any related assets and
liabilities, in the ``Annual contributions for assisted
housing'' account, shall be transferred to and merged with
amounts in this account.
Amendment offered by Mr. Shays
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment number 46 offered by Mr. Shays: In the item
relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT-
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS'', after the
dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by
$15,000,000)''.
In the item relating to ``NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION-MISSION SUPPORT'', after the last
[[Page H6833]]
dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by
$15,000,000)''.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, my staff sent me here a number of hours ago
in anticipation of this amendment, and I realized I was here a little
earlier than I needed to be, but it was a hard place to leave. There is
some tranquility here that I have not seen in quite some time. It was
enjoyable, frankly, to listen to the competence of the chairman in this
committee and to hear the debate and dialogue that took place among a
number of Members, and the competence, I might say, of the now ranking
member.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment was introduced by myself and my
colleagues: my neighbor, the gentlewoman from New York, Mrs. Lowey; the
gentlemen from New York, Mr. Lazio and Mr. Schumer; the gentleman from
Wisconsin, Mr. Gunderson; the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Mrs.
Kennelly; the gentleman from California, Mr. Horn; the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. Studds; the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Pelosi;
the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Boehlert and Mr. Nadler; and the
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Flanagan.
What this amendment does is it increases the housing for people with
AIDS from $171 million to $186 million, which was the pre-rescission
amount that we had in our budget in 1995. To pay for the increase, the
$15 million increase, and I just would hasten to point out, it is a
very modest amendment, one that almost would make me feel that the
chairman of the subcommittee might want to endorse it; but it is $15
million taken from the mission support account of NASA, which will go
from $2,562,000,000 to $2,547,000,000. The account for this mission
support is $113 million more that the House had in the fiscal year 1997
authorization levels, so the authorization level is $113 million less
than what is in this budget.
Our concern, Mr. Chairman, is for housing for people with AIDS. The
number of people who are HIV-positive with AIDS is growing. We have 10
additional jurisdictions, and as some may know, we fund 90 percent of
the HOPWA money by providing funds based on 115 cases per 500,000
people.
As more people are HIV or have AIDS, the number of demands on this
limited money is resulting in those that have had money in the past are
actually experiencing cuts. So while we are freezing this at $171
million, by the chairman's attempt, there will be cuts unless we add
$15 million, and we are hoping that the full House will act favorably
on this. We think it is a modest amendment. We hasten to point out that
the daily cost for persons with AIDS in acute care facilities is
$1,085, and that the daily cost of community housing under the HOPWA
grant ranges from about $40 to $100 a day.
Mr. Chairman, one-third to one-half of all people with AIDS are
either homeless or in imminent danger of losing their homes. It is
estimated that 15 percent of all homeless people are in fact HIV-
positive. I just cannot emphasize enough, we are fairly modest in our
approach to helping people with AIDS. We obviously are doing research.
We have services. But what we spend to give people who are HIV-positive
or have AIDS a place to live, I just cannot emphasize the extraordinary
need to do this.
There is a McKinney home that is run by the Whitman-Walker
organization that has six families. If Members can just visualize those
six families, those six families tend to be a mother and her children.
Her children in most cases do not have AIDS, are not HIV-positive, but
the mother is. The mother knows that she is going to die. She knows she
is going to die. With her in the home is the new mother for her
children. This is the kind of expenditure that the HOPWA funds go, to
help that mother live in an environment for the rest of her very short
life to usher in and help her children grow and meet their new mother,
and it is a beautiful program. There are a number of programs
throughout the country where we have people really dedicated to helping
extend a loving hand to those who simply need a place to stay, a place
to call home.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we are offering this amendment today to add badly
needed funding to the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS
program.
Our amendment will increase funding for HOPWA to the pre-rescission
fiscal year 1995 level, only a $15 million increase over what is
currently in the bill. This increase will provide housing opportunities
to over 4,000 individuals and families living with AIDS around the
country. More than 4,000 people who would otherwise be put out onto the
streets.
And make no mistake, the cost to society of throwing these people out
onto the streets is far greater than the cost of providing them with
housing. It should come as no surprise that individuals without housing
will turn to hospitals and American taxpayers will foot the bill. The
average cost of hospital care for people with AIDS is between 10 and 20
times the cost of home care. The HOPWA program saves $47,000 per person
per year in emergency health care costs.
Mr. Chairman, the HOPWA program has been funded at the same level
since fiscal year 1995, but more than 20 communities have become
eligible for these funds since that time. That translates into a 23
percent decrease in funds available for communities that received HOPWA
grants before fiscal year 1995.
Up to 60 percent of Americans living with AIDS are either homeless or
in imminent danger of losing their homes. It is estimated that while
someone can live for 10 years with AIDS, the life expectancy for a
person with AIDS who is homeless is 6 months. The HOPWA program will
save money, keep families together, and extend lives.
AIDS is a public health emergency, and we should treat it that way.
The HOPWA program is cost-effective and humane. I urge my colleagues to
support this reasonable amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise with very, very great
reluctance to oppose this amendment, and I want to take a moment to
explain to my colleagues my involvement with issues such as this over a
number of years.
I am not sure that many of the Members realize this. Some may recall.
But I was a new and greenhorn Member in the House in 1980 when I
carried a resolution around the House seeking signatures from Members
on both sides of the aisle. It had to do with promoting fundamental
research on a new problem that society was just beginning to recognize,
a thing called AIDS. Virtually every one of my friends and colleagues
on both sides of the aisle said, you want to do what? Because nobody
knew what the problem was in those days. That was the first resolution
on this issue.
As a new member of this subcommittee, I was the member who put the
first dollars, and it was only $200,000 then, in for AIDS research in
this subcommittee. I have a grave concern with where we have been and
where we need to go in this whole subject area. Indeed, housing for
people who are impacted by this incredible problem, as well as
challenge to our society, deserve and need our support.
But one more time, we are talking about very difficult funding levels
and balancing programs that are very important. How do you balance?
These programs spend out at about 3 percent to 4 percent a year. The
money we are talking about shifting here impacts, in real terms, very
little in terms of next year or even the year after that for people who
are currently dealing with the problem of AIDS. Indeed, we do need
balance between these accounts. I cannot recommend that we take x
dollars from an elderly account and give to AIDS, or HOPWA, if you
will. We have tried to provide funding that we could adequately use in
a timely fashion and be as responsive as possible.
{time} 2215
The funding for the HOPWA programs is at the President's request, and
indeed, we did a lot of analysis of that, attempting to see if we were
being as responsive as possible.
I urge the Members to recognize that we are moving forward in a
fashion that is an attempt to be both responsive and responsible, and
because of that, I urge the Members to vote no on the amendment.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in strong support of the amendment
offered by Representatives Shays and Lowey.
[[Page H6834]]
Mr. Chairman, I represent Marin and Sonoma Counties in California, an
area which has one of the highest rates of HIV for a rural/suburban
area in the Nation.
To respond to this number, Mr. Chairman, both Marin and Sonoma
Counties have mounted an aggressive and compassionate response to the
AIDS epidemic--a response that is truly a model for the Nation. By
building a network among friends; schools; community organizations; and
health care providers, the people and local government of Sonoma and
Marin are doing their best to provide quality care to people with HIV
and AIDS and for their families.
But the community can't do it alone. They need Federal resources to
help them meet the growing demands due to this terrible disease, they
especially, need help for one of the most basic of necessities--
shelter.
At any given time, because of discrimination; lost wages or medical
expenses, up to 60 percent of persons with HIV and AIDS are either
homeless or in imminent danger of losing their homes.
That's where the Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS program,
or HOPWA, steps in.
By providing housing, HOPWA improves the quality of life for people
with AIDS and reduces unnecessary hospitalizations and expensive
emergency health care services.
In my district, 94 households including 9 with children, have
benefited from this program, but there are many more who need help.
That's why it is crucial that this body approve this modest increase
of $15 million for HOPWA. While not nearly enough to meet the growing
demand for housing, this amendment will at least provide housing and
services to an additional 4,000 individuals and their families.
Last year, when my district received a HOPWA grant, the local
director of the HOPWA program said that he would be really happy if
someone came up with a cure for AIDS and they got rid of his job
tomorrow.
How we all share those same feelings. How we all wish we could find a
vaccine or cure for this terrible disease.
Unfortunately, we are not there yet--the number of AIDS cases has
increased by almost one-third since 1995, and the cities and States
qualifying for HOPWA funds have increased by 23 percent.
Clearly, the need for housing assistance for people with AIDS is
growing. The need is crucial.
Just ask a man (with HIV) in my district; a man who is counting on
HOPWA funds so he can concentrate on his health instead of worrying
about his rent; ask the family of five in Marin County who used HOPWA
funds to move from their tiny one bedroom apartment to a larger one;
sadly you can't ask my best friend's son who died from AIDS last year
at the age of 33. But, his family and friends will tell you that he
lived a longer and fuller life because of the high quality of care and
housing he had.
In memory of him and for the thousands of Americans who are living
with this disease let's show this Nation that we at least have enough
compassion to provide one of the most vulnerable groups in our Nation--
people with HIV and AIDS--with the most basic of necessities--a home!
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for the Shays-Lowey amendment,
and to support this modest increase in funding for housing for persons
with HIV and AIDS.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I am sorry to disagree with my good friend, the floor manager of this
bill, who I regard as probably one of the ablest leaders in this
Chamber.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this deficit-neutral
amendment for additional funding for housing opportunities for people
with aids. HOPWA--as it is called--is one of the Housing and Urban
Development [HUD] programs that work. This amendment would provide for
a modest increase to HOPWA funding, restoring the program's
appropriation to the prerescission fiscal year 1995 level. Such an
increase is more than justified. HOPWA is an excellent example of what
good the Federal Government can do when it combines compassion with
common sense.
But this amendment is not only justified, it is absolutely necessary.
Because of the continued rise of the AIDS epidemic, more than 10
additional jurisdictions will become eligible for HOPWA assistance in
the next fiscal year. If we do not restore HOPWA funding to the 1995
prerescission level, the HOPWA grants for 34 States will be cut in the
next fiscal year. The Los Angeles-Long Beach area, one of the
metropolitan areas hardest hit by the AIDS crisis, has already seen
sharp reductions in HOPWA funding. This year's grant for the Los
Angeles-Long Beach area totaled nearly $8 million, and that represented
a cut of nearly $1 million from the 1995 postrescission level. That cut
came after the 8-percent across-the-board cut the program took in the
1995 rescissions. Further cuts next year will severely strain the
already-overburdened Los Angeles-Long Beach area health care system
while sapping the strength of one of our best weapons in the fight
against AIDS.
