Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 96 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 96 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H6859-H6905]
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 Committee resumed its sitting.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in order to lay the foundation very briefly for
a unanimous consent to inform the Members that we have somewhere in the
neighborhood of only 30 or 40 amendments left on this bill. There seems
to be some agreement coming together, and some of those hopefully will
fall off because of duplication and so forth.
But by way of expediting the time for the Members, I will be asking
unanimous consent for a 10-minute time limitation on a series of
amendments. So if the Members will bear with me, I ask unanimous
consent for a 10-minute time limit on the following amendments: one
amendment by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields]; one amendment
by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra]; one amendment by the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler]; one amendment by the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Durbin]; one amendment by the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]; similarly by the gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. Pallone]; two by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer]; one by
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker]; one by the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson]; all in title III.
It will be 10 minutes on a side.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask, the unanimous-consent agreement is
for 10 minutes total or 10 minutes on each side?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Ten minutes on a side.
The CHAIRMAN. On each amendment and all amendments thereto?
Mr. LEWIS of California. On each of those amendments mentioned and
amendments thereto, that is correct. Mr. Chairman, this will not
restrict other amendments being brought forth that have been filed. It
is on those specific areas.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
Mr. STOKES. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I do not
intend to object, but I would just pose a further question to the
gentleman from California. By 10 minutes per amendment, does the
gentleman mean each side, a total of 20 minutes on those that we agree
upon, is that correct?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield,
the gentleman is correct. I would almost desperately hope that neither
of us would want to take all that time.
Mr. STOKES. Time will also be controlled by the offerer and the
chairman, is that correct?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. chairman, the gentleman is correct.
Mr. Chairman, my staff helps me a little. I failed to recognize that
on this list as prepared that my own amendment is not on the list and
that needs to be included, as well. I think probably my staff wanted to
cut me off, but I know the gentleman would not want to do that.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. chairman, I certainly would not want to do that. I
would want the gentleman's amendment to be included.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I do so on behalf of myself, my colleague from New
York, Mr. Boehlert, in order to engage the gentleman from California,
Mr. Lewis, chairman of the VA-HUD Subcommittee, in a colloquy regarding
NASA's Mission to Planet Earth.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to engage in
a colloquy.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, as you know, Mission to Planet Earth is one

[[Page H6860]]

of NASA's most important and relevant programs. It will benefit our
environment by providing scientific information on global climate
change. It will benefit our economy by providing farmers with a better
understanding of how climatic conditions like El Nino can affect their
crops. I understand the budget constraints under which the subcommittee
must operate and commend the gentleman for the job he is doing within
them, but I am very concerned by the proposed $220 million cut in this
bill, especially in light of the National Research Council's recent
review of the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program and NASA's
Mission to Planet Earth, which stated that further budgetary cuts would
hurt Mission to Planet Earth.
Is the gentleman from California aware of this recommendation by the
National Research Council and does he agree with it?
Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentlewoman will yield, first I
appreciate the gentlewoman raising this subject.
I am indeed aware of the National Research Council's recommendation
which states that the program requires an adequate and stable level of
funding. I would like to ensure the gentlewoman and the House that I
agree with this recommendation and believe that Mission to Planet Earth
must have sufficient fiscal year 1997 funds to succeed.
As the gentlewoman knows, there is strong bipartisan support for
Mission to Planet Earth and its programs in the Senate. When we go to
conference with the Senate on the VA-HUD bill, I expect to spend a lot
of time dealing with this program.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate those remarks, and as the
chairman knows, I am particularly concerned about the near-term
components of the Earth observing system, EOS, including the P.M.-1 and
CHEM-1 missions.

{time} 1200

Does the chairman agree with the National Research Council that these
near-term components should be implemented without delay?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the NRC that the
program's first group of components should not be delayed. Neither this
bill nor its accompanying report instructs NASA to terminate or delay
these very important missions.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York, and I commend him
for his bipartisan leadership on issues such as this.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, like the gentlewoman from California, I
strongly support NASA's Mission to Planet Earth. I view this program as
a crucial piece of our Nation's commitment to environmental research
and development. I would like to emphasize that Mission to Planet Earth
is truly about science. As the chairman knows, the National Research
Council stated that the science underlining the U.S. Global Climate
Change Research Program and Mission to Planet Earth is fundamentally
sound.
Does the chairman agree with this assessment?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the National
Research Council that the program is scientifically sound. I believe
that we need Mission to Planet Earth to provide us with better
scientific understanding of global climate change. I believe that this
remote sensing data will help regulatory agencies make sound,
scientifically based risk assessments.
As I stated earlier, I support Mission to Planet Earth, and I will
keep this program in the forefront of my mind when we go to conference
with the Senate. I commend the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman]
and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and many others on both
sides of the aisle for their work in support of Mission to Planet
Earth.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank my friends for
their comments.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the
chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies of the
Committee on Appropriations, for agreeing to enter into this colloquy
on a very important matter.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to seek clarification of the committee's
intent with regard to the Clean Lakes Program. I note that the
committee report designates $100 million for the Clean Lakes Program
and specifically for section 319 projects under the Clean Water Act. I
would like to know if it is the intent of the committee to allow
section 314 projects to be funded from the $100 million designated for
section 319?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARR of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, it is the committee's intent
to allow for section 314 projects under the Clean Water Act to be
funded with the $100 million designated for the Clean Lakes Program.
In fact, the State is authorized to use any portion of the $100
million under the State and tribal grants heading for section 314
projects. It is vital that we allow States to set their own priorities
for specific lake water projects and, in fact, last year we granted
States the flexibility to set their own priorities for pollution
control projects most critical to that individual State.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, would the
chairman be willing to incorporate this clarification in report
language as the bill emerges from conference?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, I would be happy to work with the gentleman to incorporate
into the conference report a clarification of the committee's intent.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to engage in a colloquy
with the gentleman from California, Chairman Lewis, about the air
quality crisis in the Hunts Point area of the South Bronx, NY, where
there is a concentration of waste transfer and sewage treatment
facilities.
Mr. Chairman, I have been working closely with the Environmental
Protection Agency and the regional authorities about this air quality
crisis at Hunts Point over the past year. Over 43 waste transfer
facilities are located in the Hunts Point community area, and over 70
percent of New York City's sludge is processed in this area. Asthma and
respiratory illness in Hunts Point are higher than the city average.
Over 25 percent of the 1,100 students at Public School 48 have asthma
and are frequently hospitalized. In one first grade class alone 47
percent of the students have asthma and 33 percent have been
hospitalized.
Would the chairman agree that the Environmental Protection Agency
should continue to commit resources and work closely with my
congressional office and State and local officials to continue to
identify and, if possible, mitigate any environmental causes of this
problem?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, to my colleague from New York
I say that these types of local problems must be addressed, and EPA can
offer particular expertise and guidance in providing solutions. I
strongly urge, EPA to continue to work closely with him, as well as
with State and local officials, to resolve this problem as quickly as
practicable.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it would be helpful if
the Environmental Protection Agency made an effort to evaluate and
correlate the very specific air emissions that are present at the time
that health problems affecting the children in my congressional
district actually take place.
Would the chairman agree that the Environmental Protection Agency
should conduct air quality testing in conjunction with the occurrence
of specific health incidents during the next phase of testing?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield
further, the relationship between air quality problems and its impact
upon people's health is fundamental to all of

[[Page H6861]]

these efforts. The situation you describe certainly seems to fall
within EPA's particular expertise, and again, I join the gentleman in
encouraging EPA to review this matter and to bring to bear its own
expertise and resources along with the expertise resources of the State
and the local governments.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to enter into
a very brief colloquy with my distinguished colleague from California,
the chairman of the subcommittee.
The gentleman and I have had numerous discussions about the plight of
the Johns Manville site in Nashua, NH. This is an abandoned asbestos
manufacturing plant that poses a serious threat to the health and
public safety to the city of Nashua. The danger was evidenced when one
of the buildings on the site experienced a partial collapse of its
roof. Fortunately, the weight of the snow on top of the building
prevented the release of asbestos. Nevertheless, a recently issued
report indicates that any further collapse or fire at this site could
necessitate a full-scale evacuation of the area's residents.
Unfortunately, the cleanup cost analysis included in the recent
report was not available in time to seek funding for this project
through the normal committee process. The new report indicates that the
site should qualify for emergency funding and may require up to $5.3
million for the cleanup.
From previous conversations, I know the chairman understands the
importance of the project to my district. Therefore, I would like to
ask him if he and the committee can work with me to address this dire
situation.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BASS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I must say to the gentleman
that he certainly made me aware of this project and its problems and I
commend him for his hard work on this issue.
The committee is very much concerned and aware of the situation that
the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Bass] has described and we are
willing to pursue whatever avenue is available to address it.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
very much for his willingness to work on this matter.
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I seek recognition in order to engage the distinguished
chairman of the appropriations subcommittee in a colloquy.
I want to inquire of the subcommittee chairman with regard to the
bill before us, the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act
of 1997. Specifically, I am inquiring as to the committee's commitment
to alleviate the disproportionate financial burden on families and
businesses on the North Shore of Massachusetts due to the cost of
complying with the federally mandated Clean Water Act.
My district includes communities within the South Essex Sewage
District, known as SESD, which is in the midst of a funding crisis.
Families will soon face water and sewage rates in excess of $2,000 a
year to pay for federally imposed clean water mandates. The effects of
these rates on families will be devastating, and the rate of increase
may force some businesses to relocate elsewhere.
Also, the communities of Gloucester, Amesbury, Manchester By-the-Sea,
Rockport, Essex, Ipswich, Salisbury and Lynn are facing similar funding
crises.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TORKILDSEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from
Massachusetts has been diligent in making the subcommittee aware of the
severity of the water and sewer rates on the North Shore of
Massachusetts. To say the least, the gentleman does not exactly twist
my arm, but I am very aware of these problems.
Complying with the Clean Water Act is a costly endeavor. I would
assure the gentleman this committee is committed to alleviating the
financial burdens associated with the Clean Water Act which are passed
down from the Federal Government to families and businesses throughout
the country, but particularly in his area the severity of this
challenge is great.
Accordingly, we have placed $1.35 billion in the State revolving
fund. Due to budget constraints, the subcommittee was challenged to
provide minimum funding this year, let alone funding for new starts.
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I wish to thank the
chairman for his leadership on this issue. I am concerned, however,
whether the subcommittee's policy precludes the chair from working with
the other body in the conference committee to secure additional funds
for some worthy new starts.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will further
yield, I would answer your question by saying it simply indicates how
serious the gentleman is about pursuing this matter.
Clearly, the other body is entitled to raise whatever issues it
chooses in our upcoming conference, and I expect the Clean Water Act
mandate funding to be addressed. When the issue be raised, I can assure
my colleague I will work with the gentleman to find a solution to the
problems of water and sewer mandates on the North Shore of
Massachusetts.
Furthermore, I will recommend to the conference committee that should
additional funds become available priority be given to water and sewer
projects, including SESD and the others the gentleman has made
reference to on the North Shore of Massachusetts.
I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for bringing this issue to
the committee's attention and in particular the personal time he has
spent write me.
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the
distinguished chairman, and my friend and colleague for clarifying this
most important point. I look forward to working with him in the
upcoming conference.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies of the Committee on
Appropriations in a colloquy regarding language to encourage the
establishment of an outpatient VA clinic in Gainesville, GA.
This is an area located in rural Hall County, and there are close to
10,000 veterans who must travel over 200 miles to receive services at
the VA hospital in Atlanta. This language was included under an
amendment No. 4 to the statement of the managers in the conference
report on VA-HUD appropriations in fiscal year 1996, that being H.R.
2099.
I would ask the distinguished chairman if the committee would
continue to encourage the outpatient VA clinic be established in
Gainesville, GA?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with my
colleague from Georgia in this colloquy, and I want to say to the
gentleman that I am very sensitive about the problems in Gainesville as
well as the problems of veterans who live in rural America.
The gentleman may know that my own district is very much a rural
district. In fact, in the desert portion of my territory we can
comfortably fit four Eastern States, so I am acutely aware of the
distances veterans must travel for care.
Please be assured that the committee continues to want to help
veterans in rural areas and will continue to encourage the VA to
establish an outpatient clinic in Gainesville, GA.
Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of
the subcommittee, the gentleman from California.
Mr. Chairman, I would first like to applaud the chairman of the
subcommittee for the excellent work he has done in crafting a very
balanced bill. However, I am concerned that this year's bill before the
House does not include funding for the wastewater operator training
grants under section 104(g) of the Clean Water Act.

[[Page H6862]]

As the chairman knows, this is a program that provides assistance to
small communities to help them comply with the demands of the Clean
Water Act. I have supported this program in the past and continue to be
supportive. I ask the chairman, is it his intent that the
administration should continue this program within the funds provided
in this bill?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BUNN of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes, it is my
intent that the administration continue with this program.
Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman for that clarification.
If the other body specifically includes funding for the program,
would the distinguished chairman consider accepting the other body's
recommendation?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, I very much appreciate the gentleman bringing forward this
colloquy, and I want to assure the gentleman that I will not oppose
funding for the program if the other body provides it. We are working
very closely with the committee in the other body on this matter and
matters that are similar.
Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the
chairman for his assistance on this issue. It is greatly appreciated.

{time} 1215

Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to thank the distinguished
subcommittee chairman and my good friend, the gentleman from California
[Mr. Lewis], and the other members of the subcommittee for their hard
work and tireless dedication to producing a bill that is fiscally
responsible and good for America's veterans.
This 1997 VA, HUD appropriation bill fulfills a bipartisan
commitment, a long-standing bipartisan commitment to the northern
California veterans who served our country in the armed services.
Specifically, the bill provides for phased construction of a
replacement VA medical center at Travis Air Force Base located in
Fairfield, CA, in my congressional district. As the gentleman, Mr.
Lewis, knows, there is a great need for an additional acute care
medical facility in northern California as a result of the closure of
the veterans medical center facility in Martinez, CA, after the 1989
earthquake. Northern California veterans should be able to obtain the
necessary medical care within their designated catchment area, and that
northern California catchment area includes 400,000-plus military
veterans.
Currently the same veterans have to drive up to 8 hours to the
nearest medical facility. Last year in the face of severe budgetary
pressures and in view of our commitment as the new congressional
majority to balancing the Federal budget in 7 years or less, the
Congress appropriated $25 million for a state-of-the-art outpatient
clinic at Travis Air Force Base to be located adjacent to the David
Grant Medical Center Air Force Hospital.
I viewed these funds as a place holder, an adequate first step that
would provide a foundation for additional funding for phased
construction of the replacement hospital. The VA will build the
replacement hospital adjacent to the existing military hospital at
Travis Air Force Base and it will be a coventure between the VA and the
Department of Defense. The plan is innovative and an ideal choice since
much of the infrastructure is already in place and these two facilities
will be able to share medical technology and other high-cost services.
As a veteran myself, I wholly understand the sacrifices made by
veterans and their families while serving our country. The replacement
VA medical center at Travis represents the fulfillment of a 6-year-old
commitment spanning the last two Presidential administrations. The
effort to replace the Martinez facility has enjoyed broad bipartisan
support in the Congress.
At this time I would like to confirm my understanding with the
distinguished subcommittee chairman that funding for phased
construction of the replacement VA medical center at Travis Air Force
Base in the fiscal year 1997 VA, HUD appropriations bill is at $57.1
million and that would be the $25 million from fiscal year 1996,
reprogrammed for the replacement hospital, plus an additional $32.1
million in this bill.
I also wish to confirm that this will provide the Veterans'
Administration with full first-year funding to begin phased
construction of the hospital.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I must say to the gentleman, I
very much appreciate the opportunity to enter into this colloquy with
him regarding this very important matter.
The gentleman may be aware of the fact that over 20 years ago, as a
result of another earthquake, a major VA hospital that collapsed in
southern California. The replacement hospital is located in an area
that serves both my district and the district of Congressman George
Brown and others in southern California. This facility is very
important to veterans who live in rural communities, similar to the
long distances that Mr. Deal was talking about earlier.
It is important for the gentleman to know that, the House as well, to
know that there is indeed $57.1 million between the fiscal year 1997
and 1996 VA, HUD appropriations bills to begin phased construction of
the replacement hospital at Travis Air Force Base. This subcommittee
remains and will continued to be committed to fully funding and
completing construction of the replacement Travis Hospital.
I also want to emphasize to my colleague that funding for this
hospital at Travis is included in this bill because, to say the least,
Mr. Riggs has been waging a highly intensive campaign on its behalf.
Furthermore, that full-phased construction of the Travis Hospital would
not be possible, if a place holder for funding had not been adopted by
way of a clinic, as we did our work in 1996.
This is a very, very difficult time in terms of funding availability.
Earthquake replacement hospitals seem logical but, nonetheless, my
colleague has had to struggle because of very scarce dollars. Yet those
people who we are committed to serve, especially in rural areas, to
deserve this kind of response. I salute the gentleman for his tenacity
and dedication as a tireless advocate for his district and northern
California veterans.
Mr. RIGGS. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman.
I include for the Record a newspaper letter to the editor entitled
Saluting the Real Heroes in the Drive for a VA Hospital.

[From the Vacaville Reporter, June 22, 1996]

Saluting the Real Heroes in the Drive for a VA Hospital

Reporter Editor: This is in response to a letter to the
editor (The Reporter, June 1) in which the writer states he
is not one of Kelli Eberle's veterans and that Congressman
Frank Riggs was not effective in obtaining funding for the
Department of Veterans Affairs Hospital at Travis Air Force
Base.
Few have worked longer or harder at securing funding for
the VA hospital than Frank Riggs and his efforts at securing
funding within his own party have finally been successful.
I would like to ask the writer the following questions:
When is the last time you wrote a letter or called your
representative in support of the VA hospital?
When was the last time you attended an Operation VA
meeting?
In addition to his efforts in Congress, Frank Riggs has
also been in constant contact with Solano County veterans.
The real heroes are: Art Jarrett and Robert Fletcher of the
American Legion, who have written thousands of letters and
made hundreds of phone calls to veterans organizations and
representatives, lobbying for the VA hospital; the city of
Fairfield, for having the courage to spend money in support
of this project; and the people of Operation VA, who have
spent the last four years working and lobbying for the VA
hospital.
For the record, one of the most active advocates of the VA
hospital is Kelli Eberle. I, and the 30-plus signers of this
letter, am proud to have Kelli refer to me as one of ``her
veterans.''
Jeffrey L. Jewell,
President, United Veterans Memorial Association, plus 30-
plus signers.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] be permitted to offer
amendment number 54 on page 64, line 4, a portion of the bill not yet
read.

