[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.

                          ____________________