This program combines fiscal prudence with effective compassion.
Stable housing is a key to the survival of a person with AIDS. Without
a good, stable place to live, AIDS patients are more likely to die
prematurely because it becomes extremely difficult to give them the
care and treatment they need. But up to 60 percent of all people with
AIDS in the United States are either already homeless or in imminent
danger of becoming homeless. HOPWA provides a cost-savings way to care
for such people. Without the funding provided for in this amendment,
people with AIDS will become homeless or will be admitted to emergency
rooms. It costs $1,085 per day to care for a person with AIDS in an
emergency care facility. It costs between $40 and $100 per day to
provide housing and services in a HOPWA-funded residential facility.
HOPWA is a cost-effective alternative to hospitalization. Also, HOPWA
is administered at the local level, so that the fight against AIDS is
led by the people who know it best, not by Washington bureaucrats. This
amendment will save money and reduce the cost of health care. I urge
all my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I urge very much that this deficit-neutral amendment be
passed by my colleagues, and I hope that the chairman, in conference
with the Senate, will make sure that this $15 million is added to the
HOPWA budget. It is the least we can do to make up for inflation and
also for what we did in 1995.
Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shays-Lowey amendment,
of which I am a cosponsor. This amendment will restore funding for the
HOPWA Program, which is the only Federal housing program designed to
address the housing crisis of the AIDS epidemic. This increase of $15
million will return HOPWA to its pre-fiscal year 1995 rescission level.
Those added dollars will provide housing services for an additional
4,035 individuals and families living with AIDS, allowing them to
improve the quality of their lives and gain access to life-extending
care.
Although funding for this program has been level since fiscal year
1995, there has been a 23-percent increase in metropolitan areas and
States qualifying for HOPWA funding. This increase has forced
jurisdictions to compete for fewer and fewer dollars. Cities like my
hometown of Hartford are receiving less HOPWA funding while their needs
are increasing. In fact, in my home State of Connecticut, we lost over
$100,000 in HOPWA funding in the last fiscal year, even though a new
jurisdiction in the State became eligible for the formula grant
program.
Connecituct is a leader in AIDS housing, at one time boasting the
only Statewide AIDS residence coalition in the Nation. But even in a
State that runs an effective AIDS housing program, the need for funding
is great. In 1995, fewer than 150 out of 1,500 requests for housing
were filled. The alternative for many of those denied housing is
homelessness, something none of us should feel comfortable with.
Finally, let me talk about the cost of AIDS housing. The average cost
of an acute care hospital bed for an AIDS patient is $1,085 per day. In
Connecticut, the cost of scattered site AIDS housing is on average $35
per day, far cheaper
[[Page H6835]]
than the cost of acute care in a hospital.
The AIDS epidemic continues to grow. In Connecticut, the State budget
for AIDS housing has grown from $150,000 in fiscal year 1988 to $1.3
million in the last fiscal year. HOPWA dollars supplement these State
funds and pay for 35 to 40 percent of the costs associated with AIDS
housing. The continued erosion of HOPWA dollars would therefore have a
tremendous impact on the capacity to serve these needy people.
The Shays-Lowey amendment is deficit neutral. We would provide extra
funding for HOPWA by shifting funds from NASA mission support. This
bill provides mission support with $2.6 billion, even though the
science bill this body passed last month authorized only $2.4 billion.
In fact, this bill's appropriation for mission support is $60 million
over the current fiscal year.
Our amendment preserves 75 percent of the funding increase from
fiscal year 1996. It leaves mission support $100 million above the
authorization level, and represents only a one half of one percent
reduction in total mission support funding.
Like many of our colleagues, we support the work that mission support
does in our space program. However, a multiagency appropriations bill
like this one requires us to compare priorities and make tough choices.
Our choice today is providing housing services for an additional 4,000
individuals and families immediately--or providing a small amount of
extra money to an account that is already well above the authorization
level.
I urge my colleagues to support the Shays-Lowey amendment, and to
provide AIDS housing to those in need.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I was somewhat hesitant to come down and talk on this
subject, but I find myself as a physician who has cared for AIDS
patients, who knows AIDS patients, that we are, through this amendment,
perpetuating a mistake, a very major mistake in this country, and that
is that we are focusing again dollars on AIDS, and we are missing the
concept of AIDS prevention.
The fact is that we are going to spend $171 million on housing for
AIDS patients this year. The fact is that this Government is going to
spend $7.41 billion in 1996 on AIDS.
{time} 2230
The reason we have the AIDS epidemic that we do today, the reason we
have the increased numbers requiring AIDS housing is because we focused
on the wrong thing. That is, HIV prevention. Until we refocus our
efforts, until we redirect our dollars to preventing the infection in
the first place, we are giving poor solace to those who will come after
those that have been so unfortunately infected with this disease that
we will see increasing numbers and we will have to have more numbers.
Prevention is the key to HIV. Prevention is the compassionate way to
spend our Federal dollars so that we do not have another 4,000, 5,00,
50,000, 100,000, 200,00 people yearly coming down with AIDS as a
complex and serious life-ending disease.
The reason it also is wrong is because today if we identify somebody
who has just now become HIV positive, we have the drugs in our
armamentarium to prevent them from becoming AIDS patients. We can now
identify, if we choose to do so, people who are infected with HIV, and
we can start treatments, that now the studies, the multiple drug
treatments will tell us, that we will not have AIDS coming about.
We continue to perpetuate a wrong strategy as far as the HIV and AIDS
epidemic. We need to start talking about HIV prevention; $171 million,
that is never going to be enough to care for those people who have
AIDS; $271 million is not going to be enough to care for those people
who have AIDS. I think we should have more money for those people who
have AIDS and need our assistance.
But we are perpetuating a decisionmaking process that is not going to
help solve this problem. Until we recognize it, and unless we recognize
it, then we will do a disservice, not to just those people who
presently have AIDS but to those who eventually will have AIDS.
So I think it is very important that we look again at what we are
spending and how we are spending it, and if we are going to increase
funding in terms of the AIDS epidemic, any increase in funding ought to
go toward HIV prevention and not additional AIDS housing.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate, first of all, my colleague
yielding, but more importantly his very sensitive and also thoughtful
comments. The gentleman's professional background causes him to be
especially aware of the challenges that we face out there relative to
this difficulty in our society. It is not going to go away unless we
deal with questions of prevention.
But let me, if you will, impose upon your time for a moment, and we
will grant additional time so that you can round out your remarks, but
the other side of this involves taking the money from the NASA
accounts. It is awfully easy for some to put a program like HOPWA
against NASA and presume it is not going to have any real effect on
those programs.
The reality is that of all the agencies under my committee, one of
those agencies that has worked the hardest and has done the best job of
attempting to go about reinventing themselves, as we try to reinvent
Government and have it work better, is NASA.
Within that effort, NASA has already reduced its full-time civil
service work force from 24,000 to 21,000. They have a schedule that is
a very serious schedule in terms of reducing personnel. But in the
meantime, this funding would dramatically impact the personnel
available in vital programs that relate to our space mission such as
human space flight programs. At the core of this program is a series of
contracts to construct communications satellites. A cut in this account
could eliminate the cost savings associated with current fixed-price
contracts.
The reality is that work is going on. It is very important work. It
looks like an easy hit for some, but we have already trimmed them to
such an extent that they are pushed against the wall. It is awfully
important that we recognize that we are doing all that we can to
balance these accounts, especially in programs like the NOPWA Program.
Indeed, when one recognizes how much of that money is spent out per
year, the $171 million of additional spending this year meets the
challenge that the Department can handle.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn]
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Lewis of California, and by unanimous consent, Mr.
Coburn was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. COBURN. I take with some advice the gentleman's words and would
agree with them to a great extent. But my main purpose for opposing
this is to make us think about what we are doing. HIV-AIDS, except in
very rare circumstances today, is an absolutely preventable disease.
Absolutely preventable. As long as we fail to recognize that, as long
as we ignore that, we will never solve this epidemic, no matter how
much money we put at it, no matter how much money we put into drug
research, into compassionate care in the latter stages of AIDS, we are
not ever going to do enough.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate his
very sensitive remarks about his caring for people with AIDS and HIV.
I strongly support his statement about prevention being very, very
important, because, of course, of what it means in the lives of
individuals and from a practical standpoint here in what it means in
terms of dollars saved not having to provide funding for care. But I do
not want the gentleman to give the impression to our viewers when he
said that there are some medications, some drugs that are available now
that would prevent AIDS. I am sure the gentleman was referring to those
protocols which would prolong life and improve the quality of life for
[[Page H6836]]
people with AIDS-HIV. But, sad to say, our prayers have not been
answered as far as a vaccine to prevent AIDS or HIV.
Mr. COBURN. Reclaiming my time, I was not referring to a vaccine at
all. There is very substantive research in front of us today that says
that we will be able to prolong significantly the occurrence from HIV
to AIDS infection with some of the very, very new and miltidrug trials.
The latest studies coming out say that that is so. Therefore, it is
eminently important that people who have HIV be identified now.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn]
has again expired.
(On request of Ms. Pelosi, and my unanimous consent, Mr. Coburn was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to recognize the
difference is, it is not just important, it is the only thing that will
solve the AIDS epidemic, is treating HIV prevention.
I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am encouraged in
some respects, although I disagree in terms of his position against the
increase in the HOPWA funds, but I do find some common ground with him.
I hope that the gentleman's remarks are an indication that he will
support the ADAP Program which calls for increased funding so that
these new protocols and new drugs will be more widely available to
people with HIV and AIDS to improve the quality of their life, to
prolong life until there is a cure, because these protocols in many
cases cost twice as much as the drugs available now and I do not think
that the benefit of the research that the American people have spent
billions of dollars on should be confined to only those wealthy enough
to afford those drugs but would be more widely available to prolong
life.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Shays-Lowey amendment to
increase funding for housing opportunities for persons with AIDS by $15
million.
AIDS is a critical public health threat that continues to grow, with
approximately 40,000 new HIV infections recorded in the United States
each year. AIDS is the second-leading cause of death among young men in
the United States, and the sixth most common cause for young women.