[[Page H6863]]

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.

amendment offered by mr. hostettler

Mr. HOSTETTLER. 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. Hostettler: Page 64, after line 4,
insert the following new item:

elimination of funding for corporation for national and community
service

Each amount appropriated or otherwise made available by
this title for ``Corporation for National and Community
Service'' is hereby reduced to $0.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the committee of today, the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] will be recognized for 10
minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler].
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent
Agencies and the distinguished ranking member for allowing me to
proceed out of order.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today on behalf of taxpayers and concerned
citizens in my district and across the country, to appeal to my
colleagues to help me defend a wasteful bureaucracy. In addition, there
is an even more basic principle at issue here that I will touch on in a
moment.
Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment to eliminate funding for
AmeriCorps and its office of inspector general.
Now before I go any further in explaining my amendment, I want to
remind everyone in this Chamber of a very important fact. When the VA/
HUD appropriations bill came to the floor last year--it came without
any funding for the AmeriCorps Program.
In fact, the VA/HUD appropriations bill also passed the Senate--
without any funding for the AmeriCorps Program. It was only in the
final omnibus appropriations bill, which was passed and signed into
law, that we funded AmeriCorps.
Let's not allow our appropriations bills to be held captive again in
order to fund a program that goes against the best interests of this
country's fiscal health and our children's future.
I would also like to remind the Members in this Chamber and the
American people, that when President Clinton signed into law the
National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, he created one of the
largest so-called volunteer service bureaucracies in history--that is,
AmeriCorps.
Not only does this program compete with depression-era programs in
size, it also competes with the Pentagon in examples of outrageous
spending, such as $900 hammers, and the NEA in ludicrous granting of
funds.
AmeriCorps was founded upon President Clinton's idea of a new kind of
public-private partnership--whereby the Government splits community
service costs with the private sector. However, a 1995 GAO audit found
that the agency received little support from the private sector, and
instead relied heavily upon public support.
Less than 12 percent of the program's per-participant costs were
leveraged from the private sector.
The remaining 88 percent, $309 million in 1994, was funded by the
taxpayers.
The same GAO report shows annual costs can range from about $22,200
to as high as $66,715 per participant.
It isn't surprising then that the GAO audit finds volunteers working
for Federal agencies cost the public an average of $31,000 each.
I find it quite a paradox that we are paying individuals to volunteer
for the Federal Government.
I would also like to share with the rest of America what they don't
always get to hear: That is, AmeriCorps promotes a politically correct
agenda, earning it the name ``P.C. Corps'' by the Washington Monthly.
Taxpayers may be shocked to know that AmeriCorps recruits volunteers
such as former gang members and ex-convicts to engage in activities
such as teaching sex education to children, providing HIV courses to
sixth-graders, and using methods such as a soft-core porn novel to
teach character development.
Moreover, after my colleague, Mr. Hoekstra, discovered in
congressional hearings that much of AmeriCorps' books were unauditable,
the House Opportunities Committee began to investigate.
Oddly enough, the committee found a number of questionable grants,
including a $400,000 grant to the AFL-CIO to provide financial
management training to AmeriCorps grantees.
And although the act which established the program clearly states
that no funding or participant shall be used to directly benefit any
partisan political organization, AmeriCorps has predictably funded
liberal advocacy groups.
I wonder if the people know that part of a $1.2 million grant to a
local coalition in Denver was used to require AmeriCorps members to
distribute campaign-related leaflets opposing a city councilman's re-
election bid? Fortunately for the taxpayers, this grant was withdrawn
after reports surfaced.
Such flagrant use of taxpayers' dollars does not even take into
account that AmeriCorps volunteers often can be seen at administration
photo-ops and media events, bearing their now familiar grey AmeriCorps
T-shirts and cheering for President Clinton and Vice President Gore.
It's no wonder that the President supports this program, Mr. Chairman.
But there is a larger issue at work here, too. How long do we allow
the Federal Government to wrestle away the power of the people to join
together out of civic virtue in order to meet our communities' needs?
At what costs to society and liberty do we allow the Federal
Government to demean the entire ideal of citizenship by paying workers
to volunteer?
My friend, Balint Vazsonyi says, ``The spirit of voluntarism is being
choked by coercion.'' Mr. Chairman, I couldn't agree more. Our
Government wants to replace active civic compassion with coercive
community service programs.
We need to support the kind of civic virtue that promotes private
voluntarism--not the kind that is bought with Federal tax dollars by a
government that crushes the spirit of citizenship and undermines the
value of personal and civic responsibility.
Finally, with soaring budget deficits and a more than $5 trillion
national debt, I am standing up for the taxpayers who cannot support
such a proposition any longer.
I believe it was Representative Hoekstra who wrote in regard to
AmeriCorps: ``Like many Washington programs, good intentions and bad
philosophy equal wasted money and disappointing results.'' Mr.
Chairman, AmeriCorps boils down to nothing more than a Federal jobs
program. It must be eliminated on the basis of economics and principle.
That is why I am asking all of my colleagues to support this
amendment to eliminate AmeriCorps funding.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member who seeks recognition in opposition
to the amendment?
The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield half of my
time to the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California
[Mr. Lewis].
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment to
take all of the money out of the AmeriCorps program. I think we made
substantial progress this year by putting this money in and avoiding
the veto that we received last year of this legislation. This is a
program that the President has initiated. It is a program that he feels
is a national program to help the young people of this Nation be active
in terms of the kind of jobs that they perform on behalf of the Nation,
and they proceed to acquire their educations.

[[Page H6864]]

I think it is important for us to look at the fact that this is a
bipartisan program. I think AmeriCorps takes a great deal of pride in
the fact that it is bipartisan. Two-thirds of the AmeriCorps programs
are chosen by governor-appointed State commissions, three-fifths of
which are headed by Republicans to address local needs.
It is a program that works. An evaluation of the AmeriCorps programs
found that just one-tenth of AmeriCorps members taught 23,641 students,
tutored 24,867 individuals, mentored 14,878 youth, helped 2,551
homeless people find shelter, planted more than 210,000 trees,
collected, organized, and distributed 974,103 pounds of food and 5,000
pounds of clothes, developed and distributed 38,546 sets of information
about drug abuse, street safety, health care, and other issues.

{time} 1230

They also ran violence prevention, after-school programs for 49,632
youth, performed energy audits for more than 18 million square feet of
buildings, levied 69,369 hours of service by unstipended volunteers.
In additional to it, I think one of the factors that is very
important is that a recent 1995 GAO report concluded that AmeriCorps
almost tripled the amount it was required to raise from noncorporation
sources in its first year. Congress directed AmeriCorps programs to
raise $31 million. They raised $91 million. Of this amount, $41
million, a figure more than the amount required from all sources, came
from the private sector alone. We think this financial support proves
that leaders at the local level across the country feel that AmeriCorps
is an effective way to meet the needs of their communities.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know of any greater investment that we can
have than the amount of money we are putting into investing in the
young people of this country. They are the future of this country. As
we move into the year 2000, the 21st century, it seems to me that we
ought to be doing more to equip our young people for the future
leadership that we are going to give them for this country.
I would urge the Members to reject the gentleman's amendment and vote
``no'' on the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
My colleagues, I must say that this is the first occasion, at least
in my recollection, that I have seen the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Hostettler] present an amendment on the floor, at least on one of my
bills. I must say, as I was watching him make that presentation, he
reminded me of one of my brothers, and I wondered what he was doing
here, a younger brother, I might mention, Mr. Hostettler.
Unfortunately, for that and other reasons, I rise reluctantly to oppose
the amendment by my colleague.
I do realize that not all the Members of the House support the
AmeriCorps program. There are a couple of other potential amendments
that would impact funding of the corporation as well. I know that
Members may differ as to why they do not support the AmeriCorps
program.
I personally have felt from our first involvement in this program
that we needed to carefully evaluate its effectiveness. We are in the
midst of trying to continue to move forward on that evaluation at this
very moment. I believe the program has merit and deserves a chance to
prove itself. I am also very sensitive to some of the questions that
have been raised by my colleague. He particularly mentioned one that
involved campaign activity, which I must say, if it did actually take
place, would be against the law. I am sure the corporation is not
advocating that sort of activity. However, some young person could have
found themselves in excess, and we want to review that sort of activity
with great care.
As stated in a committee report, there is need for a further
independent evaluation of this program. But lack of further evaluation
does not warrant eliminating the program, at least at this point.
I also believe that Senator Wofford, who is making beneficial
modifications to the program, has provided a good deal of energy and
time, not just working on the program, but communicating to us about
his efforts. Zeroing out the funding for the Corporation for National
and Community Service simply ignores the experience of this past year.
There is no way that I can see where this bill can be signed into law
without funding for the corporation. I mean it made the bill veto bait
doing the fiscal year 1996 debate.
So let me suggest to my colleagues that there are two points here.
First, the House has been very responsive to the work of the committee
dealing with a very, very difficult series of Federal responsibilities,
balancing one program or agency against another. At this point in time,
I don't believe that we should inject an item that would very likely
lead to a veto of all this work. It does not matter to me specifically
in terms of the level of funding, but indeed to zero out the program
would help none of us in the final analysis.
We have been down this road before; I do not wish and do not believe
the leadership wants to have last year's fight all over again. Mr.
Stokes and I both want this bill to be signed. I think it is a bill the
President will be able to sign when we get through the conference, and
so I urge the Members on that basis and others to vote ``no'' on this
amendment.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].
(Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, this is a program that, I think, is a
little misguided. It is a failed Government program. It does follow the
liberal mantra of the need for perceived voluntarism in America.
Whenever there is a problem, let us come up with a program, and once
again we have done that with our Federal Government. But it sends such
a confusing message.
The American College Dictionary says a volunteer is someone, and I
quote, someone who does charitable work or helpful work without pay,
end of quote. Well, AmeriCorps pays people even while there are 89.2
million Americans, according to the independent survey conducted in
1994, 89.2 million Americans 18 and over volunteer about 4.2 hours per
week, and yet we have a program here that pays volunteers $31,000 per
year. That is $15.65 per hour. It includes health insurance; it
includes a stipend to go to college. It is not the type of voluntarism
that is the American tradition.
It also takes money away from programs that could be very valuable
like Pell grants or like money for volunteers. People have actually
risked their lives for this country, and yet they get better benefits
by being a paid volunteer. And where do these people work? Well, 1,200
of these AmeriCorps volunteers are at the Department of Ag, 525 are at
the Interior Department, 210 at the Justice Department, 135 at the EPA,
60 at the National Endowment for the Arts.
Another example is the political activity during the Summer of
Safety, quote unquote, program in San Francisco. They were out there
campaigning against the three strikes and you're out provision in the
crime bill.
This is what President Clinton called citizenship at its best. I
think most taxpayers disagree.
Although I respect the goals of the young men and women who are
involved in the AmeriCorps, I admire the other 89.2 million Americans
who truly volunteer without pay. They volunteer their time, they
volunteer their energy and their spirit. Let us not fool ourselves and
the American people into believing that AmeriCorps has anything to do
with true voluntarism or true citizenship.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a commitment to both true spirit of
voluntarism and to reducing the Federal deficit. I support its
adoption.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we be given 10
additional minutes to be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN. Five minutes on each side?

[[Page H6865]]

Mr. STOKES. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], ranking member of the Committee
on Commerce.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the idea of terminating AmeriCorps is
perhaps appealing if one does not know the issues, but it is very
dangerous and unwise if the facts are analyzed which are involved here.
Thousands of young Americans have been educated and benefited by
this; enormous public good has been achieved by the program. The
program is cost effective. It pays back better than $1.54 to $3.90 for
every dollar that is invested. It has generated thousands of volunteer
hours by nonparticipants. It has come in well below the costs per
participants, better than a thousand dollars less per participant. It
raised $41 million in the private sector during the first year alone.
This is something which appeals to Republican Governors. Governor
Engler, Governor Weld, Governor Wilson, Governor Merrill all support
AmeriCorps. Religious groups, the Catholic Network of Volunteer
Service, the Episcopal Church, Aguda Israel of America and more support
AmeriCorps. Corporations like General Motors, IBM, Microsoft, American
Express, Nike, Tenneco, Bell South, U.S. Health Care, Home Depot
support AmeriCorps. Even the wives of our Presidential candidates,
Hillary Clinton and, to my Republican colleagues I would observe,
Elizabeth Dole, support this program.
In Michigan alone it has stimulated the creation of some 13 major
programs. Better than 400 participants a year are involved in this, and
the work on behalf of the State of Michigan has been productive indeed.
Why then would we want to terminate a program which is showing such
tremendous success on behalf of the people? Why would we want to
terminate a program which has such widespread beneficial consequences
and such enthusiastic support of prominent and responsible Americans? I
cannot conceive of a reason. Perhaps someone can better that.
I urge rejection of the amendment.
Mr. HOSTETTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen].
Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment
because I strongly support balancing the Federal budget by ending
wasteful Government spending.
Mr. Chairman, the AmeriCorps Program is just that, a wasteful
Government program. The Hostettler amendment will end the boondoggle
that the AmeriCorps Program has stood for, and I believe it will end it
once and for all.
We have worked very hard to balance the budget these last 2 years,
and I do not believe that we have a dime to spare for the feel good
programs that do not really have any purpose. Ending AmeriCorps is the
right thing to do.
Let us look at the facts. AmeriCorps costs the U.S. taxpayer a
breathtaking $600 million a year. That is over $21,000 a year per
volunteer, with more than half the money drained away by the bloated
administrative costs.
What do grantees get out of this? Well, besides a very heartwarming
experience they could do for free, they get $5,000 toward their college
education. Well, I am all in favor of encouraging college education,
which is why my Republican colleagues and I voted to increase the
student loan program, but AmeriCorps manages to spend $21,000 to give
young people a $5,000 grant for college. Well, would it not make more
sense just to hand over the $5,000 without spending the other $16,000?
Instead, President Clinton, instead of cutting this program, he wants
to expand it. Yes, he would like to spend $6 billion over the next 5
years expanding this program.
Well, Mr. Chairman, the Corporation for the National Service, which
oversees the AmeriCorps Program, spends millions of dollars for
contracts to provide, quote, training to its grantees. Who does that
training? Well, a $400,000 contract to the AFL-CIO, the big Washington
labor bosses who provide the financial management training. Well, how
interesting. From this program alone our Nation is handing out $400,000
to the labor bosses who are trying to buy Congress for themselves and
the liberals that they favor. No wonder the President and his liberal
followers enjoy the AmeriCorps Program so much. It doles out money to
liberal groups that lobby for his reelection and for his liberal
policies.
An editorial entitled ``AmeriCorps Programs Should End,'' in my local
paper, the Omaha World-Herald, put it best. It says the program will
teach a new contingent of young Americans the glories of landing on the
public payroll, thereby carrying on a Democratic tradition of more
Government, more benefits, and more make-work jobs. That is the
editorial out of the Omaha World Herald, July 18, 1995.

The article is as follows:

[From the Omaha World Herald, July 18, 1995]

AmeriCorps Program Should End

Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa has looked again at the
numbers behind President Clinton's AmeriCorps program and
come to an inescapable conclusion: The program should be
ended.
It is a costly boondoggle. It costs an average of $27,000
for each volunteer, Grassley said, using figures from the
General Accounting Office. More than half the spending is on
administration.
The five-year program consumers $600 million a year,
Grassley said, and involves 20,000 ``volunteers,'' who are
paid a salary and provided medical benefits, child care and
tuition waivers. They are assigned to government agencies or
nonprofit organizations. Clinton has said he wants the
program to expand every year until 100,000 people are
enrolled. He has estimated the cost at $6 billion over five
years.
All that to deliver a college-tuition certificate worth
less than $5,000 to each participant. If the goal were merely
to hand out tuition money, it could obviously be achieved
more efficiently by putting the money in an envelope and
mailing it to anyone who managed to be accepted by a college
or university.
As government programs go, this one is spectacularly
inefficient and breathtakingly expensive.
Defenders contend that the program has much more to it than
merely the distribution of tuition assistance. It is intended
to ``re-knit community,'' they contend, although exactly how
the program will re-knit anything has yet to be explained.
More probably, the program will teach a new contingent of
young Americans the glories of landing on the public payroll,
thereby carrying on the Democratic tradition of more
government, more benefits and more make-work jobs.
But taxpayers seem to be getting tired of all that. Witness
what happened Nov. 8 to the make-up of both the House and the
Senate. So Congress may have a better idea about whether re-
knitting communities with a national service corps should be
among the highest priorities.
Facts such as those highlighted by Grassley provide
effective ammunition against the program. It only remains for
Congress to consider again the message that voters conveyed
so emphatically last November--and then act on it.

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment because it makes the right
choice in ending a wasteful Government program. That is the necessary
step in our fight for a balanced budget.

As my colleagues know, it would be nice to turn volunteers back into
what they originally were meant to be, and that is a volunteer, and as
the gentleman from Wichita, KS [Mr. Tiahrt] said, a volunteer is
someone who works without pay.

{time} 1245

Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gene Green].
(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
Hostettler amendment.
Mr. Chairman, my colleague's amendment is misguided and shortsighted.
We should be engaged in expanding AmeriCorps, not in its elimination.
Almost 3 years ago, when Congress created the AmeriCorps Program, we
expected great things from national service. The Congress expected
AmeriCorps to help communities meet their public service needs with
real results.
We expected AmeriCorps to unite individuals from different
backgrounds in the common effort to improve our communities.
We expected AmeriCorps to encourage its members to explore and
exercise their responsibilities to their communities, their families,
and themselves.

[[Page H6866]]

Today, almost 2 years after the first 20,000 AmeriCorps members hit
the field in over 1,000 communities across the country, the Corporation
for National Service and its AmeriCorps Program has met every one of
these expectations. And in many cases, it's exceeded them.
The essence of the Republican opposition lies in the fact that they
don't want to support something so closely identified with President
Clinton, especially something that's been proven as successful as
AmeriCorps. Mr. Hostettler, and the rest of my Republican colleagues
know that the President will veto this bill if this amendment passes.

I believe that the attacks on AmeriCorps are not based on merit. In
1995, the General Accounting Office reported on the status the National
Service programs.
In the GAO's year-long review of AmeriCorps the GAO confirmed the
corporation's statements about its funding for each AmeriCorps member.
The GAO said that the corporation's resources total about $17,600 per
member. In testimony before the Congress earlier this year, the
corporation projected its costs at approximately $18,800 per member.
This is precisely in line with what the Congress directed the program
to spend. The GAO also saw accomplishments that are consistent with the
purpose of the national service legislation, concluding that AmeriCorps
is fulfilling the mission we gave it in all of its detail and
complexity.
Finally, the GAO's figures show that the AmeriCorps programs have far
exceeded anyone's expectations regarding their ability to raise
nontaxpayers' dollars to support their programs. Congress told
AmeriCorps that it had to meet our commitment to national service with
$31 million in locally based matching funds this year. From the private
sector alone, the AmeriCorps programs raised $41 million. Every cent of
this money came from private donations--not taxpayer dollars--from
individuals and over 600 companies and foundations. The decision on
whether or not to continue national service will tell us a lot about
ourselves. We should put partisan politics aside. Let's work together
to continue to provide young people an opportunity to help themselves,
as they help our communities and learn service as a way of life.
AmeriCorps has kept its promise to the American people. The Congress
should, too.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], a member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I
think it is noteworthy that this is being sponsored and spoken for
primarily by the freshman Republicans in this House of Representatives.
Those who have followed their agenda over the last year and a half will
not be surprised that they would come out for an amendment to end
AmeriCorps.
This amendment is mean-spirited. This amendment is cynical. This
amendment says to young men and women who are willing to give a year or
two of their lives in public service for the lowest wages, with the
chance at the end of it that they will get a $5,000 scholarship, they
are saying that this is wasteful. Wasteful. Wasteful, that these young
men and women would take the personal responsibility for their own
lives and futures, and be willing to give back to this country?
Mr. Chairman, this is the same spirit that motivated the Peace Corps
under President Kennedy, to say to young men and women, step forward,
serve your country, do something, and we will be proud of you, and you
will be proud of your experience. But these freshman Republicans will
hear none of that. For them, it is a liberal boondoggle. They have
forgotten, many of them, how many times they have had to turn to the
Government for college student loans.
We should vote against this amendment and stand up for the idealism
that this program represents.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].
(Mr. HOEKSTRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan, asked us to
give one reason why AmeriCorps should be eliminated. I can think of
many. Perhaps let us go back to what the President said he was going to
give us when he promised us AmeriCorps: a well-run, businesslike
program; a national service corporation which will run like a big
venture capital outfit, not like a bureaucracy.
This year we had oversight hearings. We had oversight hearings
because we asked Arthur Andersen, the auditors who took a look at
AmeriCorps, to tell us what they found. Over $300 million of taxpayer
funding per year. The auditors came back and said this corporation that
was going to be the benchmark for the private sector, the corporation
lacks strong management controls, the corporation lacks data integrity,
the corporation lacks data security, the corporation has failed to
segregate accounting duties, the corporation lacks budgetary controls,
the corporation could not prepare reliable financial statements. The
bottom line: The benchmark of Government service is a program whose
books are not auditable.
Mr. Chairman, stopping a program like that is not mean-spirited; it
is realistic, and it is being good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars.
The problem with AmeriCorps is, yes, those radical Republican freshmen,
they have a vision for service. They know what makes America great. The
authentic American spirit is, in 1993, 89.2 million American adults
volunteered in this country. They gave on an average of 4.2 hours per
week, or 19 billion hours of total service, with an estimated value of
$182 billion.
Americans also contributed $126 billion in charitable causes. This is
in addition to the $324 billion the American people spent on assistance
to the poor in Federal, State, and local taxes. We have a great
volunteer spirit.
The problem in Washington, Mr. Chairman, is that we think Washington
defines voluntarism. We believe that the bureaucracies on Independence
Avenue, which is more like Dependence Avenue, that they are better
equipped to define volunteers; that this faceless bureaucrat in
Washington can better define what needs to happen at the local level in
voluntarism; that we ask American taxpayers not to send money to
charities directly, because they cannot make that decision, send it to
Washington so we can make that decision for them, so we can be the
bureaucrat that says, ``This charity in your community deserves
support. This one does not.''
End this program. Move decisionmaking back to where it should be,
back to the local citizens, back to the taxpayers. Let them decide
which charities to support, not the Federal Government, which cannot
even keep its own books.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer].
(Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in order to offer a different
perspective on the same set of hearings we just heard commented about.
The amendment, which would eliminate funding for AmeriCorps, ignores
the steps that have been taken to answer the concerns that have been
raised and that were investigated at that series of hearings. We heard
about the progress to correct the shortcomings. While I initially
shared many of the concerns we have heard discussed here about cost
overruns or potential political abuses, we have found that even the
strongest critics from the other body have worked out a 10-point
program which the director presented at these hearings to deal with the
AmeriCorps Program and to strengthen its administration, based on its
start-up experience.
We had hearings on the financial standards, and in fact the director
came in and made a commitment to working with the inspector general,
with the auditors, Arthur Andersen and Williams, Adley, to correct its
financial weakness. In fact, one of the opponents to this, one of the
critics of the program from the Financial Executives Institute at this
hearing gave away his time and decided not to use his prepared
statement after hearing the director's testimony. Instead, he offered
his assistance to the Corporation for National Service, based on the
trust that he had seen pledged there.
``I think there is a sincere desire to do this now,'' he said, to
work this out, ``and I will pledge whatever resources my committee and
FEI has to help the organization achieve what is within reach,'' and
that is a clean audit. But do not leave it to me to suggest this.
Let me just close by suggesting what the Governor of Massachusetts,
Republican Bill Weld, said of AmeriCorps: ``It