AIDS has hit my own community particularly hard. Almost 20,000 people
have contracted the HIV virus throughout Connecticut, and in 1995
Connecticut ranked sixth in per capita AIDS cases. AIDS is the leading
cause of death for women in the city of New Haven.
As a nation, we must remain committed to searching for a medical cure
and a vaccine for AIDS, as well as treating those already afflicted
with the disease. Although we are facing tough economic times, we
cannot afford to decrease funding for AIDS research and prevention
programs.
Until we find a cure for AIDS, however, we must provide the most
basic care for the men, women, and children that have been devastated
by this terrible epidemic.
I have fought hard to fund AIDS research, and I will fight equally
hard to ensure that victims of this disease have a clean, safe place to
sleep so that they can live healthier, longer lives. The Shays-Lowey
amendment will help state and local government provide the basic
necessity of housing to more than 4,000 additional families and
individuals that need HIV-AIDS housing assistance in 1997.
This amendment will also maintain the flexibility State and local
governments need to establish short-term supportive housing and rental
assistance, create community residences, and provide home-care
services. The overwhelming cost of caring for victims of HIV-AIDS
necessitates an increase in funding to the 50 metropolitan areas that
currently benefit from funding for the Housing Opportunities for People
With AIDS Program.
Many people with AIDS are forced to spend their life savings on
health care, and many are just a paycheck away from losing their homes.
People with AIDS, from children to adults, should have a right to
refuge, a right to basic care, and a right to a life with dignity. The
Shays-Lowey amendment will help make this happen.
I want to congratulate my Connecticut colleague, Mr. Shays, for the
compassion and kindness and commitment to caring for our neighbors,
which is what this amendment represents. And thanks also to my friend
from New York, Mrs. Lowey for her leadership on this issue.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I join with our colleagues in commending the gentleman
from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs.
Lowey], and other authors and sponsors of this amendment in bringing
this to the floor. I commend them, because this important amendment is
to increase by $15 million the funding for the critically important
Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS Program.
As one of the original authors along with the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. McDermott] and the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Schumer] of the legislation establishing the HOPWA Program, I am
pleased to note the broad base of support which the program now has on
both sides of the aisle. This supports the fact that HOPWA funds are
working successfully in communities across the country helping to
address the serious unmet housing needs of people with HIV-AIDS. I
commend Chairman Lewis for including $171 million for HOPWA in this
bill. I believe that we should provide additional funding for HOPWA and
I am pleased with the leadership of our colleague from Ohio, Mr.
Stokes, and his assistance on this issue, because this program makes a
positive difference in the lives of people with HIV-AIDS and for the
communities which are struggling to address the AIDS epidemic.
The additional $15 million in this amendment is a relatively small
amount which will have a large effect. This funding will return HOPWA
to the prerescission fiscal year 1996 funding level. I have some more
facts and figures which I will place in the Record.
In our community in San Francisco, these funds are desperately
needed. In fact, Peter Claver House, which was a hospice which took
care of people with HIV-AIDS who were homeless or in danger of becoming
homeless, was a model for this program. In our city of San Francisco
alone there are 3,000 low-income people with HIV disease who are on a
waiting list for assistance under this program. Imagine, 3,000 people
on a waiting list. Nationwide at any given time one-third to one-half
of all Americans with AIDS are either homeless or in imminent danger of
becoming homeless.
Mr. Chairman, when you have HIV-AIDS, the last thing you need is
stress to attack your immune system, and homelessness or the threat of
homelessness is indeed a very stressful situation. Sixty percent of all
people living with AIDS-HIV will face a housing crisis at some point
during their illness due to an inability to work and associated loss of
income, medical expenses, or illegal discrimination. Homelessness or
the threat thereof places extreme stress on the healthiest of
individuals.
As I mentioned if you have HIV-AIDS, the stress can be life-
threatening. I will place the rest of my statement in the Record, but I
did want to say to our distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr.
Lewis, for whom I have a great deal of respect, that the $15 million
that is taken out of NASA as he knows comes out of a $60 million
supplement to that bill which places it $60 million over the fiscal
year 1996 funding. So I think that it will not be as missed in the NASA
Program as it will be needed in the HOPWA Program.
{time} 2245
In that spirit, I once again commend the gentleman from Connecticut
[Mr. Shays] and the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] for their
great leadership on this, and would like to recognize the relentless
advocacy of Lucy McKinney on behalf of people with HIV-AIDS and their
housing needs.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
bipartisan amendment designed to restore funding for HOPWA to the
fiscal year 1995 pre-rescission level of $186 million.
The HOPWA Program is an essential tool in the fight against HIV/AIDS.
By increasing its
[[Page H6837]]
funding by a mere $15 million, over 4,000 people living with AIDS will
be taken off the streets and will receive desperately needed housing.
They will also have a better chance of a longer, more full life.
The HOPWA Program is a flexible, locally controlled program that
provides short-term supportive housing and rental assistance to
community residences and coordinated home health care services. Failure
to restore HOPWA funding, especially as the number of AIDS cases
continues to grow each year, will leave thousands of people with HIV/
AIDS and their families homeless or without adequate housing--all at an
enormous cost to their health and to our communities.
Now, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, when I say our communities, I am
not just talking about large urban areas like Chicago, New York, or Los
Angeles. I am also talking about smaller suburban and rural areas where
HOPWA funding is also utilized and is certainly just as important to
those citizens living there, where a wide range of alternatives does
not exist.
Mr. Chairman, during fiscal year 1996 alone, the HOPWA Program has so
far provided $153.9 million for formula grants to 76 recipients. These
grants include: $3.4 million to the city of Chicago, $2 million to
Houston, and over $1.7 million to San Diego, CA.
But, again, Mr. Chairman, urbanites are not the only ones who benefit
under HOPWA. Nonurban areas also get a piece of the HOPWA pie. For
instance, in this fiscal year alone, North Carolina has received $1\1/
2\ million for AIDS housing. Alabama has received $825,000; Kentucky,
$413,000; Mississippi, $544,000; Nevada, $468,000; Oklahoma, $583,000;
and South Carolina, $1\1/4\ million. The State of Washington, not
including Seattle, has received $439,000 in fiscal year 1996 alone.
Better yet, Mr. Chairman, the additional $15 million we are seeking
today will go to new jurisdictions which have yet to receive HOPWA
money. In other words, if you're a Member of Congress who thinks that
your district won't benefit from this additional $15 million, think
again. AIDS is in every town and community in this Nation, and HOPWA
should be there too, helping those who*COM003* need it most.
It is a tragic fact that about 30 percent of those infected with HIV
are in acute hospital care due to the fact that no community-based
housing alternative is available for them. For the most part, urban
areas have these low-cost housing alternatives. It's the smaller, more
rural areas that do not, and that is why this amendment is so
important. The average cost of an acute care hospital bed for an AIDS
patient is $1,085 per day. The average cost of a HOPWA bed is a tenth
of that amount--and that's probably a conservative estimate.
The $15 million increase for HOPWA will provide housing and services
for an additional 4,035 individuals living with AIDS. Let me repeat,
Mr. Chairman, 4,035 individuals, as well as their families, from all
over America who desperately need this assistance in order to survive.
This additional $15 million will also help communities throughout this
country cope with the high costs of acute hospital care.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The amendment will raise funding from $171 million to the pre fiscal
year 1995 rescission level of $186 million. Funding has remained at
$171 million since fiscal year 1995, while 20-22 new jurisdictions have
become eligible for HOPWA formula grants since that time. This is
actually a 23-percent cut in funds for existing jurisdictions. An
increase of $15 million in funding will result in housing and services
for an additional 4,035 individuals and families living with HIV/AIDS.
The average cost of an acute care hospital bed for an AIDS patient is
$1,085 per day. The cost of HOPWA funded housing is between one-tenth
and one-twentieth of that amount. HOPWA dollars reduce the cost of
emergency health care services by an estimated $47,000 per person per
year. The alternative to HOPWA funded housing for many individuals
living with AIDS is the street or a homeless shelter. One-third to one
half of all Americans with AIDS are either homeless or in imminent
danger of losing their homes. 60 percent of all people living with HIV/
AIDS will face a housing crisis at some point during their illness.
The amendment cuts $15 million from the Gravity Probe-B, which is
funded in the NASA Space Aeronautics and Technology account. Gravity
Probe-B is intended to verify or disprove Einstein's theory of general
activity. The VA-HUD subcommittee provided no funding for Gravity Probe
B in FY 1996. Funding was restored at the full committee level to $51.5
million. This year both the subcommittee and full committee funded the
program at $59.6 million a 15 percent increase--$8.1 million.
As late as 1992, NASA was saying that the total cost of the project
would be approximately $320 million, that a prototype would be launched
by 1995, and the real probe in 1998. Today, the project cost is $561.5
million through 2000 and launch is not scheduled until 2000.
This amendment does not represent a retreat in basic science. In
fact, it is not even a retreat from the Gravity Probe-B Program, since
it is still funded at $45 million in fiscal year 1997. The $15 million
cut represents a 0.2 percent cut in the Science, Aeronautics and
Technology account at NASA, and only a one-tenth of one percent cut in
NASA's appropriation.
While verifying Einstein's theory is worthy science, the
appropriations process requires Congress to make tough choices--testing
the theory of relativity, a multiyear endeavor, versus housing for
4,000 more people.
FY 1996 HOPWA Formula Allocations
The FY 1996 appropriation of $171 million provided $153.9
million for formula allocations to 76 grants, including 49
Eligible Metropolitan Statistical Areas (EMSAs) and 27
States. The eleven first-time recipients are noted by *, the
service area of six prior State grantees is reduced due to
these new EMSAs. The applicant is the State or, for the EMSA,
the most populous city in the area, which is the first
jurisdiction named in the EMSA title (except as noted). The
allocations are part of the area's consolidated plan.
1966 Formula Grantee Allocation (In 000s)
New England Region:
Connecticut (outside of the Hartford and New Haven EMSAs).........620
Hartford CT MSA...................................................535
New Haven-Meriden CT PMSA*........................................403
Massachusetts (outside the Boston EMSA)...........................898
Boston MA-NH PMSA...............................................1,613
New York, New Jersey Region:
New Jersey (outside of 6 EMSAs)...................................617
Patterson for Bergen-Passaic NJ PMSA............................1,044
Jersey City NJ PMSA.............................................2,378
Woodbridge for the Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon NJ PMSA...........556
Dover Township for the Monmouth-Ossen NJ PMSA*....................473
Newark NJ PMSA..................................................4,718
New York State (outside New York City and Nassau PMSAs).........1,979
Islip for the Nassau-Suffolk NY PMSA............................1,045
New York NY PMSA...............................................35,840
Mid-Atlantic Region:
Pennsylvania (outside the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh EMSAs)......793
Philadelphia PA-NJ PMSA...........................................282
Pittsburgh PA MSA*................................................400
Virginia (outside of DC and Norfolk EMSAs)........................697
Virginia Beach for the Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News VA-NC
MSA*............................................................416
Baltimore MD PMSA...............................................4,582
Washington DC-MD-VA WV PMSA.....................................5,026
Southeast Region:
Alabama...........................................................825
Florida (outside of 6 EMSAs)....................................2,397
Fort Lauderdale FL PMSA.........................................4,036
Jacksonville FL MSA...............................................797
Miami FL PMSA...................................................8,359
Orlando FL MSA..................................................1,043
Tampa-St. Peterburg-Clearwater FL PMSA..........................1,314
West Palm Beach-Boca Raton FL PMSA..............................2,080
Georgia (outside the Atlanta EMSA)................................931
Atlanta GA MSA..................................................2,817
Kentucky*.........................................................413
Mississippi.......................................................544
North Carolina (outside the Norfolk EMSA).......................1,467
Puerto Rico (outside the San Juan MSA)..........................1,382
San Juan-Bayamon PR PMSA........................................3,754
South Carolina..................................................1,224
Tennessee.......................................................1,061
Midwest Region:
Illinois (outside of Chicago and St. Louis EMSAs)*................391
Chicago IL PMSA.................................................3,394
Indiana (outside the Indianapolis MSA)............................452
Indianapolis IN MSA...............................................432
Michigan (outside the Detroit EMSA)...............................506
Detroit MI PMSA.................................................1,180
Minneapolis-St. Paul MN-WI MSA....................................558
Ohio (outside the Cleveland EMSA)...............................1,262
Cleveland-Lorain-Elvyria OH PMSA..................................532
Wisconsin (outside the Minneapolis EMSA)..........................585
Southwest Region:
Arkansas*.........................................................434
Louisiana (outside the New Orleans EMSA)..........................748
New Orleans LA MSA..............................................1,295
Oklahoma..........................................................583
Texas (outside of EMSAs)........................................1,431
Dallas TX PMSA..................................................2,038
Ft. Worth-Arlington TX PMSA.......................................537
Houston TX PMSA.................................................3,014
Austin-San Marcos TX MSA..........................................625
San Antonio TX MSA................................................605
Great Plains Region:
Kansas City MO-KS MSA.............................................700
St. Louis MO-IL MSA...............................................737
Rocky Mountain Region:
Denver CO PMSA..................................................1,009
[[Page H6838]]
Pacific/Hawaii Region:
Phoenix-Mesa AZ MSA...............................................727
Hawaii*...........................................................419
Las Vegas NV-AZ MSA*..............................................468
California (outside of 8 EMSAs).................................1,933
Oakland CA PMSA.................................................1,611
Sacramento CA PMSA................................................548
San Francisco PMSA..............................................8,828
San Jose CA PMSA..................................................547
Los Angeles-Long Beach CA PMSA..................................7,979
Santa Ana for the Orange County CA PMSA...........................960
Riverside-San Bernardino CA PMSA................................1,078
San Diego CA MSA................................................1,721
Northwest/Alaska Region:
Portland-Vancouver OR-WA PMSA.....................................667
Washington State (outside of the Seattle and Portland PMSAs)......439
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett WA PMSA................................1,188
__________
1996 Formulas Total.......................................153,220
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from the Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 456, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays]
will be postponed.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Federal Housing Administration
fha--mutual mortgage insurance program account
(including transfers of funds)
During fiscal year 1997, commitments to guarantee loans to
carry out the purposes of section 203(b) of the National
Housing Act, as amended, shall not exceed a loan principal of
$110,000,000,000: Provided, That during fiscal year 1997, the
Secretary shall sell assigned mortgage notes having an unpaid
principal balance of up to $2,000,000,000, which notes were
originally insured under section 203(b) of the National
Housing Act: Provided further, That the Secretary may use the
amount of any negative subsidy resulting from the sale of
such assigned mortgage notes during fiscal year 1997 for the
purposes included under this heading.
During fiscal year 1997, obligations to make direct loans
to carry out the purposes of section 204(g) of the National
Housing Act, as amended, shall not exceed $200,000,000:
Provided, That the foregoing amount shall be for loans to
nonprofit and governmental entities in connection with sales
of single family real properties owned by the Secretary and
formerly insured under section 203 of such Act.
For administrative expenses necessary to carry out the
guaranteed and direct loan program, $341,595,000, to be
derived from the FHA-mutual mortgage insurance guaranteed
loans receipt account, of which not to exceed $334,483,000
shall be transferred to the appropriation for departmental
salaries and expenses; and of which not to exceed $7,112,000
shall be transferred to the appropriation for the Office of
Inspector General.
fha--general and special risk program account
(including transfers of funds)
For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by sections
238 and 519 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-3
and 1735c), including the cost of loan guarantee
modifications (as that term is defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended) $85,000,0000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That these
funds are available to subsidize total loan principal, any
part of which is to be guaranteed, of up to $17,400,000,000:
Provided further, That during fiscal year 1997, the Secretary
shall sell assigned notes having an unpaid principal balance
of up to $2,500,000,000, which notes are held by the
Secretary under the General Insurance and Special Risk
Insurance funds: Provided further, That any amounts made
available in any prior appropriations Act for the cost (as
such term is defined in section 502 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974) of guaranteed loans that are obligations
of the funds established under section 238 or 519 of the
National Housing Act that have not been obligated or that are
deobligated shall be available to the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development in connection with the making of such
guarantees and shall remain available until expended,
notwithstanding the expiration of any period of availability
otherwise applicable to such amounts.
Gross obligations for the principal amount of direct loans,
as authorized by sections 204(g), 207(l), 238(a), and 519(a)
of the National Housing Act, shall not exceed $120,000,000;
of which not to exceed $100,000,000 shall be for bridge
financing in connection with the sale of multifamily real
properties owned by the Secretary and formerly insured under
such Act; and of which not to exceed $20,000,000 shall be for
loans to nonprofit and governmental entities in connection
with the sale of single-family real properties owned by the
Secretary and formerly insured under such Act.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the guaranteed and direct loan programs, $202,470,000, of
which $198,299,000 shall be transferred to the appropriation
for salaries and expenses; and of which $4,171,000 shall be
transferred to the appropriation for the Office of Inspector
General.
Government National Mortgage Association
guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan
guarantee program account
(including transfer of funds)
During fiscal year 1997, new commitments to issue
guarantees to carry out the purposes of section 306 of the
National Housing Act, as amended (12 U.S.C. 1721(g)), shall
not exceed $110,000,000,000.
For administrative expenses necessary to carry out the
guaranteed mortgage-backed securities program, $9,101,000, to
be derived from the GNMA guarantees of mortgage-backed
securities guaranteed loan receipt account, of which not to
exceed $9,101,000 shall be transferred to the appropriation
for salaries and expenses.
Policy Development and Research
research and technology
For contracts, grants, and necessary expenses of programs
of research and studies relating to housing and urban
problems, not otherwise provided for, as authorized by title
V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970, as
amended (12 U.S.C. 1701z-1 et seq.), including carrying out
the functions of the Secretary under section 1(a)(1)(i) of
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1968, $34,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 1998.
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
fair housing activities
For contracts, grants, and other assistance, not otherwise
provided for, as authorized by title VIII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of
1988, and for contracts with qualified fair housing
enforcement organizations, as authorized by section 561 of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987, as
amended, $30,000,000, to remain available until September 30,
1998, of which $15,000,000 shall be to carry out activities
pursuant to section 561.
Management and Administration
salaries and expenses
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary administrative and non-administrative
expenses of the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
not otherwise provided for, including not to exceed $7,000
for official reception and representation expenses,
$962,558,000, of which $532,782,000 shall be provided from
the various funds of the Federal Housing Administration,
$9,101,000 shall be provided from funds of the Government
National Mortgage Association, and $675,000 shall be provided
from the Community Development Grants Program account.
amendment offered by Mr. Sanders
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders: Page 37, line 13, after
the first dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by
$1,411,000)''.
Page 64, line 9 , after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $1,411,000)''.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this is a very straightforward and modest
amendment. In fact, it calls for far less money than many of the other
amendments we have been discussing this evening.
It simply transfers $1.4 million from the HUD Secretary's office
account for salaries and expenses to the Court of Veterans Appeals. In
a colloquy on the House floor last year, the gentleman from California,
Mr. Lewis, and I discussed this issue and he indicated a willingness to
fight to restore $429,000 trimmed from the fiscal year 1996
appropriation requested by the Court of Veterans Appeals.
On the basis of that commitment last year, I did not offer an
amendment to restore that cut. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, not
only was that money not restored ultimately, but when all was said and
done, after the budget showdown earlier this year, the appropriation
for the Court of Veterans Appeals totaled $9 million, an 8.5-percent
cut below the court's fiscal year 1996 request and a 4\1/2\-percent cut
below the prior year' fiscal appropriation.
If my amendment is approved, it will cut just $1.4 million from the
$962 million account available to the HUD Secretary for next year for
salaries and expenses to make up for the shortfall in requested fiscal
year 1996 funding and flatline the fiscal year 1997 funding for the
court at the same level. It would also include $634,000 for the pro
bono representation program as well.
Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about is a small appropriation, but
it is
[[Page H6839]]
an appropriation that would mean a lot to the veterans of America and
especially low-income veterans. I would point out that my amendment is
supported by the American Legion and by the Disabled American Veterans.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, when a veteran is denied a claim from the
VA, that veteran has the right to appeal and that appeal is heard
before the Court of Veterans Appeals. Unfortunately, as a result of
lack of funding, the Court of Veterans Appeals is unable to do all the
things that it should be doing to protect the interest of low-income
veterans. One of the very important functions of that court is to make
sure that there are pro bono lawyers available to provide assistance
for low-income veterans who do not have the funds to get their own
lawyers so that they can make the strongest case that they can make.