[[Page H6867]]

is a fine deal all the way around, and possibly one of the most
intelligence uses of taxpayer dollars ever.''
In the words of Republican Governor John Engler of Michigan, he said,
``AmeriCorps captures the promise found in all citizens, young and old,
who see the problem in their communities and work together to solve
those problems.'' This is community-driven, community decisionmaking,
and community problem-solving from the grass-roots up. We should do no
less with AmeriCorps itself. I urge that we reject the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. For clarification purposes, the Chair would like to
indicate, for the dividing of time, since the unanimous-consent request
for the additional 5 minutes on both sides was made by the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the Chair granted the additional 5 minutes to
the gentleman from Ohio and to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Hostettler].
That being the case, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] has 1
minute remaining. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] has the right to
close.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton].
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago I met with a number of
high school students out on the House steps. They had a lot of
questions, particularly as it pertained to the deficit. I reminded them
about my record and I told them about my priority: Education. I was a
cosponsor of this bill when it first came up several years ago. It
sounded like a wonderful idea.
But we have spent more than $1 billion so far and it just has not
worked. In fact, the statistics have come out and said that it is an
average of about $26,000 a student. That is not worth it. As we look at
education, the needs for parents today to send their kids, sons and
daughters, on to higher education, it is important that those doors are
open, but not at $26,000 a student. We can find a lot of Pentagon
coffee pots to buy before we buy a pig in a poke like this program
here. I would just urge my colleagues to support this amendment. We
have tried it for a couple of years. It has not worked.
As I have talked to my students and families in higher education
institutions, there is not a lot of love for this program. It does not
work. We need to be surgeons here, particularly with the deficit we
have today. We need to weed out programs that do not work. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``yes''.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
(Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hostettler
amendment. In just 2 years, AmeriCorps has made it possible for
thousands of young people to realize the dream of an affordable college
education. AmeriCorps participants earn part of their tuition by
working in their communities.
In my district, AmeriCorps members are protecting the environment in
the Berkshires, under the direction of those Berkshire County
communities. They are tutoring low-income students in Gardner, and they
are working with the police department on community policing and elder
abuse protection, the Triad Program, in Holyoke. At a time when college
costs are skyrocketing, AmeriCorps presents a good way for students to
earn money to pay their tuition while working in their communities.
To quote again from the Republican Governor of my State, and I quote,
``The Federal Government shouldn't pass up the opportunity national
service represents to help people help themselves.'' I urge a no vote
on the amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my
colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] to close.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to close by pointing out a
few things. A vote for this amendment is not a vote against
volunteerism. Let me highlight what the American Heritage College
Dictionary says that a volunteer is. A volunteer is a person who
performs or offers to perform a service of his or her own free will, or
to do charitable or helpful work without pay.
It was alleged earlier that weaknesses have been taken care of as a
result of some work done inside the corporation, but I need to point
out that since that hearing, that there has only been action to take
care of 9 of 33 material weaknesses in the corporation. Usually with
one of those situations, any other corporation would be out of
business.
It was also alleged earlier that for some reason freshmen of the
House, of the Republican side of this House, have offered this
initiative. The fact is that we are freshmen, and by the very nature of
that term, we have been out in the real world before we came to
Congress, before we came to this Capitol Hill address. We have seen
real volunteerism at work. We have seen, and we know the statistics are
true, that 90 million Americans every year volunteer. This is a vote
for fiscal soundness and not against volunteerism.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members of the House to defeat this
amendment. Some in the well a few moments ago said we need more
surgeons here. I disagree with the gentleman. We need to train more of
our young people in America today to be surgeons. We need to make a
greater investment in the young people in this country.
I would hope that today the Members of this House will show that they
have great faith in our young people in this country, and want to give
them the chance and the opportunity by defeating this amendment. I urge
a ``no'' vote.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I simply ask the Members for a
``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment to
decrease AmeriCorps funding.
The AmeriCorps National Service Program gives Americans of all
backgrounds the opportunity to serve our country and defray the cost of
a college education. It is not a wasteful program, as some critics
contend, unless you truly believe that public service and increased
educational opportunity are wasteful.
In response to Mr. Hostettler's contention that the AmeriCorps
Program represents coercive volunteerism, I remind him that members of
the U.S. armed services are also compensated financially and are
praised, as they should be, for their volunteer efforts to protect and
defend our country.
AmeriCorps members increase volunteerism. Harris Wofford and the
Corporation for National Service are committed to maintaining a cost-
effective, productive program through public-private partnership.
This innovative program has produced impressive results in increased
volunteerism and access to higher education. More than 20,000
AmeriCorps participants each year have met needs in communities while
realizing the dream of a college education. This program represents a
solid investment in our young people, who represent the future of
America.
In a Congress determined to slash education funding, we must
recognize the AmeriCorps Program as a student financial aid program
that reaps significant rewards for local communities.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, here they go again. As Newt Gingrich and
his Republican leadership team slash Federal funding in such critical
areas as education, the environment, and housing, they often refer to
the growing need for nonprofit charitable and religious organizations
to take on more responsibility in meeting critical needs in these
areas. At the same time they are calling for these institutions to
shoulder a greater burden, however, they are intent on destroying one
of the newest and most innovative resources such groups have to
increase their capacity to handle these additional responsibilities.
The AmeriCorps Program strengthens traditional volunteering. From the
Boys and Girls Clubs to the YMCA, America's largest and most respected
volunteer organizations all utilize and vigorously support AmeriCorps.
Habitat for Humanity, one of Speaker Gingrich's favorite nonprofits,
has become an enthusiastic partner of AmeriCorps. They've experienced
first hand how the full-time sustained presence of AmeriCorps members
helps them accomplish more, while at the same time teaching them to use
occasional volunteers more effectively.
In my congressional district, this partnership was used to create
LEAP--Leadership, Education, and Athletics in Partnership [LEAP]. LEAP
was designated an AmeriCorps Program by the Corporation for National
and Community Service in August. LEAP helps about 1,000 inner-city
children build their

[[Page H6868]]

learning skills through mentoring and community support.
LEAP is best known for its summer program. During the summer, college
and high school students serve as counselors in public housing
developments where the kids whom they counsel live. The program has
both academic and social components. The kids spend 3 days a week in a
classroom environment. They learn things such as swimming, photography,
and the like.
Participating college students are from New Haven area colleges. The
high school students are all from New Haven public schools and, in most
cases, serve their own, or nearby, neighborhoods.
With a grant from AmeriCorps, contributions from individuals, private
and corporate foundation and other grants, LEAP's budget has doubled.
And for every 900 hours of service to AmeriCorps, students receive
$2,300 toward their student loans or college tuition payments.
AmeriCorps enhances the work of traditional volunteer organizations,
while allowing them to significantly expand their reach and enhance
their accomplishments. Charities and religious institutions--the
backbone of the voluntary sector in America--view AmeriCorps as a tool
to increase their capacity to deal with social problems.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the tide of funding cuts to
programs that help our Nation's kids. Vote against the Hostettler
amendment.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I am certain most of our colleagues
remember the bruising fight waged last year in an attempt to end
funding for the AmeriCorps Program.
I am equally certain that most of our colleagues remember the loud
public outcry and the Presidential veto which occurred once that
misguided priority was passed by the Congress.
And lastly, I am perfectly certain that most of our colleagues
remember the large bipartisan majority who eventually voted to increase
AmeriCorps funding. While some of my colleagues may have voted ``yes''
in an effort to keep the Government open, I voted ``yes'' because I
believe AmeriCorps is a vital example of the good work Government can
do.
The gentleman from Indiana has offered an amendment to reverse this
bipartisan agreement to preserve AmeriCorps. It also would reverse the
efforts of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee and the full
Appropriations Committee to provide the funding needed to sustain this
program. Both of these committees have voted in support of funding the
well-run, highly popular AmeriCorps Program.
I plan on following the recommendations of the Appropriations
Committee. I will vote to continue funding for AmeriCorps, with my only
regret being that difficult budget circumstances make it unlikely that
Congress can provide the full amount this program deserves.
I hope that, at minimum, the 399 Members who voted in favor of
increasing AmeriCorp funding in last year's Omnibus Appropriations bill
join me once again in support of this worthwhile program.
The question raised by the gentleman from Indiana remains: Can our
country afford to reward voluntarism in this period of fiscal
austerity? My answer, and the answer of the appropriators is ``yes,''
which is why we have before us a program that will return as much as
almost $4 to the taxpayers for every dollar spent.
Investing in AmeriCorps volunteers, produces homes in poor
neighborhoods, feeds the hungry, shelters the homeless, cleans the
cities and towns, teaches the uneducated.
Investing in AmeriCorp volunteers, produces a core of educated youth
who have learned a strong dedication to their fellow Americans with
sweat and toil.
Mr. Chairman, with that education, and that volunteer ethic,
AmeriCorp participants are going on to make our country a more
prosperous, and more compassionate, place to live.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler].
The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the nose
appeared to have it.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 456, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler]
will be postponed.

amendment offered by mr. durbin

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer an
amendment to a portion of the bill not yet read.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Durbin: Page 65, line 16,
after the second dollar amount, insert the following:
``(reduced by $1,500,000)''.
Page 66, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $1,500,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, may I just
have an explanation? I believe my amendment was up next.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, I thought I had spoken to the
chairman of the committee.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman, it
is a matter of other business taking place around the Capitol that is
very important now. If we have a series of votes now, that will not
help that process, so we are going to delay the vote on this and the
gentleman's amendment will follow.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. The agreement is my amendment will come up after the
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Hostettler]?
Mr. LEWIS of California. The logic is that if that should pass, there
is not a need for a lot of other amendments.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I withdraw my reservation of objection, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.

{time} 1300

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of today, the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] will be recognized for 10 minutes,
and a Member in opposition will be recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment which I offer restores $1.5 million for the
Environmental Protection Agency for a program known as the Toxic
Release Inventory. To put this in layman's terms, we are talking about
chemicals. We all understand from our human experience that chemicals
are very important. They are important of course in medicine, they are
important of course in our commerce, and they are important in our
daily lives. But we also realize that chemicals can be dangerous, and
toxic chemicals by definition are dangerous in nature.
So in 1988, we said to the Environmental Protection Agency under this
Toxic Release Inventory Program that they should monitor the toxic
chemicals across the United States to determine whether or not they are
being discharged in a way that might cause a serious public health
problem.
This was a program which over the years was applauded, not only by
those in government, environmental groups, and consumer groups, but
even by responsible business groups who realized that they had to be
good corporate citizens. They did not want to misuse toxic chemicals
and cause cancer, learning disabilities, any type of deformities that
might result from their misuse.

It was interesting when we passed this toxic release, community
right-to-know law that many of the major chemical companies in the
United States announced that they accepted the challenge from the
Federal Government: They would announce the release of their toxic
chemicals into the environment, and they went a step further, large
companies did, and said, we are going to set out to dramatically
diminish the release of toxic chemicals.
So, since this program was put in effect in 1988, it has been
estimated that the release of toxic chemicals in communities and cities
and locals across the United States has been reduced over 40 percent.
Why? Quite simply, because many of these businesses faced with
disclosure, faced with the requirement to report to the Environmental
Protection Agency were much more careful.
This is a good program. It is one which major companies subscribe to
and understand to be part of their responsibility as American citizens.
Yet,

[[Page H6869]]

the Republicans again this year, as last year, come forward in an
effort to stop this program, to cut the funds from the Toxic Release
Inventory, the community right-to-know program.
I say to my colleagues, this is a mistake; $1.5 million in a bill of
this magnitude is a very small amount. This is an effort by a special
interest group, and I would say a very selfish special interest group,
which does not want to report to the American people what is happening
to toxic chemicals in the workplace.
Now, that is not fair. It is not fair to the families which count on
this reporting so that they know whether the drinking water which they
are using in a community is safe, whether the emissions out of a
smokestack near the community are safe; it is not fair to the workers
at the place of employment who basically should know whether or not
they are being exposed to toxic chemicals every day; and it is not fair
to the local units of government who should be advised as to whether or
not there are toxic chemicals on the premises. If there is a fire, a
hurricane, a tornado, an earthquake, the local mayor, the police
department, the fire department have a right to know whether toxic
chemicals are being used.
This effort by the Republicans to cut money for this program is very
shortsighted. The people across America understand that the era of big
government is over, but families across America count on our government
to protect them from invisible dangers and threats. Each time we drink
a glass of water in our home communities, we expected it to be pure and
safe. We hope that some governmental unit is protecting our family to
make sure there is not an unseen danger in that drinking water.

This effort, this Republican effort to stop the community right-to-
know legislation, to stop the Toxic Release Inventory strikes a dagger
at the heart of the relationship between families and their government.
We have got to make sure that families have that confidence. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment which restores the money to the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I have not made up my mind.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the unanimous-consent agreement, there is 10
minutes reserved on each side, 10 minutes for and 10 minutes against.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
take 5 minutes of the time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to focus just for a moment,
for I do not rise in opposition to this amendment. In fact, I intend to
suggest to my colleagues that we accept this amendment.
However, before doing that, I would like the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Durbin] to note that I had the privilege in my past life to serve
in the California State legislature as chairman of an air quality
subcommittee. There I led the fight of a very, very important and early
environmental battle. It led to the creation of the toughest air
quality management district in the entire country, one that has served
as a model for the country.
I know from that experience and others that work on behalf of the
environment has absolutely nothing to do with partisan politics. I have
heard the gentleman today on the floor consistently inject Republican
versus Democrat on issues that are critical to the American people and
have nothing to do with politics, especially partisan politics.
So, I am very disconcerted by that pattern of the gentleman to try to
partisanize almost every issue that comes to the floor.
Having said that, we need effective and adequate reporting. There has
been dramatic decreases in the problem we are dealing with here, and it
is time to consider readjusting. Timing is the question. I would urge
the gentleman to restrain himself in terms of creating polarization
around here when the environment is best served by our working together
and recognizing that we are all concerned about our environment.
So, I would suggest to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] that I am
willing to accept this amendment, if he feels the same.
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 for
yielding to me.
First, I want to express to him my acknowledgment of the fact that
even prior to coming to this body, he had an outstanding record in
terms of environmental laws which he enacted during the time he served
in the California legislature.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. STOKES. I am quite aware of, and I am sure that other Members of
this body are quite aware of, your concerns and your distinguished
record in that area.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. STOKES. I also want to say that in terms of the Durbin amendment,
on its merits, I support fully the amendment, and I am pleased to join
with the chairman in the acceptance of this amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to say to my friend from California, I did not suggest
that your record on the environment is at issue here. I do suggest that
this provision of the bill of which you are the chairman is at issue
here, and I think it is a very important one. And though the gentleman
may have an exemplary record, I do not question that you do, I do
believe that this amendment is shortsighted, and I believe what it
attempts to do really is not in the best interests of protecting our
environment.
I hope the gentleman does not take that personally. It is a political
difference between us, and the gentleman from California suggested at
the outset that he may support my amendment, and I thank him for that.
I welcome him aboard.
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, I am tempted to say that
filling out a form does not do an awful lot necessarily for the
environment, but that really is not the point. Indeed, it is my
judgment that in this country and often in this body, our very positive
work on behalf of the environment has become swept up in the
polarization of the entire place. We work best in this subject area
when the House comes together and recognizes that all of us care about
the air, all of us care about clean water. Hand in hand, working
together, we can take this issue out of the hands of the shrill voices,
the extremes on the one hand who want to do absolutely nothing, and the
extremes on the other hand that would like to use this for some
population or no-growth policy of their own.
The environment is most critical to all of our existence, and working
together, separate from partisanship, is the most helpful step that I
could imagine we could take. I encourage the gentleman to help us
participate in that direction.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
from California [Mr. Lewis], and I would say that if I misinterpreted
the gentleman's position, it may have been because of the vote in the
committee. When my amendment came up before the committee, there was
not a single Republican supporting the amendment which I have brought
to the floor today. It was not a totally partisan rollcall, because
some Democrats opposed my position, but not a single Republican
supported my position in committee.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would
continue to yield, I would suggest to the gentleman that even in
committee, if we reserve partisan rhetoric, we get different kinds of
results.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say to the
gentleman that I will reserve all the rhetoric necessary in order to
achieve the

[[Page H6870]]

results that we are talking about today.
I would just like to say in closing, and I think the gentleman has
indicated that he is going to be supportive of this amendment, that we
have several things that should be taken into consideration.
There are responsible businesses in this country which support
community right-to-know. There are responsible businesses in this
country which support the Toxic Release Inventory. When one can have
the head of Dow Chemical Co. say of this law that mandatory disclosure
has done more than all other legislation put together in getting
companies to voluntarily reduce emissions of toxic chemicals, we know
this program works. This program should be funded.
We also have comments from Monsanto, and this is an interesting
comment: The law is having an incredible effect on industries to reduce
emissions. There is not a chief executive officer around who wants to
be the biggest polluter in his State. We know that if disclosure is out
there, it works.
I hope that my colleague from California and my colleague from Ohio
will not only agree to this amendment, but also do their best to
preserve this when it comes to conference. This is an important
program, important not only for the EPA, but more important for
families and for the workers and for the communities who rely upon it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Olver].
(Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I want to speak in favor of the amendment offered to restore the
funding for the Toxic Release Inventory.
I really believe our constituents and our families and our workers
have a right to know what toxic releases are being released into the
environment. Some 10 years ago, in reflecting upon what the gentleman
from California said, we in Massachusetts adopted a program of right-
to-know that passed and has been implemented, and since that time there
has been a reduction of millions of tons of toxic chemicals which
previously had been emitted into the atmosphere and into the streams.
In many instances, the companies have been able to find ways that are
cheaper and better, both for the environment and for their company
operations to function.
So I certainly support this amendment, and I am glad that the
gentleman from California is going to accept it.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Durbin amendment. This
amendment is about individual rights and Government of the People. This
amendment may provide funding for the EPA, but its really about funding
the greatest source of environmental protection we have--an informed
citizenry.
The right to know provision was passed in my State of Massachusetts
by referendum. The people decided they wanted it--and they got it. But
today this Congress is saying that we know better. That it might be bad
for business. That its better to keep people in the dark. Well, what
justice Brandeis said back in 1913 is just as true today: sunlight is
the best disinfectant.
Right to know simply says that the factory down the street ought to
be neighborly. Just like a good neighbor puts up a beware of the dog
sign, a good neighboring factory ought to inform its neighbors just
what's coming out of the smokestack.
Imagine--just yesterday we all agreed that people ought to have the
right to know what's in their drinking water, but today this House says
they do not have the right to know which chemicals their kids are
breathing in their own backyards.
The freedom of speech requires the freedom of information. Rather
than causing unnecessary alarm about the unknown--let's allow people to
make informed assessments.
Is it too much to ask for industry to be a good corporate citizen?
This bill eliminates industry's personal responsibility.
This public disclosure calls for corporations to have some public
accountability. This amendment says that corporations have a duty not
only to respond to their shareholders--but also to their workers and
neighbors.
Furthermore, many companys would be the first to admit that such
accounting often leads to their discovering trouble spots and focusing
their attention on that which might be otherwise ignored. I believe
that most corporations want to be able to address community concerns.
These funds are for Outreach, Data Quality, and Training in the
Community Right to Know Program. Companys want this so that the
citizenry can make informed statements without relying on the unknown
which can often lead to unwarranted mass hysteria.
Often the Right To Know Program has led to corporations voluntarily
reducing emissions, often saving money, and exceeding Federal
standards.
I urge my colleagues to support the public's right to know.
Mr. DURBIN. Could I ask the Chair if there is any time remaining that
has not been yielded back beyond the 45 seconds of my time?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California has 2 minutes remaining
of the 5 minutes. There are still 5 minutes unallocated.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I intend to use my time.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I had not intended that we have this discussion since we were going
to accept the amendment. We obviously are going forward with
discussion. So I think it is important to say in response to my
colleague that EPA is now moving into phase 3 of their implementation
of TRI. Part of this phase is the expansion of the TRI to several more
industries and hundreds of additional substances.