Now, it seems to me that while we all recognize serious financial
problems that we have, we should not be cutting back programs for low-
income veterans who might not have the right to appeal a claim which
was adjudicated in a wrong way. I do not think those are the folks that
we should be balancing the budget upon. Low-income veterans should have
the right to make their case as strongly as they can.
This is once again a modest request. It is all of $1.4 million but it
would mean a great deal to low-income veterans. It comes out of the HUD
Secretary's account for salaries and expenses, and I would hope very
much that the Members of the House would support this amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, reluctantly I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Vermont. He and I, as he has indicated,
have talked about this program before, and last year we were talking
about working together in terms of increasing some of this funding and
there was no additional money added on the Senate side, so that as we
discussed was not feasible in the conference.
Nonetheless, the amendment before us would add $1,411,000 to the
$9,229,000 currently in the bill for the veterans of court appeals. The
amendment would offset the increase by decreasing the amount for HUD
salaries and expenses by that same amount. I am not really sure what
the gentleman is trying to accomplish here, so maybe he will be able to
help me. The court does not need a 15-percent increase above the amount
recommended in the bill. The 1997 budget request for operations of the
court is $8,795,000. The bill includes $9,229,000 for the account, an
increase of $434,000 above the administrator's request. The recommended
amount includes the 1996 level of $8,595,000 for operations of the
court and $634,000 for the pro bono account. The administration did not
request any funding for the pro bono account representation program but
the committee recommended funding it at the 1996 level.
I am sure the gentleman appreciates the addition as I know he is a
strong supporter of the pro bono program. The subcommittee's budget
hearings did not reveal the need for funding above the amount on the
1997 budget request, with the exception of the pro bono program, and
the amendment does not increase funds for the pro bono program. As the
offset, HUD salaries and expenses accounts have already been reduced by
$25 million below the 1997 request to the 1996 level.
Mr. Chairman, the point is we should not be reducing an account where
funds are needed to increase an account where funds do not appear to be
needed, and I ask the gentleman if he would consider withdrawing his
amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. If I might, Mr. Chairman, let me read briefly from a
letter that I received from Steve Robertson, who is director of the
National Legislative Commission for the American Legion. They say and I
quote:
We have been and will continue to be strong supporters of
the veterans' pro bono representation program which will
receive a substantial portion of the proposed transfer.
Without adequate funding, this essential program will be
unable to meet the needs of those veterans who depend on it
as their only means of representation before the court.
Let me also read, if I might, from Thomas McMasters, who is the
national commander of the Disabled American Veterans. He says, and I
quote:
As you know, the DAV has been an active participant in the
veterans' pro bono legal program and supports what this
program has been able to do for those veterans unable to
obtain legal representation for their claims before the
United States Court of Veterans Appeals. Accordingly, we
support your amendment which will allow the Court to fully
fund the pro bono legal program without reducing activities
of the Court.
Mr. Chairman, what these gentlemen are saying, because they know
something of the issue, because they represent veterans, they are
saying we have a lot of low-income veterans who cannot make a trip to
Washington, by the way, to make their claim. If they are low-income by
definition, they cannot leave their communities, and I think that is a
disgrace unto itself.
We are talking about $1.4 million. Given the amounts of money that we
are talking about in this appropriations bill, this is a tiny sum of
money and I really do think we should respect low-income veterans who
may have gotten a raw deal from the VA and have a right to hear their
appeals before the court.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, I must say that I
understand the gentleman's point, but we attempted to deal with the pro
bono program here. We have provided additional amounts that are here.
As I read the gentleman's amendment, he does not really make any
change in the improvements we have already made in the pro bono
funding, so I am scratching my head a little. But nonetheless, I
believe I understand a portion of your point anyway.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I, too, must reluctantly rise to oppose the gentleman's
amendment. I do so reluctantly because I know that he is sincere in
trying to remedy what he feels is a real problem as it relates to the
veterans. This is a subcommittee on which I have sat for many years,
and I, too, am totally sympathetic towards the veterans who have to
process their claims through the Court of Appeals. I have worked over
the years to try and be sure that those veterans get the type of
funding that they need in order to process those claims.
My reluctance here is based upon the fact that the House
Appropriations Committee level-funded the Department's S&E request at
the fiscal year 1996 amount, which is $25 million below the request. So
they have already been nicked by $25 million in that account. Any
additional reduction is certainly going to hurt the HUD salaries and
expense account and prohibit them from being able to proceed in some of
their assigned responsibilities.
But more than that, the Court of Appeals is now $229,000 over the
1996 appropriation and $434,000 over the 1997 request. So from that
perspective, it would seem to me that the gentleman's amendment ought
to be opposed.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 456, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders],
will be postponed.
amendment offered by mr. hefley
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hefley: Page 37, after
``962,558,000'' insert (``reduced by $42,000,000)''
Page 69, line 8, after ``46,500,000'' insert ``(increased
by $20,000,000)''.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I come to the House floor today to offer an
amendment that is not designed to bash HUD, but instead to offer a
common sense reduction and transfer of funds. When the House passed
H.R. 2406 on May 9, it was with a promise of consolidating and
streamlining HUD's bureaucracy. However, the proposed fiscal year 1997
funding for management and administration is exactly the same as
[[Page H6840]]
it was before we overwhelmingly passed overall housing reform.
With the savings we can get from a modest 10 percent reduction in
HUD's M&A account we can put $20 million into solid environmental
protection, something I think members on both sides of the aisle would
support. Since the leaking underground storage tank, or LUST, trust
fund was mandated by the Congress in 1986, it has collected a petroleum
product excise tax. The current balance is over $1 billion which is
designated for environmentally damaging project cleanup. Let me be
clear, this money is not for further regulation or inspection. It is
for environmental cleanup only.
The funding level proposed for this year is over 30 percent less than
was allocated in 1995. The irony of the whole thing is that this fund
is financed through a tax on industry then the Congress turns around
and tells industry how much of their own money can be used for cleanup.
But the really amazing thing is the interest accumulated on the overall
fund last year, is greater than the amount appropriated this year.
{time} 2300
The money we put back into the LUST Program will bring funding back
up to the 1995 level and bring it almost in line with the
administration's request for this year.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will do three things that I think every
Member of this body will want to support: We take money and bureaucracy
out of Washington. In other words, we take $42 million out of an almost
billion dollar administrative account. We reduce the deficit, which
many Members have expressed concern about, by the amount of $22 million
of those $42 million. And we provide increased funding for
environmental cleanup of these leaking underground tanks in the amount
of $20 million.
Reduce the bureaucracy, reduce the deficit, and provide environmental
cleanup: I think it makes a great deal of sense, Mr. Chairman, and I
urge each of the 335 Members who supported H.R. 2406, and also those
who believe they are environmentally conscious, to please support this
amendment.
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to say what a lot of other
people have said about the gentleman from California and the ranking
member on taking a difficult job and putting a real tough bill
together, but I really also rise in very strong support of the Hefley
amendment. I think that he is certainly on the right track as far as
trying to get into some of this heavy bureaucratic money that we have
and really push an environmental issue that we have out there,
particularly in rural America, and that is trying to get after these
underground storage tanks that are leaking all over the place; that are
threatening groundwater that we have out there, and particularly in
rural America.
That is really where it is at, because in rural America these people
cannot afford to dig up these tanks that are leaking and it is getting
into the groundwater. They are not getting the funds with which to do
it, and I think this additional $20 million is certainly going to help.
This is a bill that has come out of my committee. The gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Stupak] and I have already introduced legislation,
separate legislation which is moving forward, but it is moving forward
of course without the appropriate funds of which we need.
I think this carefully crafted amendment by my colleague from
Colorado [Mr. Hefley] is really hitting it right on the nose. He has
taken it from a spot and he is doing two things with it, taking it from
a spot clearly, clearly, that it can be taken from, and using a portion
of that $22 million in which to go toward deficit reduction; and, more
importantly, to attack an environmental issue out there that is very,
very crucial to this country.
In particular, every person in this Congress from rural America ought
to support this amendment by my good friend from Colorado.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, as I stated on the amendment that was offered by the
gentleman from Vermont when I opposed it, I would also oppose this one.
But, I oppose it even more strongly than I opposed the amendment by the
gentleman from Vermont.
The Hefley amendment reduces this particular account by $42 million,
a sum which would severely compromise HUD's efforts to operate almost
420 billion in program activity; it would undermine the reinvention of
HUD as a streamlined department that is smaller, more efficient, more
responsive to community and customer needs; and, we have to remember,
this account is already $25 million below the request.
One of the concerns of our subcommittee has been that HUD needs to be
reinvented. And of course Secretary Cisneros has presented an ambitious
plan that would reinvent the Department, to make it a more streamlined
customer service oriented agency. A further reduction in the S&E funds
would impede the Department's ability to achieve the stated objectives
of this vision by, one, preventing personnel from being relocated from
headquarters and former regional offices to the local field offices
closer to the communities.
Second, it would force HUD to reduce staff immediately instead of in
a planned systematic fashion over 4 years. And, third, it would prevent
purchase of needed technology to help HUD do more with less people.
Lastly, the reduced level would not allow the Department to move
forward with its plan to relocate up to 500 headquarter employees to
the field, which is an essential part of the Secretary's strategy for
the department to become streamlined, more responsive to community
needs.
A reduction would absolutely prohibit HUD's ability to carry out its
responsibilities with an additional reduction of $42 million over and
above the $25 million for which the Department has already been nicked.
So I would urge the membership to oppose the amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to reluctantly join my colleague in resisting
this carefully thought out amendment but an amendment that,
unfortunately, does damage to other programs that are disconcerting to
me, for I have great appreciation for his concern.
The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program, known as LUST, and I
must say that, as I noted in our ``Dear Colleague,'' we have a headline
something like ``Stop Hefley's LUST'' or something. We have to change
that before we put those out tomorrow. But in the meantime this was
created to assist the States and tribes with the cost of cleaning up
underground storage tank spills where responsible parties cannot be
found to pay the bill directly.
The LUST trust fund is a source of funds for this activity, although
like Superfund the amount of money we appropriate from the fund is
treated exactly like funding from general revenues, it scores against
us in VA and outlays.
The trust fund, which holds nearly a billion dollars, was funded
through a gasoline tax of one-tenth of 1 percent per gallon. That tax
expired at the same time as the Superfund tax in December of 1995. Mr.
Hefley's amendment essentially puts the program back to the budget
request level of $67 million plus. This represents what EPA believes
the States will use if it is available to them. Our proposal of
$46,500,000 is slightly over the 1996 level and our mark signals our
desire to level fund as many of the EPA programs as possible.
While the States would probably use the additional funds available
under the Hefley amendment, it is also fair to say that they do not,
quote, we use the term ``need'' the additional funds to keep the
program running. Neither EPA or the States have complained or
criticized us for our 1996 and 1997 funding levels. Our reduction from
the budget request was, as much as anything, a reflection of reduced
overall dollars in an attempt to make reductions which result in the
least program disruptions.
In addition to our programs, that additional LUST fund is just not a
burning priority. It is of greater concern that the amendment reduces
salaries and expenses at HUD, as my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Stokes], has indicated, some $42 million. The bill already funds
S&E at the 1996 level,
[[Page H6841]]
a decrease, a decrease of $25 million below the budget request. A
further reduction of this magnitude would seriously undermine HUD's
reinvention plans.
Mr. Chairman, I must say that the Secretary has really attempted to
work with the committee as he goes forward attempting that difficult
task of reorganizing HUD, so I reluctantly oppose the amendment.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, after he
referred to the Hefley LUST Program, he should yield.
Mr. Chairman, let me just point out that in 1995 there were 11 States
that had more claims than they had balance, and in 1996 there were 19
more States, so that is going the wrong direction for us.
And, Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about simply having States keep
the program going, we are talking about solving a rather vast and
extensive problem that lies out there, and particularly across rural
America.
To the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], who expressed great and
sincere concern about us taking away this amount of money from the HUD
management account because they would not be able to complete their
job, I might point out, Mr. Stokes, that we are talking about $42
million, which of course is a sizable amount of money, but it is not a
sizable amount of money out of a budget of $1 billion, which is
essentially what this account has.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I very
much appreciate my colleague's position, and, unfortunately, we have to
say for the record and clearly have the Members understand that we
think that $42 million is very significant in terms of this account
that has already taken a pretty significant hit, so we ask for a ``no''
vote.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 456, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley]
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Office of Inspector General
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $52,850,000, of which $11,283,000 shall
be provided from the various funds of the Federal Housing
Administration and $5,000,000 shall be provided from the
amount earmarked for Operation Safe Home in the Drug
elimination grants for low income housing account.
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
salaries and expenses
(including transfer of funds)
For carrying out the Federal Housing Enterprise Financial
Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, $14,895,000, to remain
available until expended, from the Federal Housing Enterprise
Oversight Fund: Provided, That such amounts shall be
collected by the Director as authorized by section 1316(a)
and (b) of such Act, and deposited in the Fund under section
1316(f) of such Act.
administrative provisions
Sec. 201. Minimum Rents.--Notwithstanding section 3(a) and
8(o)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended,
for fiscal year 1997--
(1) public housing agencies shall require each family who
is assisted under the certificate or moderate rehabilitation
program under section 8 of such Act to pay a minimum monthly
rent of up to $25;
(2) public housing agencies shall reduce the monthly
assistance payment on behalf of each family who is assisted
under the voucher program under section 8 of such Act so that
the family pays a minimum monthly rent of up to $25;
(3) with respect to housing assisted under other programs
for rental assistance under section 8 of such Act, the
Secretary shall require each family who is assisted under
such program to pay a minimum monthly rent of up to $25; and
(4) public housing agencies shall require each family who
is assisted under the public housing program (including
public housing for Indian families) to pay a minimum monthly
rent of up to $25.
Sec. 202. Administrative Fees.--Notwithstanding section
8(q) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended--
(a) The Secretary shall establish fees for the cost of
administering the certificate, voucher and moderate
rehabilitation programs.
(1)(A) For fiscal year 1997, the fee for each month for
which a dwelling unit is covered by an assistance contract
shall be 7.5 percent of the base amount, adjusted as provided
herein, in the case of an agency that, on an annual basis, is
administering a program of no more than 600 units, and 7
percent of the base amount, adjusted as provided herein, for
each additional unit above 600.
(B) The base amount shall be the higher of--
(i) the fair market rental for fiscal year 1993 for a 2-
bedroom existing rental dwelling unit in the market area of
the agency; and
(ii) such fair market rental for fiscal year 1994, but not
more than 103.5 percent of the amount determined under clause
(i).
(C) The base amount shall be adjusted to reflect changes in
the wage data or other objectively measurable data that
reflect the costs of administering the program during fiscal
year 1996; except that the Secretary may require that the
base amount be not less than a minimum amount and not more
than a maximum amount.
(2) For subsequent fiscal years, the Secretary shall
publish a notice in the Federal Register, for each geographic
area, establishing the amount of the fee that would apply for
the agencies administering the program, based on changes in
wage data or other objectively measurable data that reflect
the cost of administering the program, as determined by the
Secretary.
(3) The Secretary may increase the fee if necessary to
reflect higher costs of administering small programs and
programs operating over large geographic areas.
(4) The Secretary may decrease the fee for PHA-owned units.
(b) Beginning in fiscal year 1997 and thereafter, the
Secretary shall also establish reasonable fees (as determined
by the Secretary) for--
(1) the costs of preliminary expenses, in the amount of
$500, for a public housing agency, but only in the first year
it administers a tenant-based assistance program under the
United States Housing Act of 1937 and only if, immediately
before the effective date of this Act, it was not
administering a tenant-based assistance program under the
1937 Act (as in effect immediately before the effective date
of this Act), in connection with its initial increment of
assistance received;
(2) the costs incurred in assisting families who experience
difficulty (as determined by the Secretary) in obtaining
appropriate housing under the program; and
(3) extraordinary costs approved by the Secretary.
Sec. 203. Single Family Assignment Program.--Section 407(c)
of the Balanced Budget Downpayment Act, I (12 U.S.C. 1710
note), is amended by striking ``October 1, 1996'' and
inserting ``October 1, 1997''.
Sec. 204. Portfolio Reengineering.--(a) Findings.--The
Congress finds that--
(1) approximately 8,500 multifamily projects with mortgages
insured by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
under the National Housing Act are also receiving rental
subsidies under contracts entered into pursuant to section 8
of the United States Housing Act of 1937;
(2) of the units with contracts that expire in 1997,
approximately 83,000 units have section 8 contracts at rent
levels that exceed market rate;
(3) the majority of such projects are receiving rental
assistance under such section 8 in amounts exceeding the
rents paid for comparable unsubsidized units in the same or
comparable market areas, thereby creating an unreasonable
burden on Federal taxpayers;
(4) most of these projects have substantial amounts of
deferred maintenance and other capital needs, despite
receiving such assistance;
(5) in the absence of the renewal of the rental assistance
contracts for the projects at rents above market rent, many
of the projects would default on their insured mortgages,
resulting in massive claims under the multifamily mortgage
insurance program of the Secretary;
(6) it is in the interests of the taxpayers, the tenants,
owners, and operators of the projects, the mortgagees and
investors in the projects, and the communities in which the
projects are located to reduce the Federal rental assistance
to market rates, to address the capital needs of the
projects, and consistent with existing contractual rights, to
eliminate the economic risk of Federal mortgage insurance
claims on projects that are dependent on Federal rent
subsidies;
(7) the Department of Housing and Urban Development does
not have the capacity to carry out a program to restructure
the portfolio of loans for such projects and, therefore,
should enter into agreements with partners that will be
delegated the authority to take actions as may be necessary
to achieve the goals in subsection (b) through the transition
of the projects to (i) market rate rents, and (ii) financing
not dependent on Federal mortgage insurance;
(8) such projects provide housing for many low-income
families, a significant proportion of which are elderly or
disabled families, and their particular housing needs should
be recognized in carrying out the program under this section;
[[Page H6842]]
(9) many responsible owners of such properties have managed
the properties in a competent and efficient manner,
consistent with the purposes of the Federal mortgage
insurance and rental assistance programs, by maintaining the
properties as safe, decent, and affordable housing and acting
as good partners of the Federal Government to provide housing
for low-income families needing housing; and
(10) the program under this section should be carried out
in a manner that recognizes the capabilities, performance,
and legal rights of such responsible owners.
(b) Goals.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
shall carry out the program under this section in a manner
that will--
(1) protect the financial interests of the Federal
Government through debt restructuring and subsidy reduction;
(2) protect the rights of owners of properties under the
program, by providing a mechanism to restructure mortgages
that would otherwise default; and
(3) in the most effective manner, address the goals of--
(A) maintaining existing housing stock in an affordable,
decent, safe, and sanitary condition;
(B) minimizing involuntary displacement and other adverse
impacts on tenants;
(C) treating responsible owners as valued partners in the
ongoing operations regarding a property;
(D) being cognizant of adverse income tax consequences to
owners;
(E) taking into account local housing market conditions;
(F) supporting fair housing strategies;
(G) encouraging responsible ownership and management of
property;
(H) minimizing adverse impacts on residential
neighborhoods; and
(I) promoting the economic self-sufficiency of tenants.
(c) Community and Tenant Input.--In carrying out this
section, the Secretary shall develop procedures to provide
appropriate and timely notice to officials of the unit of
general local government affected, the community in which the
project is located, and the tenants of the project.
(d) Applicability.--
(1) In general.--This section applies to any--
(A) multifamily housing project with a mortgage insured by
the Secretary under the National Housing Act, and
(B) mortgage debt on a multifamily housing project that is
subject to such an insured mortgage,
but only if the multifamily housing project referred to in
subparagraph (A) or (B) is covered in whole or in part by a
contract for project-based assistance described in paragraph
(2).
(2) Project-based assistance.--A contract for project-based
assistance described in this paragraph is a contract--
(A) that expires during fiscal year 1997;
(B) under which the current assisted rents are, in the
aggregate, in excess of market rents; and
(C) that provides assistance under--
(i) the new construction or substantial rehabilitation
program under section 8(b)(2) of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 (as in effect before October 1, 1983);
(ii) the property disposition program under section 8(b) of
such Act;
(iii) the loan management set-aside program under section
8(b) of such Act;
(iv) the project-based certificate program under section
8(d)(2) of such Act;
(v) the moderate rehabilitation program under section
8(e)(2) of such Act;
(vi) section 23 of the United States Housing Act of 1937
(as in effect before January 1, 1975);
(vii) the preservation program under the Emergency Low
Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987 or the Low-Income
Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990;
(viii) the rent supplement program under section 101 of the
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965;
(ix) section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937,
following conversion from assistance under section 101 of the
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965; or
(x) section 236(f)(2) of the National Housing Act.