{time} 1315

The reporting requirements and cost to business for this will be
enormous. However, the committee's action to reduce TRI by $1.5 million
was not intended to affect this issue.
The reduction was taken to prohibit EPA from moving into the
collection of toxic use data which is also part of their phase 3 plans.
As we stated in this year's report, in last year's report, and in the
1996 conference report, collection of toxic use data is not authorized
by law. The authorizing committees of the House and the Senate agree on
this position.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, since the chairman, the ranking member and
others have all accepted this, I just want to thank them for that. I do
believe this is a very important amendment.
I just want to give an example from my State to show that this is not
only important to the community at large but also for businesses,
because in New Jersey the information from the toxic release inventory
has actually been used in order for companies to streamline their
permitting process. In cases where we have had, say, 30 permits that
had to be granted to a company, sometimes now there is only one because
of the information that has been provided. So it is not only good
government, if you will, from the point of view of the right to know
and the community's right to know, but also for business's right to
know because oftentimes they can use that information also to their
advantage in terms of streamlining the permitting process.
I just wanted to again thank the gentleman from Illinois for
introducing this. I think that every effort that we make to increase
right to know is important to this Congress and to the public in
general.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments at this point?

amendment offered by mr. roemer

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer my
amendment 39 to a portion of the bill not yet read. I have talked to
both the chairman and the ranking member to accommodate their
schedules.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 39 offered by Mr. Roemer: In the item
relating to ``National Aeronautics and Space Administration--
human space flight'', after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $75,000,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Indiana?

[[Page H6871]]

There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the committee of today, the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and a Member in opposition will
each control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments. One amendment would be to
totally eliminate the funding, which is about $2 billion annually for
the space station. I have not called that amendment up.
this amendment that I have called up would simply let us save about
$75 million out of the $2 billion annually appropriated to the space
station in order to have the space station pay some of its fair share
of deficit reduction.
Around this place in the U.S. Congress, everybody has some very neat
and flowery speeches about how we are going to get to a zero budget,
how we are going to balance the budget for the American people, which
would give them the single best tax cut possible. That helps them with
their mortgage rates, that helps them with their interest payments on
their car, that helps them have more confidence that in a bipartisan
way we can accomplish some things around the U.S. Congress. Balancing
the budget is certainly one of my highest priorities.
However, the space station has been absolutely insulated from any of
the pain and sacrifice. The NASA budget continues to go down and will
go down from about $18 or $19 billion several years ago to, sometime
after the turn of the century, go down to about $11 or $12 billion.
Many good things that NASA accomplishes, the personnel at NASA are
doing some wonderful work on Galileo and Clementine and the Hubble,
these projects are getting squeezed, they are getting rescheduled, they
are getting eliminated, they are being delayed. A host of different
good programs that we might be doing in NASA are being put on the back
burner or canceled because Space Station is continually protected and
insulated from any kind of cut, from any kind of pain, from any kind of
sacrifice.
Why is that? One might even say the Space Station is doing a great
job, they should not get any kind of cut. Well, the space station was
first designed in 1984 to cost $8 billion. My colleagues might ask me,
how much is that space station today? GAO estimates about $90 billion--
$8 billion to $90 billion, and we are trying to balance the budget in
the next 6 years.
Maybe one might say we are getting great science out of the space
station. No, the scientific objectives on the space station have gone
from about $8 billion in 1984, including platforms to study the
environmental problems on the Earth, platforms to study space, and a
docking station to repair broken satellites. It cannot do any of that
anymore. Now all it can do is help us study the gravitational effects
on men and women in space. For $90 billion? And all it can do is help
us study the gravitational effects on men and women in space. For $90
billion? And Congress does not want to cut 3 percent of that $2 billion
annual appropriation?
Come on, Mr. Chairman. If we are going to get to a balanced budget,
if we are going to do it in a bipartisan and in a fair manner, space
station should be on the table for a $75 million, 3 percent cut out of
its budget.
One might ask, too, NASA in doing many good things is also
cooperating with the Russians on this program. Are the Russians paying
their fair share on the Space Station? No. We send our tax dollars to
Russia to help them do their work on the Space Station. We will send
them $100 million out of the NASA budget this year, $100 million of
hardworking taxpayer money next year.
This all goes straight from the United States taxpayer over to Russia
for them to do what they should be doing for their participation in
what is so-called international space station. It seems to me it is a
U.S. space station when we are sending our money around the world to
buy and coerce international cooperation.
The Russians in the last few months have indicated that they might
want to renegotiate the contract. That could cost the U.S. taxpayers
even more money in terms of scheduling delays and whether or not this
hardware that they make and produce and manufacture is going to fit
together with our hardware.
Mr. Chairman, for many reasons, for good science, for sound and fair
deficit reduction, all I am asking my colleagues to do is to vote for a
3 percent reduction in the space station budget.
Finally, we hear from some that the space station is economic and
world leadership for us, that it is the crowning jewel of economic and
world leadership for the United States of America.
I think what we should be looking at to determine if the United
States is actually the leader in the world, actually the best country
in the world, which we are, it is not whether we can build a $90
billion space station which is $82 billion over budget. It is how we
get to a balanced budget in a fair manner, and can we do that in a
bipartisan way. It is how we treat our children, where 20 to 25 percent
of our children are being born into poverty in the United States of
America. It is how we educate our children, and whether our children
have access to student loans. That is going to determine world
leadership, not a space station that has moved from $8 billion in cost
to $90 billion, and then nobody wants to cut even 3 percent from that
$90 billion budget.

So I would encourage my colleagues, I would encourage the
distinguished chairman from California, I would hope he would accept
this amendment of a 3-percent cut in a $2 billion annual appropriation.
I am not offering the elimination of the space station amendment, Mr.
Chairman, because we have had this vote. We had this vote on
elimination a few weeks ago. The House has spoken on that particular
matter.
We actually offered this amendment as well, too, and we were defeated
on this particular matter. But that does not mean, Mr. Chairman, that I
do not think that this is the right thing to do in order to get to a
balanced budget, and in order to get shared sacrifice, and in order to
get good science and to protect NASA from itself. I think that we
should see some pain and sacrifice, and not see the rest of the NASA
budget squeezed and eliminate good programs that are working very, very
successfully and being implemented by the hardworking men and women at
NASA.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] rise in
opposition to the amendment?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the gentleman's
amendment. My colleague from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] suggests that he does
not have this amendment to kill the space station or to even do serious
damage to manned space flight or serious damage to NASA's mission.
Nonetheless, with great consistency my colleague has demonstrated
opposition to the fundamental work that NASA is doing and especially
man's venture in space.
In the past, we have had these discussions within our subcommittee.
We have talked a lot on the floor about the difficulty of these
competing accounts, having housing competing with money against
veterans' medical care and against EPA and, indeed, competing with
NASA. When dollars get tighter and tighter, it is extremely tough
competition. In the past the committee even made the decision to
eliminate a station, for example.
What my colleague fails to recognize is the general public knows
often a little better than we know, either in committee or on the
floor. For when that occurred in the past, literally Members, many of
whom were not very active in terms of the committee work here, came to
the floor in support of man's mission in space. They provided an
amendment on the floor to return money in funding for the space station
in the face of committee opposition. The public's will was heard by
sizable margins, and moneys were put back into this very bill in order
to make sure that we continue with what is a part of the American
pioneer spirit.
There is no question that the public supports our work of man's
presence in

[[Page H6872]]

space. The gentleman's relatively small amendment would not have very
much effect but it would significantly impact the upgrades and
maintenance of space shuttle. It would significantly affect the flights
of space shuttle. We need to have funds available to make sure as we go
forward with this work, we do it with all of the equipment that is
necessary.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. ROEMER. I would say to the gentleman, being on the Science
Committee, the Science Committee that authorizes many of these same
programs that the distinguished gentleman from California works on,
what we are worried about, quite frankly, is precisely that fact, that
when we continue to insulate and protect the space station from any
kind of cut, we have seen devastating cuts in the space shuttle program
and we are very concerned.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROEMER. Would the gentleman engage in dialogue here. We are very
worried about the safety of the shuttle.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California controls the time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. This amendment addresses $75 million and
does not eliminate all the funding for space station. But clearly the
House has spoken in that connection and it almost is in a separate
category. We have on a bipartisan basis struck an agreement that
provides very significantly broad-based support for an annual amount
for space station. We are going forward with that. We have
international agreements that take us forward with that. But this
amendment addresses the shuttle specifically and in my judgment could
in a very significant was impair the process and the work that we are
doing there.

{time} 1330

Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members to recognize what this amendment is
in terms of its real purpose; that is, to undermine the mission of
NASA, to undermine man's presence in space and, indeed, it would
undermine what has been the past will of the House as it reflects the
will of the American people for us to continue on this pioneering
effort in space.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just say in response to the gentleman, I would
be happy to yield some of my time to the gentleman to engage him in a
debate about the space shuttle safety. That is precisely one of the
reasons why we are interested in seeing that the space station have
some of the cut put to their program, rather than continue to decimate
the shuttle safety program, science programs in the NASA account, see
cancellation of other programs take place within the NASA budget. We
are seeing the NASA budget go down from 15 and 15 and 17 billion to
about 11 or 12 billion in the next century. And the space station is a
16-ounce Texas steak that is being jammed into a sardine can of a
shrinking and squeezed NASA budget.
Now, I am very worried about what that does to space shuttle safety.
The shuttle, we are very concerned about it. We have had a couple NASA
former employees say they are very concerned about it. We had a
resignation at NASA, saying one of the reasons, he said that one of the
things he was very concerned about was shuttle safety. I am very
concerned about shuttle safety.
I would also say to the gentleman, this amendment is not anti-NASA.
It is anti-space-station. I do not like the space station. But I think
NASA does some wonderful things in other areas. Marie Antoinette once
said let them eat cake. I think what we say in protecting the space
station from any kind of cut is let NASA eat crumbs. They do not get
anything else, and the space station gets everything.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is to protect NASA. This is not to let
the space station cannibalize the rest of the NASA budget.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I think I have said my piece on this
particular amendment. I feel very strongly about it. I sincerely
respect the gentleman from California. He and I agree on a host of
different issues. But I think that this will really endanger the safety
of the shuttle if the space station continues to cannibalize other
programs. I think that the space station should have its fair share of
deficit reduction and this is 3 percent in terms of a cut. I also think
that if this is really international leadership, we should not be
paying the Russians $100 million a year for their participation. Let
them pay rubles and let them do their fair share, not have hard-working
taxpayers in Indiana send $100 million a year over to Russia.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. chairman, far be it from me to stand and
defend the Russians' role in this international partnership. We asked
them to participate with us and we sought the partnership as much as
anybody. We have allies in Europe who are very much involved and
committed to this partnership. Canada, the same. The Russians, for
example, do contribute some 250,000 pounds of hardware to this project.
That is a lot of rubles.
In the meantime, there is not any doubt in my mind that the vision of
America of man in space very much is intrigued with man's presence in
space by way of a space station. Much of the public support for the
work of NASA would indeed be on a very thinly based glacier of ice if
it were not for that vision of man in space.
Space station is a very important part of our international
partnership that affects peace, but it also is fundamental to America's
support for this kind of scientific as well as space activity. I urge a
very strong no vote to the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Roemer
amendment to cut $75 million from the Space Station Program. I support
the concept of space exploration, and in better fiscal times would
support the space station, but the time is now, Mr. Chairman, and the
space station raises a question of priorities.
We are all in agreement that Federal dollars need to be stretched
farther and work harder. The only question is which programs we choose
to fund and which we choose to cut or eliminate. The United States can
no longer afford to fund a budget-busting project which has run out of
control.
Mr. Chairman, the VA-HUD appropriations bill before us provides $2.1
billion for the Alpha Space Station for fiscal year 1997. This money is
in addition to the $16.5 billion taxpayers have already spent since
1984. The General Accounting Office [GAO] indicates that the final bill
for the space station will be in excess of $94 billion, a 1,075 percent
increase from the original $8 billion price tag.
How are we to pay for the space station? The Republican majority has
passed a budget bill which freezes NIH funding until 2002 at $11.9
billion per year. The total NASA budget for fiscal year 1997 is nearly
$20 billion. What does it say about our national values that we
prioritize space exploration over medical research? Mr. Chairman, the
question is simple: Can we afford a $94 billion project at this time?
We still have too many people without adequate housing, food, and
medical care to be funding soda fountains for astronauts. This Congress
cannot pay for space exploration when so many more pressing needs
remain unmet here at home.
I urge my colleagues to support the Roemer amendment to reduce
funding for space station alpha. I hope that the day will come when we
will be able to fund a space station, but not at the expense of our
poor, our sick, our elderly, and our children. It is clear, Mr.
Chairman, that if we choose to look at the stars, we must first make
sure we have our feet firmly on the ground.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word in order to
engage in a colloquy with the chairman.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOKE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to join in a
colloquy with my colleague from Ohio.
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, as you know, for the past several years, NASA
has been proposing a number of various plans to consolidate research
support aircraft from various NASA centers around the country to the
Dryden Flight Research Center in California. Since 1993, the agency has
conducted 12

[[Page H6873]]

different financial and management analyses of these consolidation
proposals and still has not been able to show convincingly that the
consolidation is going to save NASA money or that it is
programmatically wise.
In fact, NASA's own inspector general, the agency's last line of
defense against questionable policies, has repeatedly warned that the
proposed consolidation is ``neither cost effective nor programmatically
sound.''
Just 3 weeks ago, on June 4, the IG recommended in a widely
circulated draft report that, ``NASA should reevaluate its decision to
implement the current aircraft consolidation plan because it is not
cost effective.''
Mr. Chairman, in the June 4 draft report, the IG has estimated that
it will take 72 years to break even on the aircraft consolidation plan,
even though the agency believes that it can save money on the plan.
That, of course, does not even take into account the catastrophic
impact on the agency's research or the scientific community that it
helps support.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], for
his thoughts.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my
colleague yielding and involving me in this colloquy. I hope my
colleagues, know just how intensely the gentleman from Ohio has worked
on this matter. Indeed, he has insisted that it be at the top of the
subcommittee's priority list. Although there is not a lot of money
involved, Mr. Hoke is doing a very effective job of making sure that we
focus upon this important question to him and to his district.
The committee has been pushing NASA, to take a number of steps to
help consolidate programs, to reduce personnel, to emphasize on
efficiency in every possible way. the debate last year flowed around
the potential of closing entire centers. This was really an effort to
get everybody to pay attention to the need for efficiency in NASA and
other Federal agencies.
In connection with that, NASA is responding to suggest that the
aircraft consolidation proposal was a high priority for the agency in
its zero-based review plan released in 1995. It is my intent that NASA
and the NASA inspector general reach a meeting of the minds so they
both would make the same recommendation with respect to these aircraft,
regardless of the final finding.
The gentleman reports correctly on the preliminary work of the IG.
The agency would then review the preliminary report and respond to it.
Then the IG will come forth with a final report. I am willing to take a
hard look at whatever the recommendation is and hope that we get a
unanimous recommendation coming from all the sources involved.
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the comments from the
chairman, and I think, as you know, I certainly want consolidation
plans to go forward that make sense, that make sense programmatically,
that make sense financially. We all want our Government to work as
efficiently as it possibly can. But we have to also take into account
reports that show something very much to the contrary, and that is why
I am delighted that the chairman is concerned to make sure that these
things be harmonized.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman].
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
would like to join him in expressing concern that the consolidation
plan be a sound one which is truly cost effective and certainly that it
be programmatically sound.
I have looked at this issue over many months and have been very
concerned that programmatically it does not seem to pass the
commonsense test. I am not an accountant. I am not a cost accountant,
but I know that the comptroller of NASA has questioned the original
premise that said consolidate all these aircraft at any particular
single center. I also know of the IG's report, on an earlier occasion,
who was asked then to go back and reexamine it. They reexamined it and
again found that it is not cost effective from their analysis.
Like the chairman and everyone else, I look forward to seeing what
NASA headquarters' reaction to the IG report is. But certainly I would
hope that when all the evidence is in that we in the Congress will do
that which is necessary, if it becomes necessary, to see that a sound
judgment is ultimately made with this issue.
Mr. HOKE. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's comments.
I would just say one thing with respect to the commonsense test as to
the programmatic issue. I happen to have the privilege of living in
what is known as the frost belt where one of these research planes does
deicing research in northeastern Ohio. Somehow, somebody missed the
point about sending deicing research aircraft to the middle of the
California desert where it is going to be a very difficult challenge to
find some ice to do the research on.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am tempted to lightly say we
are just looking for some rain.

amendment offered by mr. lewis of california

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
offer an amendment on page 67, a portion of the bill not yet read.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Lewis of California: On page 67,
line 17, strike the number ``$2,200,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof the number ``$2,201,200,000'';
On page 67, line 18, strike the number ``$1,950,000,000''
and insert in lieu thereof the number ``$1,951,200,000''; and
On page 68, line 24, before the period add the following
new proviso:
``: Provided further, That $1,200,000 of the funds
appropriated under this heading shall be used by the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to conduct a health
effects study of the Toms River Cancer cluster in the Toms
River area in the State of New Jersey''.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would question, is this the amendment of the
gentleman from California in which there was a time agreement reached?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of today, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] will be recognized for 10
minutes, and a Member in opposition will be recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering on behalf of myself and the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] is a relatively straightforward
amendment and I believe is necessary to address a serious health
problem in the Toms River area in the State of New Jersey.
This issue was brought to my attention by my very good friend from
new Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] and his three distinguished colleagues, the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen], the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Saxton], and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]. It
is my understanding that the entire New Jersey delegation representing
both sides of the aisle is supporting the intent of this amendment.
The amendment will simply add $1,200,000 of excess budget authority
available under the committee's 602(b) allocation to the Hazardous
Substance Superfund and then stipulate that these funds are to be used
by the agency for toxic substance and disease registry to conduct a
health effects study of the Toms River cancer cluster.
Mr. Chairman, I would note that in the committee report, we stipulate
that certain studies be conducted by ATSDR using funds available to
them. If we had all the necessary details relative to this matter prior
to markup, I am confident that we would have included this provision in
the report in a similar manner. It has not been our practice to
stipulate these health studies in bill language, nevertheless, I am
convinced that the health concerns in the Toms River area are so
critical that it is absolutely necessary that we take this unusual
action of including specific funds for this health study.
I want to mention, Mr. Chairman, that my colleague, the gentleman
from

[[Page H6874]]

New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer], has been very effective in articulating the
priority of this manner, and for that reason, not only do I bring it to
the House's attention and ask for its support, I know of no opposition
to the amendment and know of no other Members who are eager to speak on
my side of the question.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].

{time} 1345

Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and I commend him for bringing this amendment before the House.
In the context of an $84 billion appropriations bill, $1.2 million
may seem insignificant, but this additional amount will make a big
difference because it will provide critically needed funds to study a
cancer cluster that has been discovered in the Toms River area of my
State of New Jersey.
I requested this funding, together with the Congressmen from Toms
River, the gentleman from New Jersey, Jim Saxton, and the gentleman
from New Jersey, Chris Smith, and the gentleman from New Jersey, Rod
Frelinghuysen, who is New Jersey's Representative on the Committee on
Appropriations.
Last year a study by the New Jersey department of health found that
Ocean County, in which Toms River is located, had 54 cases of childhood
brain and central nervous system cancers between 1979 and 1991. This
represents 15 more cases of childhood brain and CNS cancers than were
statistically expected. In Toms River alone, the rate was 49 percent
higher than expected.
The Toms River area includes two Superfund sites which the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, known as ATSDR, has previously
studied in conjunction with the New Jersey department of environmental
protection and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency.
ATSDR has already tapped its fiscal year 1996 discretionary funds to
respond directly to the increased incidence of childhood cancer, but it
says it cannot complete a thorough, comprehensive study without the
$1.2 million provided by this amendment; and without a comprehensive
study, we have no real hope of sorting out the factors that may be
contributing to this tragic situation.
Mr. Chairman, this study must be done, not only for the sake of the
children who are now afflicted but for the many who are not. We need to
know, if it is at all possible, within the limits of our current
scientific capabilities, what is causing the cancers in the Toms River
area. If we can shed light on this mystery, it will have benefits
nationwide because this kind of knowledge can help protect children
elsewhere who may face similar risks.
The Lewis amendment will finance an action plan that has been
developed by the State and the Federal governments and that will be
participated in by a volunteer committee headed by Mrs. Linda Gillick,
whose own child, Michael, is a cancer victim. This additional funding
will help ensure that every tool available to science is brought to
bear to identify the cause of these cancers.
Mr. Chairman, no amount of money in the world can guarantee that we
will find all the answers, but we must try. We cannot protect our
children from a danger we do not understand.
I would like to salute the gentlemen from New Jersey, Congressman
Saxton, Congressman Frelinghuysen, and Congressman Smith, for their
efforts, and I would again like to thank the gentleman from California,
Chairman Lewis, for offering this amendment on our behalf. I urge all
Members to support this critical amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] insist on his
point of order?
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, technically, the amendment is a violation
of clause 2 of rule XXI because it seeks to earmark funding for an
unauthorized program.
With the understanding of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis]
that the bill language will be deleted in conference and the issue
addressed only in the statement of the managers, I will be pleased to
withdraw my point of order.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield,
I would simply say his understanding is correct.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, based upon the representation of the
chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is withdrawn.
Does any Member seek time in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in favor of the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] controls the
time in support of the amendment.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1
minute in favor of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say that I believe this is a
very important provision on a bipartisan basis for the State of New
Jersey. I used to represent Toms River, which was actually part of
Dover township before the redistricting. Of course, now it is
represented by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
I know the concerns of the people in the area with regard to this
cancer cluster or the possibilities that exist in terms of the source
of it. So I do believe that the funding to be made available for this
health analysis is really crucial not only to Toms River, but something
that we need as a delegation in our State to see effected.
So I would like to join with my colleagues, the gentlemen from New
Jersey, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Zimmer, and others, in support of the amendment
and ask that I be considered a cosponsor of the amendment or however
they are proceeding.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I would like to express my personal appreciation to the
chairman of the subcommittee and to the gentlemen from New Jersey, Mr.
Zimmer and Mr. Frelinghuysen, on behalf of myself, but more on behalf
of the constituents that I represent in the Toms River area.
If we can imagine for a minute being in a situation where an
inordinate percentage or number of young people have developed brain
cancer in a relatively small area among a population of people, it is a
heart-wrenching experience for those families and, to a large extent,
for me and my staff who have worked with these families and with the
Whitman administration and commissioner of health, Lynn Fishman, from
New Jersey.
Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the people that I represent,
I thank the gentleman very, very much for what he has done here to help
us get a handle on this most important problem.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time
to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen], my colleague from
the committee.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time, and I rise in support of the Lewis amendment and to thank
the gentleman from California, Chairman Lewis, for offering this
amendment and for his leadership and cooperation in working with the
Members of Congress from New Jersey, Governor Christine Todd Whitman,
and Commissioner of Health Lynn Fishman from New Jersey.
I would also like to thank my colleagues from New Jersey, Congressmen
Dick Zimmer, Chris Smith, and Jim Saxton, for working on this important
issue and for bringing it to my and our committee's attention.
This amendment will for the first time provide the needed funding for
the Toms River cancer cluster study. The funding will allow the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to begin to look at possible
causes for the increased cancer rate around Toms River. We have a
responsibility to the people of this area to find out what is causing
these cases and this funding will help us find this out.
Mr. Chairman, again, I would like to thank Chairman Lewis of this
subcommittee, most particularly for his

[[Page H6875]]

leadership and his cooperation, and urge adoption of this amendment on
behalf of all the citizens of New Jersey.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
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. lewis of california

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
offer the amendment at the desk dealing with page 77, a portion of the
bill not yet read.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Lewis of California: On page 77,
beginning on line 1, strike the words ``established for such
rates as of June 1, 1996'', and insert in lieu thereof the
words, ``authorized by the National Flood Insurance Reform
Act of 1994''.

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, this is noncontroversial and
essentially corrects the earlier action of the committee with respect
to flood insurance rates. We had inadvertently included language which
would freeze the flood rates in place on June 1, 1996, and did not
realize this would greatly reduce the flexibility FEMA has to adjust
rates up or down in accordance with the provisions of the Flood
Insurance Reform Act of 1994.
This amendment merely restores the necessary flexibility needed by
FEMA to operate this program successfully. I know of no opposition to
this amendment and urge its adoption.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. This
amendment has been cleared with us, and we have no objection to 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 ask unanimous consent
to offer an amendment to a portion of the bill not yet read.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts: Page 66,
line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the following:
``increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 82, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of today, the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] will be recognized for 10
minutes and a Member in opposition will be recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me
thank the chairman of the committee and his staff for clarifying some
of the issues pertaining to this amendment over the course of the last
half hour or so. I appreciate the forbearance and the loud talking that
occurred from time to time.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment was to deal with the
issue of indoor air. Americans spend 90 percent of their time indoors
and yet indoor air is a thousand times more polluted than outdoor air.
Despite that fact and despite the fact that going back as far as the
administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Mr. Reilly, who
was appointed, I believe by President Reagan, although it might have
been President Bush, indicated during his time at the EPA that the No.
1 health problem that we face as a people in this country is the issue
of indoor air pollution.
We spend literally billions and billions of dollars that is
appropriated in this House to clean up outdoor air and yet we have not
a single solitary regulation pertaining to the quality of the air we
breathe indoors.
Indoor air causes a myriad of problems. We have seen vast increases
in the outbreak of asthma, we see a continuing problem with regard to
issues such as the quality of our air in schools. A number of Members
of Congress on both sides of the aisle are very familiar with sick-
building syndrome.
Even the EPA building here in Washington, DC, has had to be cleared
out on a number of different occasions because of the quality of the
air indoors. All of us are familiar with the problems of secondary
tobacco smoke as well as radon, that is now, I believe, the second
leading cause of cancer deaths in this country, second only to
cigarette smoke.
The truth is that if we look at how much money we are spending on
indoor air, it is a piddling amount in comparison to the size of the
problem.
Now, it had come to my attention from the EPA itself that there was
overall a reduction in spending this year as compared to years past on
indoor air. So I understand, and I would appreciate it if the chairman
might work with me on these numbers. As I understand, last year there
was about $17 million spent on indoor air pollution. This year, as I
understand, there will be about $18 million spent. There is an
additional $2 million that will go to the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, completing a total of about $20 million.
That $17 million that I quoted from last year's spending did not
include the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance or it would
have brought that up to $19 million plus.

{time} 1400

The point here is that the overall amount of funds that has been
allocated for this account has some language that is included in the
committee print, which suggests that, if there is a funding shortfall,
the radon protection programs will be fully protected and that all
other programs will have to deal with the funding shortfall that
exists.
I think that is a serious potential problem. I hope to work with the
chairman of the committee over the course of the next week or two to
try and determine what the potential problem is.
My understanding is the chairman does in fact fully support full
funding for the indoor air account that was contained in last year's
budget and was requested in this year's budget.
Would the chairman engage in a colloquy so that I might understand
his intention?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to engage in a
colloquy with the gentleman from Massachusetts. I must say that he and
I share interest and concern about the impact and especially the
potential health effects of indoor air quality problems.
The data that was just outlined. The dollar amounts appear to be
essentially correct. We came close to spending $18 million last year,
and this year the proposal is in excess of $20 million. It is a problem
that is very real. We tried to confirm these dollar amounts with the
budget officer as late as this morning. In the meantime we both know
that an individual constituency, like the office that handles indoor
air quality, may be more enthusiastic than another office at EPA
regarding this.
At this point we do not really see an intense need for additional
money other than that program within EPA's proposal and that which we
have outlined in the bill. It is an important problem. I would suggest
that the gentleman and I continue to communicate with one another. I am
sure that we can make progress in that connection.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
his comments.
Let me just make clear that, as I understand the real problem here is
that, yes, the funding has increased to the $20 million that the
gentleman suggests. What I am being told by the EPA in the last few
minutes is that the reason why there is a difference in the numbers
pertains to the inclusion of this Office of Enforcement and Compliance
in this year's $20 million versus last year's $18 million and that that
might offer some of the confusion.
The difficulty of course is that, if in fact there is a cut that is
included in these numbers, that there is a bent in the language of the
report that stipulates that the radon portion of the

[[Page H6876]]

funding will be fully protected. And yet all of these other accounts,
including sick-building syndrome, including the issues pertaining to a
range of other health problems, would have to have the lion's share of
the cut.
I would appreciate if the chairman would be willing to work with us,
if in fact the numbers do not add up, to work with us to make certain
that we are allowing this flexibility to make sure that the funding
goes to the programs that are in most need.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, I am very concerned that we make certain that we are not
adversely affecting one program over another as we proceed in this
process. But is has been my understanding that funding as proposed is
adequate for indoor air quality.
It seems to be pretty clear that there is not a need for an 11-
percent increase over the 1996 level. If, in the meantime, we want to
make sure that we are providing adequate funding, if we can work
together between now and conference, I am sure that we can be assured
together that the numbers are correct and get this job done.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I appreciate the chairman's willingness
to work. I take that as a demonstration of his good faith to try to
work out the difficulties.
The one issue that I would take issue with is the idea that this is
an adequately funded program under any of these scenarios. I am sure
the chairman would agree, given the pressures that he is under in order
to deal with these four agencies and their needs, this is a very
difficult choice for the gentleman to make. But the truth of the matter
is that, when we look at the problem of indoor air pollution, $20
million a year spent by the entire Federal Government to investigate it
to try to come up with any rules and regulations, to try to come up
with ways of mitigating the problem is not near enough.
This is a very serious health issue. It is one that I think in the
overall context, even this new report that suggests that was done
largely by Members of the gentleman's side of the aisle to determine
where excess Government regulation and spending occur, indicates that
the one area that we are not spending enough, and there are not
significant enough regulations is in fact on indoor air. So I would
look forward to working with the chairman over the course of the next
few weeks.
Let me finish by thanking my good friend, the ranking member of the
Committee on Science, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] who
came to the floor to speak in favor of the amendment. Given the
shellacking he gave me last night, it does my heart good to know that
he was here with me this afternoon.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
There was no objection.

amendment offered by mr. pallone

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer an
amendment to a portion of the bill not yet read.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Pallone: Strike the last proviso
under the heading HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio reserves a point of order.
Pursuant to the order of the committee of today, the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a
Member in opposition will be recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Last Thursday a group of senior Republicans on the Committee on
Commerce and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
proclaimed that House Republicans are willing to put ``our money where
our mouths are'' on the issue of Superfund reform. These same
Republicans also said that they were putting more money into the
program than the Democrats ever did.
Well, I do not think that is the case, Mr. Chairman. While
Republicans say they are appropriating $2.2 billion for Superfund in
this bill, I think my colleagues should take a good, hard look at a
provision on page 68 of this bill that sets aside $861 million of that
appropriation to pay for the Superfund reform. You see, the $861
million is available only if Congress enacts future legislation to
appropriate it. So in essence this is future spending that may or may
not ever occur.
The amendment that myself and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Borski] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] have simply
strikes that contingency and would truly fund the Superfund Program at
$2.2 billion this year. Our amendment gives the Republicans the chance
to make good on their promise. If extra Superfund money really does
exist, it should be available immediately and for the purpose it was
intended.
Mr. Chairman, if the money is really in the bill, then why should it
be subject to a point of order. All we are saying is that if it is
there, it should be used now for cleanups and not later. My fear also
is that this money will only be available if Congress enacts a
Superfund reform bill that allows the money to be given back as rebates
to polluters, which is one of the provisions in the Republican
Superfund bill that has come before the Committee on Commerce. Mr.
Markey is going to address this issue later so I will not discuss it
now, but the bottom line is if this money is not available this year,
then basically we are appropriating about $55 million less than the
President requested for the Superfund Program.
I would like to see the money spent this year. The EPA has already
told me that they would use the additional money to begin 70 to 90
additional cleanups in communities across the country. They would
expand the brownfields program, promote more voluntary cleanups and
further fund Superfund administrative reforms. There are 107 sites
still left on the national priority list, including 7 in my district. I
should say, 9 in my district. And I know that Superfund is serious
business, not only in New Jersey but also across the country.

I just want to believe my friends on the other side of the aisle when
they say they are committed to funding this program at $2.2 billion. If
that is the case, here is your chance to prove it. Vote for our
amendment. If you bring this point of order and you have it sustained,
then you are admitting that the $2.2 billion figure is not real, that
it is a sham. And if this point of order is sustained and the money is
not real, then I think you can figure out what that means for
Republican Superfund reform proposals. We will not get the money. We
will not have additional cleanups or the money is going to be available
later as rebates to polluters which certainly is not something that is
going to help either the taxpayers or the cause of Superfund reform.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio continue to reserve his
point of order?
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I continue my reservation of a point of
order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] rise in
opposition to the amendment?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I do.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as you know from previous discussions, as modified by
the rule of H.R. 3666, this last proviso is, technically speaking,
meaningless. The intent of preappropriating the $861 million
contingency on further legislation obviously left open the possibility
of the authorizing committee's legislation triggering our
preappropriation.
Unfortunately, the reinterpretation of what this language should look
like to avoid a BA problem has resulted in

[[Page H6877]]

this required change rendering the whole proviso essentially without
any meaning.
Neverthless, the proviso still represents a commitment on the part of
the committee and the majority to take the necessary appropriation step
of providing this $861 million as soon as the program is reformed and
reauthorized by the authorizing committees. The money actually awaits
in a special seaside in the budget resolution pending this
reauthorization. The matter is not all illusory, as opponents would
have us believe.
The Chairman, the committee stands ready, willing and able to proceed
in an appropriations sense. We have been long waiting the
reauthorization that would fix this broken program. We have begun a
dialog with the administration regarding their suggested intent that
they want to fix the program. If we find ourselves at a place where
reasonable reauthorization takes place, we intend to fund this effort.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I join with the gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. Pallone] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] in
sponsoring this amendment to bring truth to the superfund section of
the bill.
The Pallone-Borski-Markey amendment will get this bill to do what all
the Republican press release machinery has said it does--provide an
increase in funding for the Superfund Toxic Waste Cleanup Program.
While the Republican press releases say there is an increase in
Superfund money, the bill doesn't say that.
For fiscal year 1997, the bill actually cuts funding below the 1996
level and 3.5 percent below the level requested by President Clinton.
Less money than last year--that's a cut.
The majority has talked about an additional $861 million in the bill
for Superfund. But the bill requires an additional appropriations act
for the money to be spent.
The $861 million in this bill is totally meaningless and misleading.
This bill has $1.3 billion for Superfund in 1997--and no more.
The Pallone-Borski-Markey amendment would remove the restrictions
preventing the $861 million from being used for toxic waste cleanup.
Adopt our amendment and there will be a real increase in money
available for cleaning up toxic waste.
If the amendment is rejected and the bill is left as reported, there
will be a cut in toxic waste cleanup money.
With the additional $861 million, EPA projects that an additional 90
sites could be cleaned up in 1997.
The $861 million that would be freed by our amendment would allow
communities across the Nation to move forward with the cleanup of toxic
wastesites.
Under the committee bill, the $861 million would be kept in the
Superfund trust fund to be used for cleanup only when a future
appropriations bill allows it.
What are we waiting for? Why don't we use the money now to clean up
toxic waste?
We may be waiting for one of the Republican Superfund proposals to
come out of committee so the money can be used to pay polluters to
clean up the messes they created.
That's all we've seen in the authorizing committees--one proposal
after another to let polluters off the hook and reduce cleanup
standards.
These proposals to pay polluters and reduce standards are opposed by
the States, they're opposed by the communities who desperately want the
cleanup and they are opposed by the administration.
If we're waiting for a chance to pay polluters, then we will never
see the $861 million.
Mr. Chairman, the Superfund Program needs reforms but not the kind
that will reduce cleanup standards and allow polluters off the hook.
We can do a real reform bill that will eliminate the unfairness in
the current Superfund Program with a fair share allocation system as we
have proposed.
We can exempt the small businesses that only contributed small
amounts of waste from Superfund liability.
We can exempt municipalities that transported household trash and
limit the liability of those who operated landfills that accepted
household trash.
We can get the smaller parties out of the system as quickly as
possible.
We can place more emphasis on future land use when deciding on
remedies and we can limit the preference to permanent treatment to hot
spots only.
We can provide help to cities attempting to clean up their brownfield
sites to attract economic development.
We can provide protection for innocent prospective purchasers and
lenders so that development projects can proceed.
The adoption of all of these proposals to reform Superfund--which we
have made--would produce a program with more fairness, less litigation,
lower transaction costs, and faster cleanups.
Mr. Chairman, nobody wants real Superfund reform more than EPA
Administrator Carol Browner.
These proposals for real superfund reform have been rejected,
however, because of the unrestrained desire of the Republican majority
to pay polluters and reduce cleanup standards.
Hard as it is to believe, the Republican proposals would actually
create more litigation by allowing the reopening of every decision made
since 1980. It would be a lawyer's dream.
Adoption of these proposals would mean the money in this bill would
not be used for cleanup but would be used for payments to polluters and
for even more transaction costs and litigation.
Nobody wants real Superfund reform more than EPA Administrator Carol
Browner.
In 1994, she devoted many long, hard hours to forging a compromise
reform package that was supported by industry, States, local
governments, and the environmental community.
Charges that she is not serious about wanting reform are simply
baseless and unfair.
Under this administration, the Superfund Program has worked better
than it ever did in the past. More sites have been cleaned up in the
past 3 years than were cleaned up in the 12 years of the previous
administrations.
EPA is ready to move forward with cleanups--up to 90 cleanups can be
funded if we give them the $861 million.
Instead of talking about the $861 million, let's put our money where
our mouth is and use the money for toxic waste cleanup. Then let's do
real reform.
I urge support of the Pallone-Borski-Markey amendment to free the
$861 million. Instead of a preview of coming attractions that will only
happen if another bill is passed, let's make it real money that can be
used now.