(e) Qualified Liability Managers.--
(1) Use.--In carrying out the program under this section,
the Secretary may use arrangements with one or more third
parties (in this section referred to as ``qualified liability
managers'') under which the Secretary may provide for the
assumption by delegation, contract, or otherwise of some or
all of the functions, obligations, and benefits of the
Secretary, as the Secretary determines to be reasonably
necessary to accomplish the goals of this section.
(2) Selection.--Qualified liability managers shall be
selected by the Secretary using competitive procedures. Each
qualified liability manager shall be a State housing finance
agency with the demonstrated financial and technical capacity
(A) to assume and manage the insurance risk of the Secretary,
(B) to discharge public purpose objectives (including the
goals set out in subsection (b)), and (C) to restructure and
recapitalize the housing projects described in subsection
(d). In the absence of a State housing finance agency with
the demonstrated financial and technical capacity to carry
out the responsibilities set forth in clauses (A) through (C)
of the preceding sentence, a qualified liability manager
shall be composed of a State housing finance agency that
partners with one or more entities (including public
entities, private sector entities, and nonprofit
organizations) with the demonstrated financial and technical
capacity to carry out such responsibilities. Each qualified
liability manager shall demonstrate an understanding of the
public purposes of the multifamily housing mortgage insurance
programs under the National Housing Act and the project-based
assistance programs under section (d)(2) and the role of
responsible project owners under such programs.
(3) Role.--Under the program under this section, each
selected qualified liability manager shall assume, to the
maximum extent possible, the financial risk of the Secretary
for the mortgage insurance for one or more projects described
in subsection (d), and the responsibility for the
restructuring of the financial and physical condition of such
projects and the protection of the tenants residing in the
projects. In carrying out activities under this section, the
qualified liability managers shall--
(A) protect residents and communities by providing for
protections against displacement of existing residents under
subsection (f), for local government and community
involvement in the restructuring process, and for promotion
of the economic self-sufficiency of residents;
(B) before expiration of the section 8 contract on a
project described in subsection (d), act efficiently by
reducing the debt on the property to a level that can be
supported by market rents and concurrently reducing section 8
rents that are over market rents to market rents;
(C) act in a manner that respects the legal rights of
owners and lenders;
(D) when the owner has negotiated in good faith, act to
prevent defaults of the mortgages to the extent economically
practicable; and
(E) protect Federal taxpayers by ensuring that projects
that are restructured will be financially and physically
viable.
(4) Conditions on activities.--A qualified liability
manager may take one or more of the actions under paragraph
(5) to restructure the financial and physical condition of a
project described in subsection (d), only if the qualified
liability manager determines that such actions are
economically prudent and feasible.
(5) Authorized actions.--Except as provided in paragraphs
(4) and (6), and notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Secretary and a qualified liability manager may take the
following actions (except that a qualified liability manager
may take only actions under subparagraphs (C) through (F)) in
order to accomplish the goals of this section:
(A) Reinsurance and participation.--In order to transfer
the economic liability for the existing mortgage insurance on
the projects from the Secretary, to the maximum extent
possible, enter into contracts to purchase reinsurance, or
enter into participation or otherwise transfer economic
interest in contracts of insurance or in the premiums paid,
or due to be paid, on such insurance, or both, to the
qualified liability manager, on such terms and conditions as
the Secretary may determine.
(B) Delegation.--Delegate to the qualified liability
manager the authority to carry out some or all of the
functions and responsibilities of the Secretary in connection
with mortgages insured by the Secretary and with mortgages
held and properties owned by the Secretary.
(C) Consideration for participation.--From available
amounts, including amounts under subsection (i), enter into
such agreements, provide such concessions, incur such costs,
make such grants (including grants to cover all or a portion
of the rehabilitation costs for a project) and other
payments, and provide other valuable consideration, as may
reasonably be necessary to induce participation of owners,
lenders, servicers, third parties, and other entities in the
program under this section, taking into consideration any
accumulated residual receipts and reserves for replacements
for the project.
(D) Modification of restrictions.--Remove, relinquish,
extinguish, modify, or agree to the removal of any mortgage,
regulatory agreement, project-based assistance contract, use
agreement, or restriction that had been imposed or required,
including restrictions on distributions of income.
(E) Assignment.--In the event the Secretary or qualified
liability manager determines that, upon expiration of any
contract described in subsection (d)(2), the insured mortgage
would default, permit the mortgagee to elect to assign the
mortgage, make a full payment of claim under the National
Housing Act, thereby extinguishing any remaining insurance
risk of the Secretary.
(F) Property management and disposition.--Manage and
dispose of multifamily properties owned and multifamily
mortgages held, on such terms and conditions as may be
determined.
(6) Required consent.--In order to ensure that contract
rights are not abrogated, the actions authorized under
paragraph (5) shall be subject to such third party consents
as are necessary (if any), including consent by--
(A) the Government National Mortgage Association, in any
case in which such Association owns a mortgage insured by the
Secretary;
[[Page H6843]]
(B) an issuer under the mortgage-backed securities program
of the Government National Mortgage Association, subject to
the responsibilities of the issuer to its security holders
and the Association under such program; and
(C) parties to any contractual agreement which the
Secretary proposed to modify or discontinue.
(f) Rental Assistance.--
(1) Tenant-based assistance.--Except in the case of
projects subject to paragraph (2), in connection with the
termination of any assistance contract described in
subsection (d)(2) for a project, the Secretary or a qualified
liability manager shall provide tenant-based assistance under
section 8 to--
(A) each eligible family residing in the project at the
time the assistance under subsection (d)(2) terminates; and
(B) each household residing in the project that becomes
qualified as an eligible family within 12 months of such time
due to a rent increase.
Notwithstanding sections 8(c)(1) and 8(o)(1), in the case of
eligible families that reside in a project covered by one or
more actions under this section where the reasonable rent
(which rent shall include any amount allowed for utilities
and shall not exceed comparable market rents for the relevant
housing market area) exceeds the fair market rent limitation
or the payment standard, as applicable, the amount of
assistance under this subsection for the family shall be
determined based on such reasonable rent. For the certificate
program under section 8(b), the maximum monthly rent under
the contract (plus any amount allowed for utilities) shall be
such reasonable rent for the unit. For the voucher program
under section 8(o), the payment standard shall be deemed to
be such reasonable rent for the unit.
(2) Project-based assistance.--Notwithstanding paragraph
(1) of this section and the requirements of section 8(d)(2),
at the request of the appropriate unit of general local
government, the appropriate public housing agency shall
provide project-based assistance under section 8 for the
project in accordance with guidelines issued by the
Secretary.
(g) Effect on Other Authority.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to limit the Secretary's authority under
other provisions of law.
(h) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the
following definitions shall apply:
(1) Eligible family.--The term ``eligible family'' means an
individual or family--
(A) who qualifies as a very low-income family under section
3(b) of the United States Housing Act of 1937; or
(B) who--
(i) resides in a project to which the program under this
section applies;
(ii) qualifies as a low-income family (other than a very
low-income family) under section 3(b) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937, or, regardless of income, qualifies as
an elderly or disabled family under section 3(b) of such Act;
and
(iii) who, without section 8 assistance, would be required
to pay more than the amount determined under section 3(a)(1)
of the United States Housing Act of 1937 for rent for the
unit in which the eligible family resides (or in another unit
in the same project).
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development.
(3) Section 8.--The term ``section 8'' means section 8 of
the United States Housing Act of 1937.
(i) Funding.--For purposes of carrying out this section,
the Secretary may make available any amounts--
(1) from the appropriate insurance fund as otherwise
authorized under the National Housing Act and for activities
as authorized in this section; and
(2) recaptured from a project under the program in
connection with the termination, nonrenewal, or expiration of
a contract (A) under section 8, or (B) for interest reduction
payments under section 236 of the National Housing Act.
Sec. 205. Section 8 Contract Renewals.--(a) Authority.--For
fiscal year 1997 and fiscal years thereafter, the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development may use amounts available
for the renewal of assistance under section 8 of the United
States Housing Act of 1937, upon termination or expiration of
a contract for assistance under section 8 (other than a
contract for tenant-based assistance) to provide assistance
under section 8, at rent levels not to exceed the lesser of
(1) the rents in effect upon termination or expiration, or
(2) comparable market rents, for the eligible families
assisted under the contracts at expiration or termination
but, in no case may rents be increased to comparable market
rents. In the case of any project assisted under section 8,
not insured under the National Housing Act, and for which the
original primary financing was provided by a public agency
and remains outstanding, contract rents shall be renewed at
the rents in effect upon termination or expiration of the
contract. Such assistance shall be in accordance with terms
and conditions prescribed by the Secretary. The Secretary may
approve assisted rents in excess of market rents (but not
more than the rents in effect upon termination or expiration)
for a particular housing project, but only if the Secretary
finds that such market rents are not sufficient to cover
reasonable operating expenses (excluding debt service) for
that project, taking into account reasonable operating costs
for similar properties.
(b) Repeal.--The sentence immediately preceding section
8(w) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C.
1437f(w)) is hereby repealed.
Mr. LEWIS of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, to try to
expedite this process, I ask unanimous consent that sections 202, 203,
204 and 205 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to
amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order against this portion of
the bill?
Point of Order
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I have a rather extended
discussion of this point of order, but in view of the hour I will not
proceed with all of it, but let me start with this.
Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the legislation on
grounds that 204 and 205 constitute authorizing on an appropriations
measure and, therefore, violate clause 2 of rule XXI. These two
sections are clearly legislation and they are not protected by the
rule.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member desire to address the point of
order?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent
that the remainder of my statement be entered in the Record?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may not revise and extend his remarks on
a point of order.
The Chair is prepared to rule.