Point of Order

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the
Congressional Budget Act as amended. The Committee on Appropriations
filed a subcommittee allocation for fiscal year 1997 on June 17, 1996
(H. Rept. 104-624). This amendment would provide a new budget authority
in excess of the subcommittee allocation and is not permitted under
section 302(f) of the act.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that the amendment be ruled out of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, again, as I said before, if the money is
really in this bill, then why should it be subject to a point of order.
All we are saying is that if it is really there, if the money is really
there, it should be used now for cleanups and not later for some
polluter slush fund which basically gives money back in rebates to
polluters. As I said on page 60 of the committee report, it says that
the committee is appropriating $2.2 billion for Superfund in fiscal
year 1997.
In addition, it claims that they are appropriating almost 861 million
more than the President included in his budget. Our amendment simply
strikes that contingency and would truly fund the Superfund Program at
the 2.2 billion and have the money spent this year.
If the amendment is subject to a point of order, then the money
really is not there after all and the Republicans are appropriating
about 55 million less than the President requested. So I just wanted to
make it clear that by bringing this point of order and having it
sustained, they are admitting that the $2.2 billion figure is basically
a sham. They are admitting that they funded the program at $55 million
less than the President requested and that they have turned this
appropriation process into something that we may never see.
The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] and some of the others said last
week that Republicans are willing to put their money where their mouths
are on Superfund reform. If this point of order is sustained and the
money is not real, then I think the bottom line means that the
Republicans really do not intend to provide additional money for the
Superfund Program and what

[[Page H6878]]

they are really up to is trying to provide this fund, this slush fund
that ultimately will be used for rebates to polluters when the
Superfund reform that they advocate is passed into law or comes up on
the floor.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Boehlert] wish
to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. BOEHLERT. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak in support of the
point of order.
The usually mild-mannered gentleman from New York is incensed by what
my mild-mannered friend from New Jersey is saying. He is just at odds
with the facts.
The budget resolution creates a Superfund reserve fund. This reserve
fund allows the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to increase the
committee allocations when the Superfund taxes are extended and the
program is reformed. That is what we are all about. We want to reform a
program that everyone agrees is broken.
It is deficit neutral, this fund, because it will come from the
reauthorized Supefund business taxes. This bill sets the marker for the
funding level that will be provided when these conditions are met. We
are saying that we are committed, let me repeat that, we are saying
that we are committed to fund a reformed Superfund at $2.2 billion and
will use the extension of the Superfund taxes for that purpose.

{time} 1415

What we have said repeatedly from the beginning of this historic
104th Congress is that we want to reform Superfund. We have a plan; it
is falling on deaf ears.
Mr. Chairman, I support the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] seek
to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. BORSKI. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I urge that the point of order raised
against this amendment be overruled. The Pallone-Borski-Markey
amendment does not change any of the monetary figures in the bill. It
simply strikes the very unusual language limiting the use of $861
million, language that makes the $861 million totally meaningless. If
the $861 million is real and will impact the budget, then our amendment
will have no impact whatsoever on the budget. If this point of order is
sustained, the ruling will support the contention that the $861 million
is meaningless. The $861 million figure in this bill is the most
meaningless thing I have seen on this House floor in 14 years.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is like a house of mirrors at an amusement
park. First we pass a Budget Act, then we waive the Budget Act. Next we
put $861 million in the bill for Superfund, then we include language to
make sure that it will not be spent. Then we invoke the Budget Act to
keep it from being spent.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject the point of order so
that we can move forward with this amendment to fund the toxic waste
cleanup program.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BORSKI. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. PALLONE. Again on the point of order, what I do not understand,
listening to my friend from New York again, is that if in fact we need
to have an authorization for the Superfund program and we need to have
a----
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear each Member on his own time.
Members may not yield on a point of order.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, could I be recognized on the point of
order?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will again hear the gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. Pallone].
Mr. PALLONE. Just very quickly, Mr. Chairman, again responding to the
gentleman from New York. If we need a budget waiver, if we need the
authorization for the Superfund Program or the reauthorization, and we
need another appropriation, we have to go through that anyway in future
Congresses. So there is nothing here. This is a totally unreal
situation where they are suggesting that we will do this in the future
if we can get it authorized, if we can get an appropriation and if we
can get a budget waiver. It seems to me that in the next Congress, or
whenever this comes up again, we would have to do all those things
anyway to proceed.
So, there is nothing here. As my friend from Pennsylvania said, this
is nothing really but a publicity effort or advertising effort to make
it look like the Republican leadership is actually doing something. The
reality is they are doing nothing on the Superfund Program, and, if
anything, it may cause mischief and suggest that somehow, if this money
does become available in the future, it might be used for some kind of
rebate program, and that is my concern.
But I do not see that we are really doing anything here at all. This
is just advertising promotion to make the Republicans feel that they,
as my colleagues know, look good or appear that they are trying to do
something when they are not.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey proposes to
strike from the bill the last proviso under the heading ``Hazardous
Substance Superfund.'' That proviso states that a specified increment
of the amount ostensibly provided in that paragraph of the bill ``shall
become available for obligation only upon the enactment of future
appropriations legislation that specifically makes these funds
available for obligation.''
The Chair is advised that the Committee on the Budget has analyzed
this proviso under scorekeeping rule 9 from the joint explanatory
statement of managers on the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, entitled
``Delay of obligations.'' That rule reads in part as follows:

If the authority to obligate is contingent upon the
enactment of a subsequent appropriation, new budget authority
and outlays will be scored with the subsequent appropriation.

Thus, pursuant to section 302(g) of the Budget Act, the Committee on
the Budget estimates that the incremental amount of funding affected by
this proviso is presently attributable to the ``future appropriations
legislation'' and not to the pending appropriation bill. Consequently,
to strike the proviso would cause the incremental amount of budget
authority affected by the proviso to be attributed to the pending bill.
The Chair is further advised that the Committee on the Budget
estimates that the bill, as perfected to this point, provides new
discretionary budget authority in the approximate amount of
$64,327,000,000, and that the pertinent allocation of such budget
authority for this bill under sections 302 and 602 of the Budget Act is
$64,354,000,000. Thus, an amendment providing new discretionary budget
authority in an amount greater than $27 million would breach the
pertinent allocation, in violation of section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
Beause the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey would
cause the pending bill to provide an additional $861 million in new
discretionary budget authority, it violates section 302(f) of the
Budget Act.
The point of order is sustained.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] be permitted to offer
amendment number 10 to a portion of the bill not yet read and that the
time be limited to 5 minutes on each side.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.

amendment offered by mr. brown of california

Mr. BROWN of California. 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. Brown of California: At the end of
the bill, insert after the last section (preceding the short
title) the following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act for
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration may be used
for the National Center for Science Literacy, Education and
Technology at the American Museum of National History.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] will be recognized for 5 minutes
and a Member in opposition will be recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page H6879]]

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
Mr. BROWN of California. I thank my good friend, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis], for allowing us this opportunity to take up the
amendment which I have offered.
Mr. Chairman, before I unleash a flood of oratory with regard to my
amendment, I want to say that I understand that my good friend, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the distinguished chair of the
subcommittee, and my friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], have
indicated the possibility that they might consider accepting this
amendment, and in light of this fact I will merely state that this
amendment was aimed at eliminating an earmark contained in the language
of the report having to do with an extremely meritorious museum project
in the city of New York.
I have no objections whatsoever to the museum project. However, I
spent the better part of the decade of the 1980's lecturing my
Democratic friends on the Committee on Appropriations as to the value
of authorizing programs of this sort in the appropriate legislation. I
do not wish to spend the decade of the 1990's, assuming I live that
long, lecturing my Republican friends with regard to the value of
authorization. I would merely point out that the chairman of the
authorizing committee, in this case the Committee on Science, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], and I have historically
agreed on the importance of authorization, that we have passed a NASA
authorization bill which is in the Senate and is pending action in the
Senate and that I am more than willing to work with the distinguished
chairman and ranking member on this side and their corresponding
Members on the Senate side to include in the authorizing bill in the
Senate and within a few days of action, as I understand it, to include
the appropriate language that would authorize a museum program.
I would say that I have separately introduced, and I hope I can get a
few cosponsors, to make this a permanent authority for NASA to fund on
a limited basis science museums which are appropriate to its role, and
I will seek to move this bill forward if it is the will of the House to
do so. In the meantime, I will do whatever I can, as I say, in
cooperation with the gentleman to use an existing vehicle to authorize
this program, and if it is so authorized, I will be an enthusiastic
supporter of this particular program.
I would like to point out that this will be of no handicap to the New
York museum. They have a $300 million reserve fund which could easily
finance the whole of what they propose. The interest on that trust fund
alone could support the amount of the Federal contribution that they
are asking for, and I, therefore, feel that this would not do any
substantial damage to the progress of their project, which, as I have
said, I am an enthusiastic supporter of, and I appreciate the
willingness of my good friends on the House Committee on Appropriations
to consider the importance of due process with regard to authorization
and the other matters that I have mentioned in connection with this
program.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment cosponsored by Mr. Royce
of California, Mr. Minge of Minnesota, and Mr. Neumann of Wisconsin, to
bar funding for one of a rather substantial number of earmarks
contained in the report accompanying this appropriations bill. My
amendment is a simple one: It is a limitation on NASA funding that
would prohibit the expenditure of Federal funds for the American Museum
of Natural History's National Center for Science Literacy, Education,
and Technology. I would like to explain why I am offering this
amendment.
The VA-HUD-Independent Agencies appropriations bill is an important
piece of legislation, and crafting a bill that can properly balance all
the competing needs represented within it has always been a difficult
task. Mr. Lewis, the subcommittee chair, is to be commended on his
efforts to strike a reasonable balance among the various priorities.
As you know, the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies bill contains funding
for the bulk of the Nation's civilian scientific research budget,
including such agencies such as NASA and the National Science
Foundation. When the bill was marked up at subcommittee, I felt that
the bill represented a serious attempt to balance competing scientific
initiatives, although I also believed that overall funding--as well as
funding for some specific research accounts--fell significantly below
what was needed.
However, something happened at the full committee markup that
compromised the good efforts that had been made in the bill.
Specifically, an amendment was adopted to the report language that
directed NASA to make a noncompetitive award of $13 million out of
existing funds to the American Museum of Natural History in New York to
establish a ``National Center for Science Literacy, Education, and
Technology.''
Is this a good idea? I really can't criticize the merits of the
proposed project, nor can I praise them. The simple fact is that there
is no basis for Congress to properly evaluate the project, because it
was never requested by NASA, it was never brought before the
authorizing committee for review, it has never been peer reviewed, and
it was never offered for authorization when the Omnibus Civilian
Science Authorization Act of 1996 was considered by the House only a
few weeks ago.
However, I would note parenthetically that the American Museum of
Natural History's $300 million endowment could finance the museum's
entire $130 million renovation program 2\1/2\ times over. In fact, the
annual interest alone on that endowment could more than pay for the
proposed Federal grant of $13 million.
Mr. Chairman, I am certainly not opposed to the promotion of science
education and literacy. Indeed, museums and educational centers all
over the country are beginning to focus on this very issue and are
struggling to find innovative ways to fund these efforts. Thus, the
American Museum of Natural History is not alone in their desire to
obtain Federal funds. In past Congresses I have sponsored legislation
to establish a competitively based grants program for museums and
educational institutions. I reintroduced this legislation yesterday.
The problem I was trying to correct with that legislation was the rise
in noncompetitive congressional science-related earmarks that was
eroding the buying power of our science agencies as well as degrading
the integrity of the peer review process.
Unfortunately, the funding that my amendment would remove represents
a resurgence of the pernicious practice that members of authorizing
committees have protested against in past years. I find it particularly
ironic that we are seeing the resurgence of such earmarking in the
midst of all the reform rhetoric emanating from the 104th Congress.
I would also note that concern over earmarks such as the one my
amendment would remove is not partisan based. H.R. 3322, the Omnibus
Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1996, recently passed by the
House, contains an antiearmarking provision, and at a 1994 Science
Committee hearing on science earmarks, then ranking member and now
Chairman Walker stated: ``The bottom line is that most earmarked
projects are funded that way because they wouldn't be able to withstand
the close scrutiny of peer review or even of authorization, and so
therefore they do not represent the best that this nation knows how to
do, and we ought not to be funding anything which is not our best
effort with the limited resources that we have.'' [Hearing on Academic
Earmarks, Vol. I, June 16, 1994, page 2]

I heartily concur with the assessment of the chairman of the Science
Committee.
Finally, like so many other science-related earmarks, the one that my
amendment seeks to eliminate is an earmark that would further erode the
ability of the affected science agency--in this case NASA--to carry out
its authorized science programs. Specifically, this earmark would take
$13 million from NASA's Mission to Planet Earth--a research program
whose funding already has been cut by more than $220 million in this
appropriations bill--and would use it for a completely different
activity. That is both bad budgeting and bad policy.
In sum, the earmark that my amendment seeks to remove is
noncompetitive, unauthorized, lacking peer review, lacking Authorizing
Committee review, and an additional lien on already seriously
diminished NASA research funding.
Most of these problems could be easily and quickly removed by an
amendment to either the fiscal year 1996 NASA authorization bill, still
languishing in the Senate; the fiscal year 1997 NASA authorization bill
recently marked up by the Senate Authorizing Committee, or the fiscal
year 1997 omnibus civilian science authorization bill, likewise
languishing in the Senate. I would hope that such an amendment would
address the generic need identified in the legislation I reintroduced
yesterday rather than simply aiding a single institution. I would be
pleased to assist in such an effort.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to remove this earmark.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] is recognized
for 5 minutes in opposition.

[[Page H6880]]

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my
colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the project that this amendment seeks to
remove from this bill is an extremely important project. The American
Museum of Natural History is raising a total of private funding and
local public funding for $135 million investment in a national center
for science literacy. What they are going to do is to rebuild the
Hayden planetarium and create a brand-new planetarium with the most up-
to-date resources, and not only is this going to be the best
planetarium probably in the world, and that is all being done with
local funds, but the national center for science literacy, which lists
$13 million for that fund, will make the resources, the scientific and
educational resources of the museum, available to every classroom in
the country, to every library in the country, to anyone who could hook
into the Internet, to anyone with a computer and access.
So this $13 million is not a local pork project for New York, it is
to take a major investment being made by the New York City government
and the New York State government and private philanthropy in New York,
and this $13 million will make the fruits of this investment available
to everyone in the country. Not a dime of the Federal appropriation
would go toward construction of anything in New York. All the Federal
funds would go toward the development of the exhibits and the computer
capability to make those exhibits available to every classroom, to
every library in the country, and it is one of the most important
investments we can make in scientific literacy in this country, and if
we value our productivity and our competitiveness, we had better value
scientific literacy.
So, Mr. Chairman, I hope we do not do anything that will jeopardize
this project today.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The
sponsors of the amendment are seeking to weed out unnecessary projects
that have no value to the American people. I support their goal, but
differ with them as to the value to the American people of this
important program the sponsors wish to eliminate under this amendment.
As I said, I share the goal of the sponsors of this amendment of
cutting wasteful spending. That is why I have stood on this floor again
and again in support of amendments to accomplish this important goal--
that is why I have introduced amendments to eliminate funding for
wasteful projects within my own Congressional district. But before
supporting amendments that claim to cut funding for projects with no
merit, we have a responsibility to study carefully the question of
whether such programs may indeed have real value to the American
people. I believe the education program this amendment seeks to
eliminate truly does have value to millions of Americans nationwide,
and we would be acting irresponsibly by eliminating these funds. The
project is an extremely important project.
The American Museum of Natural History is raising private and public
local funds for a $135 million investment in a National Center for
Science Literacy that will link one of the nation's most well-respected
and virtually unparalleled exhibitions and resources with schools,
families, science and technology centers throughout the Nation,
including NASA's science education campaign. This project has the
potential to make some of our Nation's most important achievements in
science and research more accessible to schools and families, allowing
taxpayers to utilize directly the fruits of their investment.

The funds in this bill for the literacy center is less than 10
percent of the total cost. Over half of the funds come from private
donors and foundations with the balance being paid by New York City and
New York State. This project strikes a balance between private and
Federal money to benefit the greater good, the education of our Nation.
Not one dime of the Federal appropriation would go toward
construction of any new buildings for the center. All of the Federal
funds would go to develop exhibits and educational technology
initiatives that will bring science to people across the Nation. This
program is entirely consistent with the congressionally authorized
Mission to Planet Earth, through which it is funded. NASA's Mission to
Planet Earth states specifically that its mission is ``to help
translate knowledge about our own planet to the broader community, to
schoolchildren and families, to the general public, to share NASA's
knowledge and investments with more scientists, science and technology
centers throughout the nation.''
This science literary center is an effort to make available the
resources, science, research, educational, and exhibition resources to
the American Museum, as it is known the world over, to as many parts of
this country as possible. Already, the museum hosts over 3 million
visitors from every State in this country and provides services to more
than 500,000 schoolchildren annually--again, from all regions of this
Nation. The national center's mission is to take science education
further: to make the resources available at the museum to more
Americans, and translate our Nation's Federal science investments for
every American and for the current and future generations of our youth.
I want to read from a New York Times editorial in which they say of
the proposed project, ``it will also turn the already remarkable Museum
of Natural History into one of the world's greatest scientific
resources.'' Additionally, I want to read from a statement by Dr. E.O.
Wilson, a Harvard professor, winner of two Pulitzer Prizes and named by
Time magazine last week as one of the 20 most influential people in
America. ``An institution with such great strengths * * * from its
world class collections and library to its outstanding staff, is
automatically in a position of leadership. It also has a responsibility
to lead because of its * * * historical importance of its
collections.''
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of
my time or a small piece thereof.
First, I very much appreciate my colleague from California having
this discussion with us. There is little question of the tremendous
contribution that has been made by the American Museum of Natural
History in New York and particularly, in this case, its literacy
center. As the chairman and our colleagues know, we are committed to
making certain that the public have access to that which we develop and
learn about as we proceed with our presence in space. The gentleman
from California [Mr. Brown] has suggested that we should not designate
this program at this time. He has, in conversation with me, indicated
that there is an authorization process potential in the other body. He
knows full well that I intend to proceed as best I can as we go to
discuss these things with the other body. In the meantime, I have
indicated to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] that we are
willing at this point to accept his amendment.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I can only express again my admiration for my
distinguished colleague from California for his reasonableness and his
statesmanship in this regard, and, as he indicated, I pledge my full
support to get the funding for the museum through authorized channels,
and I think that no hardship will be worked if we do that.
Mr. MANTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Brown
amendment that would eliminate funding for this most important and
worthwhile project. While I understand that my colleague from
California offers this amendment with good intentions, I believe this
project is a much needed investment in science education for this, and
future generations.
Should the Hayden Planetarium renovation be completed, it will be one
of the greatest planetariums in the world. The American Museum of
Natural History opens its doors to over 3 million people a year from
all over this Nation and abroad. Such a facility provides an
opportunity for students and families not only from New York, but all
over the country to participate and share in the knowledge and
information gained by NASA research and technology.
Mr. Chairman, it is also important for my colleagues to know that 90
percent of the funding necessary to complete this project has been
raised through a unique public/private partnership between the city of
New York and a variety of public and private resources. The $13 million
provided in this legislation for the Hayden Planetarium only
constitutes 10 percent of the total cost of this project.
I ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment, as it would
jeopardize this valuable project and deprive us all of the education
and understanding such a learning center would provide.

{time} 1430

Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.

[[Page H6881]]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
The amendment was agreed to.

amendment offered by mr. gejdenson

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 62.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 62 offered by Mr. Gejdenson: Page 87, after
line 17, insert the following:

Department of Health and Human Services

office of consumer affairs

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses of the Office of Consumer Affairs,
including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $1,811,000,
to be derived from amounts provided in this Act for
``National Aeronautics and Space Administration--Human space
flight'': Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision
of law, that Office may accept and deposit to this account,
during fiscal year 1997, gifts for the purpose of defraying
its costs of printing, publishing, and distributing consumer
information and educational materials; may expend up to
$1,110,000 of those gifts for those purposes, in addition to
amounts otherwise appropriated; and the balance shall remain
available for expenditure for such purposes to the extent
authorized in subsequent appropriations Acts: Provided
further, That none of the funds provided under this heading
may be made available for any other activities within the
Department of Health and Human Services.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the committee of today, the
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] will be recognized for 10
minutes and a Member opposed will be recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on
the amendment.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the chairman who,
in cooperation, raised this issue. It is clear under the present rules
that we are unable to offer this amendment. I will withdraw it shortly.
I wanted to make sure that my colleagues understood that this bill
eliminates the Office of Consumer Affairs. It is the only consumer
advocate at the Federal level. It was started by President Kennedy.
President Nixon appointed Elizabeth Dole as the deputy director during
the Nixon years. It receives 10,000 calls per month and provides a
valuable service to Americans who have consumer problems.
When we look at its review, it is supported by both consumer groups
and by corporations, because it often works to work these things out
without litigation. It operates with a staff of 13 people, and Money
magazine investigated and showed that most States are actually cutting
back on programs that assist consumers. They found that nearly 50
percent of the attorney general offices and State, county, and city
consumer affairs offices experienced dramatic cuts in recent years. We
can be sure that with a crisis at both the State and local level, this
will not be picked up at the State and local level.
We have here a critical aid to citizens, to average citizens. The
program, again, is supported by MCI, Ford, MasterCard, the Direct
Marketing Association, and consumer organizations across America. It
seems to me for 2 cents a household, consumers ought to have that
additional voice in the executive branch.
I want to say that it is something we need to do. I would hope that
we can reinstate the funding, or through the Senate, and again I thank
the chairman for his cooperation.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Connecticut?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the gentleman from Connecticut is
withdrawn.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to be sure that I expressed my strong
opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from California to
remove funding for the National Center for Science Literacy, Education,
and Technology at the American Museum of Natural History. I do so not
merely as a New Yorker, but as someone who recognizes the need to
enhance our knowledge--especially our young people's knowledge--of
science and technology.
For more than a century, the American Museum of Natural History has
been one of the world's preeminent institutions of scientific research
and education. More than 3 million people from across our Nation and
from around the world visit the museum every year. And the museum's
research stations span the globe--from Long Island to China, from
Arizona to Madagascar, from Georgia to Mongolia.
Why should the Federal Government spend $13 million out of NASA's
$13.6 billion budget for this project? Well, the American Museum of
Natural History is really the institution best suited to further the
purposes of NASA's ``Mission to Planet Earth'' by telling the story of
our planet--from the big bang, to the age of the dinosaurs, to global
warming.
The resources and capabilities of the American Museum of Natural
History are virtually unparalleled anywhere. The museum offers the
largest natural history library in the Western Hemisphere, more than 30
million cultural artifacts, the world-renowned Hayden Planetarium, 200
research scientists in nine departments, and the experience that comes
from having over 3 million visitors every year--including over 500,000
school children.
The funding contained in NASA's budget for this important scientific
and educational project is only 10 percent of its total cost. In fact,
over half of the $130 million needed to establish the national center
have already been raised through a unique public/private partnership
between the city of New York and numerous private foundations,
individuals, and corporations.
Mr. Speaker, the national center will allow the American Museum of
Natural History to translate ground-breaking science into exciting,
real-life programs for millions of Americans--precisely one of the
purposes of the Mission to Plant Earth.
This is far from a waste of Federal tax dollars. It is about
providing a nominal amount of support for a program of the highest
quality that will benefit millions of school children and enhance our
competitiveness in the global economy.
I urge defeat of the Brown amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, even though we have accepted
this amendment, let me say to the gentlewoman that my colleagues from
New York especially have brought this museum to my attention. Between
the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] and the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Nadler], in whose district this museum is located, they have
educated me in a short time. It is a magnificent effort of private
funding and the expanding of a very, very important commitment on the
part of the people of New York. I am sure we can work with each other
and attempt to continue to make progress in the weeks as well as the
months ahead.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the
committee for his support, and I look forward to working with him and
my colleagues to ensure that this invaluable resource, not only to New
York but to the country, can be supported by the Federal Government. I
thank the gentleman.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to do something to
encourage the gentlewoman to thank me, also, because I am an
enthusiastic supporter of museums. I have introduced legislation to
include museums in the role of NASA and other scientific agencies. That
legislation is currently pending. I hope some of the language in my
bill can be included in the final conference on the NASA authorization
bill for this year, so it will be clear that we intend to support
museums, and to do so on a basis which is open, aboveboard, open to all
good museums, and which can do as the gentlewoman says, can help to
enlighten the public of the United States on the importance of
scientific achievement. I pledge her my fullest cooperation in
achieving that

[[Page H6882]]

goal within the earliest possible timeframe.
Mrs. LOWEY. I want to thank the chairman, and I look forward to
working with him. I appreciate his support for this extraordinary
institution. I know together we can be successful in providing Federal
support.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word
in order to enter into a colloquy with my colleague, the gentlewoman
from New York.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss with the chairman
of the committee the need for a training program for chief fire
officers at the U.S. Fire Academy. This training program will assure
that chief officers are fully prepared before being thrust into
disaster situations.
Currently there is no national training program available to chief
fire officers. These officers are usually the first to arrive at a fire
or a disaster, and their leadership is crucial to saving lives and
property. Yet these officers receive little or no formal training. I
have been working with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert],
chairman of the Congressional Fire Services Institute, to put this
training program in place.
It is estimated that this program would only cost $400,000, and it
seems to me that $400,000 is a small price to pay in order to assure
that chief fire officers receive the training that they need to protect
the lives and property of American citizens.
There is a national consensus that this training is needed. In fact,
petitions containing over 5,000 signatures supporting this program have
been collected from all over the country. This training program is
supported by leading firefighting publications, including Fire
Engineering, Fire Chief, Firehouse, and the American Fire Journal.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask the chairman if he would work with me to
add report language at conference to direct the U.S. Fire Academy to
develop this program and to offer the course as soon as possible. There
are many lives at stake.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman
from New York [Mrs. Lowey] that I appreciate her bringing this very
important matter to our attention. I agree that it is also very
important that chief officers, firefighters who take immediate charge
of fires and disasters, receive the training they need to protect both
the firefighters under their command and the lives and property of our
citizens. I certainly agree that the U.S. Fire Academy should begin to
develop a curriculum for this kind of training. Four hundred thousand
dollars, it seems to me, even in these difficult times, is a modest
price to pay to assure that chief officers are fully prepared when they
arrive at the site of disasters, where property damage alone can cost
much more than the figure under discussion.
I would say to the gentlewoman that I would be glad to work with her
to ensure that the conference report directs FEMA to review this matter
and to report their findings to the Congress no later than the first of
next year. If appropriate, I will strongly urge the U.S. Fire Academy
to develop a curriculum for this training and to begin to offer this
training program as soon as possible.
Our chief fire officers should not be forced to learn the skills
needed to take charge of a fire or disaster site on the job. We should
assure that they are fully prepared well before they are faced with
these circumstances, and I must say I appreciate deeply the gentlewoman
bringing this to my attention.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, it is an honor for me to serve with the
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. I appreciate the
gentleman's leadership and I thank him for his support. I look forward
to working with him on this language. I do believe this training will
save many lives. I thank the chairman very much.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment offered
by my friend, Mr. Brown of California.
The U.S. Government spends billions of dollars a year on science and
technology, particularly for defense programs and NASA space
exploration. Surely we can spend $13 million to bring some of that
technology home to the American people.
Especially for a project where 90 percent of the $130 million
required is coming from private and non-Federal sources. Let's not send
the message to all these private contributors that the Federal
Government is not willing to participate in the project that will make
our Federal science and technology initiatives accessible to the
citizens.
The American Museum of Natural History is the one institution that
can attract this support because it is truly national in its scope,
mission, and resources.
For more than 125 years, the American Museum of Natural History has
been nourishing young minds with scientific enlightenment in a readily
understandable form.
Three million people from all 50 States flock to the museum every
year to learn about the cutting edge scientific research interpreted,
explained, and performed by the museum's 200 scientists and leaders in
their fields.
The landmark project--whose Federal funding this amendment would
prevent--would greatly expand the range and the capabilities of the
world-renowned Hayden Planetarium, and would bring more of its
treasures home to all Americans.
The project calls for a new Sky Theater, a Hall of the Universe, a
Hall of the Planet Earth, and a Hall of Life's Diversity.
And it will allow the museum's exhibitions to be visited not just by
Americans who can afford a trip to New York, but by anyone with access
to the World Wide Web at work, at home, at school.
Just imagine: real-time images from the Hubble Telescope will no
longer just be available to Government bureaucrats and scientists at
NASA headquarters in Houston. They'll be available in a user-friendly
format to students, as well as other scientists and educators.
Mr. Chairman, for all that the American museum has done for
scientific understanding in our country, the museum has never once come
to the Federal Government for a major funding initiative.
Granting this modest request is the least we can do. Denying it would
be a tragic setback and loss to scientific literacy in this Nation. I
reluctantly urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment offered by my
friend, Mr. Brown.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, if I had been here, I would have risen reluctantly in
opposition to the amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Brown], and in support of a 10-percent, $13 million
Federal funding for the National Center for Science, Literacy,
Education, and Technology at the Museum of Natural History. It was a
mere 10-percent funding of a $130 million project that would have
expanded science and new technologies into the homes of millions of
Americans through all types of fora, not only at the museum but through
computers and through the Web. I regret that I was not here to speak in
opposition to his amendment, and I am sorry that this has been struck
from the budget.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of engaging the chairman of the
committee in a colloquy. It is my understanding that the gentlewoman
from New York [Mrs. Lowey] also would like to enter into part of this
discussion.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the committee again for
the excellent environmental section of this bill. This is something I
know the chairman has worked on very hard, and I appreciate that,
following through on what he did in his days as a California
legislator.
As we know, the House passed another excellent environmental bill
yesterday, the Safe Drinking Water Act. That bill was passed by a voice
vote and it authorized $16 billion for the New York City watershed,
which is the water supply for nearly 10 million Americans. The Senate
version of the bill, which passed unanimously, includes $15 million for
the watershed. That money would implement a model agreement in which
the watershed will be protected without imposing burdensome limits on
development in my area, and without forcing the expenditure of $8
billion on the part of the city of New York on a new filtration plant.
The program is a model because it relies on voluntary changes in land
use policy to protect drinking water for the Nation's largest city. It
is my understanding that the chairman is supportive of this agreement,
and that funding the watershed agreement will be a priority in
conference.
Is my understanding correct, Mr. Chairman?

[[Page H6883]]

{time} 1445

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Boehlert] that I am very aware of this commitment to
this project, as well as his concern about environmental matters that
affect the country, and especially New York. The gentleman has
discussed many such items, including this watershed problem with me in
some detail. I very much appreciate the gentleman bringing it to our
attention.
There is little question that I informed the gentleman that dollars
are mighty thin, and we are having great difficulty providing specific
funding for individual projects. But between now and the time
conference, I think we will better know about the availability of
funds.
The watershed agreement is, as the gentleman suggested, a model that
is widely supported in both Houses of the Congress. The committee and I
will do everything possible to seek funding for the project in
conference.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman very much for
those comforting words, because we are talking about something that has
broad implications affecting the water supply for 10 million people.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman
from New York [Mrs. Lowey], who has worked with me on this very
important matter.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, [Mr. Boehlert], my
outstanding colleague from New York who has truly been a leader on this
issue. It has been an honor for me to work with the gentleman and to
see this project actually become a reality.
I also want to thank the gentleman, because we know that for more
than 150 years, Mr. Chairman, the residents of the New York
metropolitan area have received their drinking water from reservoirs in
upstate New York. This 2,000-square-mile watershed has the distinction
of being the largest unfiltered surface drinking water supply in the
entire Nation.
As my colleagues from New York State know, protecting the New York
City watershed is absolutely critical, and it is simply a matter of
dollars and cents. Why? Reserving the purity of the city's water system
at its source in the upstate reservoirs will avoid the need to
construct a filtration plant that would cost more than $6 billion, I
repeat, $6 billion.
For too long, there was antagonism and mistrust between residents of
the metropolitan area, who want to ensure the water's purity, and
upstate residents, who rely on the land for their economic livelihood.
It used to be that the interests of upstate residents were
diametrically opposed to the interests of my constituents in Queens and
Westchester County, but not anymore.
Late last year, the city and State of New York, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and farmers and local officials from the watershed
agreed to a landmark watershed protection program that will avoid the
need for costly filtration while still safeguarding public health and
allowing those who make a living off the land to continue to do so. If
successful, this program promises to become a national model for
locally driven, economically friendly environmental protection.
New York City alone has pledged to invest over $1.2 billion over the
next 15 years to implement the program, but a modest investment by the
Federal Government is also needed.
Regrettably, the first installment of these funds has not been
included in the EPA's budget for 1997. But I will withdraw my
amendment. I will not offer my amendment, which would provide the $15
million that is needed. I appreciate the leadership again of the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and the willingness of our
chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], to work with us to
ensure that these vital funds will be provided.
So thank you again, thanks to our chairman, thank you to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. And I look forward to working
with my colleagues on this vital issue for the entire region.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, my colleague was a
little bit conservative when she suggested that the filtration plant
would cost $6 billion. As a matter of fact, we have had cost estimates
as high as $8 billion. In addition to that, it would cost $350 million
a year just for operation and maintenance.
We are getting smarter around this institution. What we are proposing
is a modest expenditure to save billions of dollars. I am comforted by
the chairman's good words, and I appreciate the gentlewoman's support.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, as we are aware, the community of Cataldo on the Coeur
d'Alene River, which is in the northern part of my Idaho district, is
facing an impending disaster. Dangerous flooding this spring has
already resulted in the area being listed as a Federal disaster area.
But this Federal disaster designation, while helpful, has not ended the
danger, nor has it ended the fear my constituents do face.
We are dealing with an old, but newly exacerbated problem. The steady
buildup of rock and other deposits which has been worsening in recent
years has been greatly accelerated as a result of the floods. This has
caused unusually high water levels to rise even higher. This flooding,
coupled with a leaking dike that the Army Corps of Engineers has
determined is 2 feet too short is threatening the community of Cataldo.
If next spring's floods are anything like this year's, and there are
indications that they may be even worse, this small community will be
destroyed, and a major freeway, Interstate 90, will be cut off.
If I-90 is lost, Mr. Chairman, literally 10,000 vehicles it carries
every day will have a roughly 200-mile detour around the closure. The
economic impact on those highway users and on residents in surrounding
areas will be devastating. But even worse, the loss of I-90 will make
emergency evacuation extremely difficult and rescue efforts nearly
impossible.

Mr. Chairman, my constituents are can-do, roll-up-your-sleeves kind
of people, and they would like nothing better than to get in and fix
that dike, raise it by 2 feet and fix it and make it right. But
restrictive Federal regulations prohibit them from solving this problem
on their own. In order to raise and reinforce its dike to Federal
standards, Cataldo needs $300,000. Tragically, there has been little
success in finding the necessary funds, and we fear that fiscal year
1997 will simply be too late.
Mr. Chairman, the citizens of Cataldo are afraid for their property,
their homes, and most importantly, their lives. May I reassure them
that the Federal Emergency Management Agency will allocate needed funds
from their fiscal year 1996 budget?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my colleague,
the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] that the citizens of
Cataldo sound very much like the citizens of beautiful San Bernardino
County. It is a great pleasure for me to enter into this discussion
with the gentlewoman. I very much appreciate her bringing to my
attention and to the committee's attention this very important issue.
As in this case, human lives, property, and an important interstate
highway could be protected with a relatively small expenditure. It
certainly bears further review.
While I am not sure if allocating these funds is within FEMA's
authority, some people are trying to limit the authority of my
subcommittee. In the meantime, it very much involves serious potential
property damage and threat to human life. I will examine the
possibility and try to help exercise every option we have available.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate that
consideration and so do the people of Cataldo.

amendment offered by mr. hostettler

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler]
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

[[Page H6884]]

RECORDED VOTE

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183,
noes 240, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 276]

AYES--183

Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Flanagan
Foley
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Graham
Greene (UT)
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hoke
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Radanovich
Ramstad
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOES--240

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Blumenauer
Blute
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Cardin
Castle
Chapman
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Goss
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hyde
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
LaFalce
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Livingston
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCrery
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Packard
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walsh
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--10

Becerra
Browder
Coleman
Fields (TX)
Ford
Lincoln
McDade
Peterson (FL)
Rose
Roybal-Allard

{time} 1512

Mr. MOLLOHAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. PARKER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye''.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, today we will conclude consideration of H.R. 3666, a
bill to appropriate fiscal year 1997 funds to the Veterans'
Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and
other independent agencies.

{time} 1515

Mr. Chairman, it is with these other independent agencies that I
would like to address this issue today.
At the close of consideration of H.R. 3666, we, as Members of the
House of Representatives, will be asked to cast one single vote on this
entire package of funding for agencies that are wholly unrelated. This
is absolutely unfair.
H.R. 3666 includes not only funds for VA and HUD, but funding for
AmeriCorps and the Selective Service System, the EPA and OSTP, and CEQ,
and FEMA, and GSA, and NASA, and NSF, and CDFI, and other minor
agencies that sound like alphabet soup.
I want to be very clear here, Mr. Chairman, I support veterans'
programs. We owe our vets a debt of gratitude that more money can never
repay, and I have supported some of the other programs, too.
But it is precisely because I believe we need to keep our promises to
our veterans who served so valiantly that I am supporting this bill
today.
But, Mr. Chairman, I think it is a fraud on the American people to
force their Representatives in Congress, Representatives who are
supposed to be watching their tax dollars, to cast one single vote on
all these various agencies. How can we justify including the veterans
of our Armed Forces in the same measure as AmeriCorps, EPA and the
like? It is fundamentally unfair to pit our veterans, whom I support,
against EPA and AmeriCorps programs, of which I have serious
reservations.
I want my constituents to know that when I cast my vote today in
favor of H.R. 3666, it is for my veterans, not a vote for AmeriCorps
and EPA.
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we reexamine our appropriations
process to inject more germaneness and fairness into our ability to
represent our constituents.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Fields of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
offer an amendment to a portion of the bill not yet read.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Fields of Louisiana:
Page 61, line 14, afte each of the two dollar amounts,
insert the following: (``increased by $3,500,000)''.
Page 61, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $178,500,000)''.
page 61, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $89,000,000)''.
Page 62, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $60,000,000)''.
Page 62, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
Page 62, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $4,500,000)''.
Page 62, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $11,500,000)''.
Page 63, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $7,000,000)''.
Page 63, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 74, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $178,500,000)''.