For the reasons stated by the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis],
the point of order is sustained. Sections 204 and 205 are stricken from
the bill.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. STOKES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to
strike legislation in this appropriations bill on HUD's Section 8
Program. Let me first acknowledge the hard work of the chairman on this
matter. He has stated throughout this process that he intended to move
this issue to the forefront of our deliberations and motivate the
authorizing committees to take action. The action he took in this
regard has, indeed, prompted the authorizers to move forward on
addressing this issue. I want to also commend HUD for aggressively
working to deal with this matter.
What Members and the public must realize is that this is not a
partisan issue. We must all be concerned about persons needing
affordable housing and how to provide adequate assistance. At the same
time, we must consider the impact that the costs of renewing these
contracts place on taxpayers and the budget.
I believe there is general agreement that HUD'S Section 8 Program is
in serious need of restructuring. However, if there is one thing I have
learned--from the long and numerous discussions on this matter--it is
that there is no unanimity of opinion on exactly how to proceed. My
basis of concern rests with ensuring that residents are protected from
displacement, that we maintain and preserve decent and affordable
housing, that communities and tenants have a strong role in
determination of these matters, and that the Federal Government not pay
inflated prices for these properties.
Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 1996 Appropriations Act included a
provision allowing the Secretary of HUD to conduct a demonstration
program re-engineering up to 15,000 units of section 8 assisted
housing. The Department is still studying this concept and no
regulations have been drafted yet for its implementation. That is
further reason for the committee to reconsider the appropriateness of
this proposal. The quality of too many lives is at stake, and there are
too many potential consequences for the American taxpayer, for Congress
to enact this provision in the appropriations act, without the full
weight and benefit of authorizing action.
I commend my chairman for his leadership on this matter and pledge my
support to work with him and others to achieve these goals. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment to delete this legislation from
the measure.
{time} 2315
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 206. Flexible Authority.--During fiscal year 1997 and
fiscal years thereafter, the Secretary may manage and dispose
of multifamily properties owned by the Secretary and
multifamily mortgages held by the Secretary on such terms and
conditions as the
[[Page H6844]]
Secretary may determine, notwithstanding any other provision
of law.
amendment offered by mr. weller
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Weller: Page 58, after line 19,
insert the following new section:
Sec. 207. FHA Mortgage Insurance Premiums.--Section
203(c)(2)(A) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.
1709(c)(2)(A)) is amended by inserting after the first
sentence the following new sentence: ``In the case of
mortgage for which the mortgagor is a first-time homebuyer
who completes a program of counseling with respect to the
responsibilities and financial management involved in
homeownership that is approved by the Secretary, the premium
payment under this subparagraph shall not exceed 2.0 percent
of the amount of the original insured principal obligation of
the mortgage.''
Mr. STOKES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of
order against the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read
and printed in the Record, and the point of order is reserved.
There was no objection.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to take a moment to
commend my two friends, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], for their extraordinary efforts
to accommodate bipartisan concerns in supporting legislation while
keeping our commitment to live within our means for the first time in
27 years, to keep us on the road to a balanced budget.
This amendment that I offer tonight is designed to help working
families by working to help make homeownership more affordable. My
amendment works to expand homeownership more affordable. My amendment
works to expand homeownership opportunities for first time home buyers
by working to lower the cost of FHA loans.
This amendment would lower the FHA mortgage insurance premium for
first time home buyers who get ownership counseling. Currently the
maximum rate is 2\1/4\ percent of their loan value. This amendment
would reduce that for these first-time home buyers to 2 percent. It
would save the average FHA homeowner about $200 in savings annually. I
recognize there are some in Washington who might call $200 chump
change, not much money. But for working families back in Illinois and
many of our home States and districts, $200 is a lot of money.
I also want to point out that this amendment is needed to promote
homeownership. I, for one, I know many of my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle agree that homeownership is important in strengthening
families and strengthening communities. In fact, the more homeownership
you have, the higher rates of homeownership you have, the stronger the
families you have, the stronger the communities.
I am particularly disturbed, if you look at the statistics today,
particularly for our younger families, homeownership is on the decline.
In fact, the homeownership rates among heads of households under 35
years of age is three-fourths of what it was in 1979. In fact in 1979,
45 percent of heads of households under 35 were homeowners. Today, in
fact, if you look at 1995 statistics, 39 percent of heads of households
under 35 were homeowners.
Those statistics need to turn around. We need to receive greater
opportunity for homeownership, to give families the opportunity to
pursue the American dream. Unfortunately, we have seen the cost of
homeownership increase this past year. Unfortunately, the House and
Senate, Congress and the White House were unfortunately unable to reach
a bipartisan agreement on a balanced budget.
Unfortunately, because of that failure to reach a balanced budget
agreement, we failed to achieve the lower interest rates that would
have resulted from a balanced budget. In fact, had a balanced budget
been signed into law, the average 30-year home mortgage would have
dropped about 2.7 percent according to economists. On a 30-year,
$50,000 mortgage at 8\1/4\ percent interest, a family would see a
savings of a little over $1,000 a year or a little over $32,000 over
the life of that loan. A balanced budget would also increase the value
of a home, home values, by 8 percent as a result of balancing the
budget.
This past year we have seen mortgage rates go up 1 to 1\1/2\ percent.
For the average homeowner, aspiring homeowner, young family who would
like to buy a house, that means about an $85 to $100 increase in the
monthly home mortgage payment because of higher interest rates.
This amendment is designed to restore those opportunities for
homeownership, particularly for young families. It offers young home
buyers, first-time purchasers the opportunity to better be able to
afford a new home. This $200-a-year premium reduction restores part of
that lost opportunity to save an extra thousand dollars because of
higher interest rates.
Increased ownership, homeownership equals increased home starts,
increased jobs, increased opportunity, strengthened families and
strengthened communities.
I do want to point out that this is kind of a bipartisan initiative.
I do want to point out that the President himself, just a few weeks
ago, endorsed this type of idea as a way to make homeownership more
affordable. I ask bipartisan support for this amendment. I think it is
time that we strengthen the opportunity for homeownership, that we
strengthen families, that we help families pursue the American dream.
Let us help families pursue that American dream by providing bipartisan
support for this amendment which will help make homeownership far more
affordable.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] wish to be
heard on the point of order.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against this
particular amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, my purpose for reserving the point of order is to
protect the rights of a couple of Members of the authorizing committee
who have expressed an interest in this particular amendment. They will
be here tomorrow. They are not here at this time because of the
arrangements that the House made relative to the continuation of the
debate on this bill.
I have no intention of insisting upon the point of order and hope
that the gentleman does not put me in a position of having to insist
upon it. I would request that, in order to preserve and protect the
rights of those Members of the authorizing committee who have expressed
concern about this amendment, he withdrew the amendment and offer it
tomorrow at such time as those Members will be present.
I reiterate that I have no intention of pressing the point of order
and simply use it for the purpose of protecting it. I would hope that
the gentleman would withdraw and reoffer it tomorrow.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STOKES. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from Ohio, of
course, like all of us we have stuck around tonight because this is an
important amendment. It is an opportunity to provide lower
homeownership costs, particularly for young families and first-time
home buyers.
All of use are working hard and willing to put in those extra hours.
I always respect the rights of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to speak on an amendment. Since you had raised that concern to me
earlier, of course, I spoke with the floor manager of the amendment and
I believe it is the chairman's intent, he would like to wrap up this
section of the bill this evening. I would hate to jeopardize the
opportunity to have this important amendment adopted and added to this
very important bill.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STOKES. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, in order to keep all of our
commitments, perhaps we would handle it this way. If it would meet with
the gentleman's agreement, it is possible that the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Weller] could offer this amendment as a part of general
provisions tomorrow and we could not only meet his needs and the
commitment through the concerns that others have expressed to the
gentleman regarding this amendment, we could also keep our commitment
to close this title.
[[Page H6845]]
I am concerned that we do that. Would the gentleman agree to have
unanimous consent that Mr. Weller be able to take this up in general
provisions tomorrow so we can finish with title II?
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, we would be pleased to cooperate with the
chairman in that respect and let him offer it at that time.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STOKES. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's interest in my
amendment and his accommodating my opportunity to offer the amendment
once again. I feel this is a very important amendment. The opportunity
to accommodate, of course, the chairman of the subcommittee and working
with the gentleman in his role as the ranking member, I do appreciate
the opportunity to offer the amendment. I an anxious to work with them.
I ask for the gentleman's support tomorrow when we have the opportunity
to once again offer the amendment.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the gentleman's
amendment. I just want to protect those Members. This accommodation
will be fine with me if it is fine with the gentleman.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment for the purpose of
offering it tomorrow during general provisions debate on this
particular bill, title IV.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of
order.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in anticipation of the Weller amendment
being before the House tomorrow in general debate. I rise in support of
that amendment that we will be discussing tomorrow at length because it
is going to expand homeownership opportunities.
There are many Americans who are one downpayment or one closing cost
away from becoming first-time home buyers. And by having more
homeowners in our communities, it will strengthen those communities. By
having more homes built, we create more jobs. There, after all, is the
American dream.
Alan Greenspan has told us about having a balanced budget. Interest
rates for the mortgages on those new homes will decrease. So I would
ask the Members, when they hear about further debate on the Weller
amendment tomorrow, that they will support it. Republicans, Democrats
together, House and Senate working together, this will strengthen our
communities. This will strengthen our families and, by reducing the
cost, Mr. Chairman, of the FHA mortgage insurance premium, the first-
time home buyers who receive ownership counseling by going from 2.25
percent to 2 percent, we would save the average FHA homeowner at least
$200 annually. This is a step in the right direction for first-time
home buyers.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
for yielding to me.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois for offering the
amendment. The notion is empowering first-time home buyers. I would
suggest, echoing the comments of my good friend from Pennsylvania, when
we think about the fact that this amendment would save the average FHA
homeowner about $200 in savings on an annual basis and, while we are
here talking about billions and indeed trillions of dollars, the fact
is sometimes lost upon us, I would suggest, that $200 is a significant
amount of money for first-time home buyers. And indeed, if the notion
of what we are here to do in this 104th Congress is to expand
opportunity, to empower first-time home buyers to lead to more home
sales and to expand homeownership opportunities, then I am glad to rise
in support of the amendment. I, too, look forward to its offering
tomorrow during the later debate on this amendment.
I look forward to supporting the amendment.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Arizona for his supportive comments of the Weller amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
``TITLE III--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES''
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do
now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Mica) having assumed the chair, Mr. Combest, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3666) 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, 1997, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution
thereon.
____________________