[[Page H6885]]

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of today, the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] and a member opposed will each
control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields].
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment increased funding of the National and
Community Service Programs by $178.5 million above its level in the
bill. It raises it to $543.5 million for fiscal year 1997. It provides
$28.5 million for administrative services, $129 million for national
service trust account for educational awards, $261 million for grants
under the national service trust program. It also provides $6 million
for Points of Light Foundation, $22 million for the Civilian Community
Corps. It provides $53 million for school- and community-based service
learning programs across the country. It provides $37 million for
quality and innovative activities. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, it provides $7
million for audits and other evaluations of the program itself.
Each of these programs provides our Nation with one thing that we
lack most, and that is community involvement. This program is a network
of community-based programs which provides Americans with results-
driven programs. In exchange for a year or 2 years of hard work,
AmeriCorps members earn education awards to finance their way through
college, graduate school, vocational training or to help pay back
student loans.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, during a time that many
young people are defaulting on their student loans, there could not be
a better program than the National Service Program to give individuals
an opportunity to earn their way through college and not only earn
their way through college and graduate school but give them an
opportunity once they finish college and graduate school. They can in
fact be a part of one of these national service programs and pay for
their educational enhancement.
More of our youth should be able to earn a college education by
helping in the community, so we receive a twofold effort. One, we give
an opportunity to a young person to earn their way through college, and
we also help many facets of our community at the same time. In my State
of Louisiana, there are over a million people who participate in this
program. The exact number, Mr. Chairman, is 1.2 million persons
involved in the National Service Program. That only costs the Federal
Government about $6.20. We have allocated to the State of Louisiana
about $7.8 million. Some of the programs that the individuals
participate in: the Delta Service Program, with 50 participants who
help find affordable housing for low-income residents, facilitate
independent living for home-bound individuals, and tutor children on
literacy skills. Those are great programs that have taken place in my
State, and those programs are taking place all across the country.
I tender this amendment to the Members of this House as a friendly
amendment to simply bring national service funding up to the level that
it was so that more young people can participate in a very worthwhile
program.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields]. The amendment, as he has said,
would add $178.5 million to the Corporation for National and Community
Service, with an offset in the FEMA disaster relief account. The
difficulty with this is obvious to those members who have been
following the appropriations process. There is a lot of controversy
that swirls around this program. There is a need for careful
reconsideration as well as evaluation. There are a number of amendments
before us that would reduce the spending for AmeriCorps.
Recognizing that we will have a number of votes in connection with
Americorps funding, the passage of this amendment would be in and of
itself a budget-buster. It does not match the outlay requirements and
is potentially subject to a point of order.
Unfortunately, the offset that is proposed by my colleague, Mr.
Fields is FEMA. That is, he suggests we could take this money from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, an account that seems to be
everybody's favorite account. FEMA is everybody's favorite account when
they have a disaster in their district and their State and they need
some help. FEMA is also everybody's favorite account when they see some
money sitting there that is not spent yet and they want to tap it for
one of their favorite programs that may affect their district or their
State.
Indeed, when we had our major budget conference in which we put five
Appropriations Committee bills together and sent them to the President,
there was a need for a big offset, roughly $1 billion. The
administration and Congress went to FEMA, took away its money and used
it as an offset to fund other spending priorities. Eventually we have
got to pay the piper for past and future disasters.
FEMA needs these funds. There are disasters and obligations
outstanding out there, and indeed America should keep its commitment to
those people who faced those disaster circumstances. So because of
that, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
Mr FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from
California, the distinguished chairman, and I want the gentleman to
know that I get no great pride out of taking money out of FEMA. I
simply had to take it somewhere because the bill has to be budget
neutral, as the gentleman knows.
But I do think, when it comes to our kids, when it comes to giving
kids an opportunity to earn their way through college, that is
something very positive that we should do everything we can to do that.
This is only $170 some million and I do appreciate the gentleman's
comments.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms.
Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I, like the gentleman from
Louisiana, certainly appreciate the remarks of the chairman, but what I
might add is that this National Service Corps allows for us to serve
the disasters of broken life. So this is quite, I think, appropriate
that we invest in AmeriCorps and invest in the National Service Corps
to remedy the ravages of life in our urban communities, in our rural
communities, and that is what this organization does.
There is not a place that I have gone that I have not seen the works
of the National Service Corps. They get things done. In Houston, TX,
they get things done. They work with Habitat for Humanity. They build
homes for people who do not have homes. They work with youth that do
not have the kinds of role models that they need to have, and at the
same time, as we are here on the floor of the U.S. Congress,
acknowledging the importance of responsibility, that is teaching our
young people responsibility, as well.
This National Service Corps goes into communities; it does not take
over communities. It embraces communities. It builds them up. It picks
them up. It gives them new hope that things can be done. What are we
doing in the 21st century if we are not reinvesting in our youth?
Mr. Chairman, there was a report that just was reported that said we
are backhanded in our solutions. We build prisons, but we do not
provide for at-risk youth. The National Service Corps brings talented
youth together who themselves may have been at risk but yet they are
now at the stage of going to college, and they can go into these
communities that are hopeless, that are broken, that do not see a way
out and they can build them up and make them whole again.
This is a good program. This takes care of lives, the disasters of
life, which I think is so very important.
I would ask my colleagues to join the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Fields]

[[Page H6886]]

in supporting AmeriCorps with this additional funding which only brings
it equal to last year's funding. So I do not want anyone to think that
we are going beyond. Fiscal responsibility is important, but investment
in our youth, in our future in this country is equally important.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that we support this amendment and remember it is
important to fix broken lives as well as broken communities.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume in order to have a little discussion with the gentleman
from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] for just a moment.

{time} 1530

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much where my colleague is coming
from, and I just want to make a couple of points here.
First, let me point to the State of Texas, the State of the
gentlewoman who just spoke. I want to mention that since 1988 there
have been a number of disasters for which we have appropriated and
obligated funds. In the State of Texas since that time, there have been
15 major disasters. The total projections of costs are $305,366,000. Of
that, $298 million has already been obligated to address very serious
problems in which FEMA was asked to respond.
In Louisiana there have been eight major disasters, $77,891,000; $62
million of that has been obligated and the balance is in the offing.
Very serious needs. Louisiana has not had a major disaster of late, but
who knows what happens around the corner.
So FEMA becomes the quick whipping boy or the quick source when we
have difficult problems in one sense, but then we look to it as a
source for our favorite programs as well.
Let me suggest to the gentleman that we have just recently had a vote
in which we were successful relative to the program for which she seeks
to increase funding. We have a number of amendments before us that
would reduce that spending. If we go forward with this amendment and
have a vote that ends up being in the negative, it could provide
considerable incentive in terms of those other amendments that remain
before us.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman to consider that as he
decides whether to take this amendment to a vote or not.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I just want to echo the same comment the
gentleman has just made. I think the author of the amendment should
realize that we have just been able to defeat an amendment which would
have taken all of the money out of AmeriCorps. We won, but we did not
win by such a margin that four or five other people who have amendments
to reduce funding in AmeriCorps have not been dissuaded from offering
their amendments.
I would think in light of that, the gentleman from Louisiana having
made his point here, that he would consider what the chairman has said
in terms of realizing that this is not the type of amendment to take
all the way to a vote. I think the gentleman has made his point, it is
a good point. This is certainly an excellent program, but we have to
consider all the circumstances here and we have to remember that last
year when this bill came in, it was zeroed out. There was no funding.
Of course after a veto of the bill, we did put $400 million in for
AmeriCorps, and in this bill there is $365 million. So I think the
chairman has gone a long way in trying to work out funding for this
program in a House where there are some people who do not want this
program.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking
member of this committee, and as I said to the ranking member, and let
me just say to Members of the House, I do not have any plans to take a
vote on this amendment.
I want to thank the gentleman, the chairman, in all honesty, for his
hard work in this effort. I really thank the gentleman for his efforts.
I come from the school of thought that we have to do all that we can
do to improve opportunities for higher education in this country, and I
know both gentlemen, particularly this gentleman and the chairman, have
worked hard to provide that opportunity for young people.
We have too many young people who graduate from college in this
country who will leave a college or a medical school or some graduate
school with over $100,000 worth of debt. If they have that opportunity
to work their way through college, work their way through graduate
school, or even have the opportunity to work in community programs to
pay back their loans, that is the point that this gentleman and the
gentlewoman from Texas had made and is making.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to take a minute and commend the
gentleman from Louisiana for the kind of leadership he has offered in
this House in terms of education and scholarship, particularly of young
people; and in terms of the TRIO program, which he has been a real
leader on here in the House. He is to be commended for the amendment
which he has offered here today and the principle which lies behind it.
I appreciate it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's
comments with respect to FEMA and certainly with respect to the great
State of Texas. My comments are not in any way to suggest that FEMA is
not both worthy and well needed in times of need, and I acknowledge
that we have been forced in this time of fiscal responsibility to look
in places where we would not want to look.
So to my FEMA employees and those that may need FEMA ultimately, let
me say this is not directed and intended to undermine, but it is a
choice. I do thank both the gentleman, who is chairman, and the ranking
member for their leadership, and I thank my colleague from Louisiana.
Understand that I leave Members with the thought that there are
disasters of life that I believe, if we look at the record of the
National Service Corps, that they have been able to amend and fix. I
recognize that we are certainly at a better place than we were before,
but this is to offer opportunities for us to fix broken lives, that
these young people participate in doing, and helping them reinvest in
their lives as well.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I must say
to the gentlewoman that I am sure many of her constituents would
remember in just as crystal clear a fashion the needs that they had
when the disasters faced them personally that involved FEMA's work.
And they have been very responsive to Texas. To presume that time and
time again we can tap their account without having to pay the price
eventually and have dollars not available when another kind of disaster
affects either her State or Louisiana or my State of California could
be a very big mistake.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of
my time, and in closing I want to lastly thank the chairman and thank
the ranking member for their work in this effort.
I can only say that I know how to count and I know where the votes
are, but I would like to say to the Members of this House that even in
disasters, and I understand FEMA's budget, but whenever there is a
national disaster and the moneys are not there in the FEMA's budget,
the chairman knows as well as the ranking member knows and every Member
of this House knows that this Congress has the right and the obligation
to go back to the Federal war chest and appropriate additional funds.
So while I understand and respect the gentleman's argument about
FEMA, I wish not to take the money from FEMA, but the amendment has to
be budget neutral.
I think I have made the point, Mr. Chairman, that there are a lot of
young

[[Page H6887]]

people across this country who should have the opportunity to go to
college. They are caught in the middle. Their parents make a little too
much money to qualify for a student loan or a grant but they do not
make enough money to send them to college. National service is a
program for the future, and this Congress should be totally committed
to it.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I do so to announce for my colleagues our plan as to
how we are going to proceed. It is my intention to proceed out of order
with the Solomon amendment No. 49, then proceed with the regular order
of reading. I believe there are only two amendments left in title III.
We will then be on title IV, the last title of the bill, and will try
to move as quickly as possible on this title.
We do have a number of amendments left. if Members would restrain
themselves, not just in terms of time but maybe consider eliminating
amendments where there is duplication, it would expedite the work of
the House. I am sure all our colleagues would appreciate that effort.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Solomon

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer an
amendment to a portion of the bill not yet read.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: Page 95, after line 21,
insert the following new sections:
Sec. 422. (a) Denial of Funds for Preventing ROTC Access to
Campus.--None of the funds made available in this Act may be
provided by contract or by grant (including a grant of funds
to be available for student aid) to an institution of higher
education when it is made known to the Federal official
having authority to obligate or expend such funds that the
institution (or any subelement thereof) has a policy or
practice (regardless of when implemented) that prohibits, or
in effect prevents--
(1) the maintaining, establishing, or operation of a unit
of the Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps (in accordance
with section 654 of title 10, United States Code, and other
applicable Federal laws) at the institution (or subelement);
or
(2) a student at the institution (or subelement) from
enrolling in a unit of the Senior Reserve Officer Training
Corps at another institution of higher education.
(b) Exception.--The limitation established in subsection
(a) shall not apply to an institution of higher education
when it is made known to the Federal official having
authority to obligate or expend such funds that--
(1) the institution (or subelement) has ceased the policy
or practice described in such subsection; or
(2) the institution has a longstanding policy of pacifism
based on historical religious affiliation.
Sec. 423. (a) Denial of Funds for Preventing Federal
Military Recruiting on Campus.--None of the funds made
available in this Act may be provided by contract or grant
(including a grant of funds to be available for student aid)
to any institution of higher education when it is made known
to the Federal official having authority to obligate or
expend such funds that the institution (or any subelement
thereof) has a policy or practice (regardless of when
implemented) that prohibits, or in effect prevents--
(1) entry to campuses, or access to students (who are 17
years of age or older) on campuses, for purposes of Federal
military recruiting; or
(2) access to the following information pertaining to
students (who are 17 years of age or older) for purposes of
Federal military recruiting, student names, addresses,
telephone listings, dates and places of birth, levels of
education, degrees received, prior military experience, and
the most recent previous educational institutions enrolled in
by the students.
(b) Exception.--The limitation established in subsection
(a) shall not apply to an institution of higher education
when it is made known to the Federal official having
authority to obligate or expend such funds that--
(1) the institution (or subelement) has ceased the policy
or practice described in such subsection; or
(2) the institution has a longstanding policy of pacifism
based on historical religious affiliation.
Sec. 424. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be obligated or expended to enter into or renew a contract
with an entity when it is made known to the Federal official
having authority to obligate or expend such funds that--
(1) such entity is otherwise a contractor with the United
States and is subject to the requirement in section 4212(d)
of title 38, United States Code, regarding submission of an
annual report to the Secretary of Labor concerning employment
of certain veterans; and
(2) such entity has not submitted a report as required by
that section for the most recent year for which such
requirement was applicable to such entity.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago we were talking about
national service. Let me tell Members what real national service is.
That is what my amendment deals with. It talks to volunteer national
service in the most honorable career in this country today, and that is
service in the Armed Forces of the United States of America.
The provisions in the amendment that I am offering before us now with
the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] has passed this House several
times and should be familiar to Members, so I will be very brief.
Mr. Chairman, in many places across the country military recruiters
are being denied access to educational facilities, preventing
recruiters from explaining the honorable benefits of an honorable
career in our Armed Forces of the United States to our young people.
Likewise, ROTC units have been kicked off of several campuses around
the country.
This amendment today would simply prevent any funds appropriated in
this act from going into institutions of higher learning which prevent
military recruiting on their campuses or have an anti-ROTC policy.
Mr. Chairman, these institutions that are receiving Federal taxpayer
money just cannot be able to then turn their back on the young people
who defend this country. It is simple common sense and fairness, and
that is why this language has already become the law of the land for
Defense Department funds and passed the House by voice vote last month
in the science authorization bill.
Mr. Chairman, recruiting is the key to our all-voluntary force, which
has been such a spectacular success. Recruiters have been able to
enlist such promising volunteers for our Armed Forces by going into
high schools and to colleges, by informing young people of the
increased opportunities that an honorable military career can provide,
such as the Sonny Montgomery peacetime GI bill, which can let them earn
up to $25,000, even $30,000 towards that education. That is why we need
this amendment.
Last, a third of part of the amendment would also deny contracts or
grants to institutions that are not in compliance with the law; that
they submit an annual report on veterans hiring practices to the
Department of Labor. In the same vein, this is simple common sense and
fairness to the people who defend our country.
Mr. Chairman, all we are doing here is asking for compliance with
existing law. This particular language was also passed by voice vote on
the Defense appropriations bill just 2 weeks ago.
Having said all that, I urge Members to vote for my amendment that
the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] and I are offering right now.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from California, the cosponsor
of this amendment.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
too will be brief.
This amendment has passed the House on several previous occasions. As
little as a few weeks ago this amendment passed the House. This is an
issue of fairness. In our universities and colleges across the country,
if Federal tax dollars are good enough to put into those universities,
then they should not deny ROTC on their campuses or recruiters entrance
onto those campuses.
I think in this new age of political correctness at times we have
overstepped our bounds, and this is one instance where many of our
universities and colleges have truly overstepped their bounds. They
have forced ROTC students off campus, they are forcing recruiters off
campus, and at the same time they have their hand out for Federal
grants and Federal research dollars, and I believe that that is unfair.
I believe that this amendment is one way of curing that problem and
it is

[[Page H6888]]

something that is much needed in our country today, and I thank the
gentleman for yielding me this time and for bringing up this amendment.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman,
and I urge support of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members wishing to be heard on the
amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Solomon].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

American Battle Monuments Commission

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the
American Battle Monuments Commission, including the
acquisition of land or interest in land in foreign countries;
purchases and repair of uniforms for caretakers of national
cemeteries and monuments outside of the United States and its
territories and possessions; rent of office and garage space
in foreign countries; purchase (one for replacement only) and
hire of passenger motor vehicles; and insurance of official
motor vehicles in foreign countries, when required by law of
such countries; $22,265,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That where station allowance has been
authorized by the Department of the Army for officers of the
Army serving the Army at certain foreign stations, the same
allowance shall be authorized for officers of the Armed
Forces assigned to the Commission while serving at the same
foreign stations, and this appropriation is hereby made
available for the payment of such allowance: Provided
further, That when traveling on business of the Commission,
officers of the Armed Forces serving as members or as
Secretary of the Commission may be reimbursed for expenses as
provided for civilian members of the Commission: Provided
further, That the Commission shall reimburse other Government
agencies, including the Armed Forces, for salary, pay, and
allowances of personnel assigned to it.

Department of the Treasury

Community Development Financial Institutions

community development financial institutions fund program account

For grants, loans, and technical assistance to qualifying
community development lenders, and administrative expenses of
the Fund, $45,000,000, to remain available until September
30, 1998, of which $8,000,000 may be used for the cost of
direct loans, and up to $800,000 may be used for
administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan program:
Provided, That the cost of direct loans, including the cost
of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further,
That not more than $19,400,000 of the funds made available
under this heading may be used for programs and activities
authorized in section 114 of the Community Development
Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994.

Consumer Product Safety Commission

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, including hire of passenger motor vehicles,
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for
individuals not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the
rate for GS-18, purchase of nominal awards to recognize non-
Federal officials' contributions to Commission activities,
and not to exceed $500 for official reception and
representation expenses, $42,500,000.

Corporation for National and Community Service

national and community service programs operating expenses

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses for the Corporation for National and
Community Service (referred to in the matter under this
heading as the ``Corporation'') in carrying out programs,
activities, and initiatives under the National and Community
Service Act of 1990 (referred to in the matter under this
heading as the ``Act'') (42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.),
$365,000,000, of which $265,000,000 shall be available for
obligation from September 1, 1997, through September 30,
1998: Provided, That not more than $25,000,000 shall be
available for administrative expenses authorized under
section 501(a)(4) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12671(a)(4)):
Provided further, That not more than $2,500 shall be for
official reception and representation expenses: Provided
further, That not more than $40,000,000, to remain available
without fiscal year limitation, shall be transferred to the
National Service Trust account for educational awards
authorized under subtitle D of title I of the Act (42 U.S.C.
12601 et seq.): Provided further, That not more than
$201,000,000 of the amount provided under this heading shall
be available for grants under the National Service Trust
program authorized under subtitle C of title I of the Act (42
U.S.C. 12571 et seq.) (relating to activities including the
Americorps program): Provided further, That not more than
$5,000,000 of the funds made available under this heading
shall be made available for the Points of Light Foundation
for activities authorized under title III of the Act (42
U.S.C. 12661 et seq.): Provided further, That no funds shall
be available for national service programs run by Federal
agencies authorized under section 121(b) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 12571(b)): Provided further, That to the maximum
extent feasible, funds appropriated in the preceding proviso
shall be provided in a manner that is consistent with the
recommendations of peer review panels in order to ensure that
priority is given to programs that demonstrate quality,
innovation, replicability, and sustainability: Provided
further, That not more than $17,500,000 of the funds made
available under this heading shall be available for the
Civilian Community Corps authorized under subtitle E of title
I of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12611 et seq.): Provided further,
That not more than $41,500,000 shall be available for school-
based and community-based service-learning programs
authorized under subtitle B of title I of the Act (42 U.S.C.
12521 et seq.): Provided further, That not more than
$30,000,000 shall be available for quality and innovation
activities authorized under subtitle H of title I of the Act
(42 U.S.C. 12853 et seq.): Provided further, That not more
than $5,000,000 shall be available for audits and other
evaluations authorized under section 179 of the Act (42
U.S.C. 12639): Provided further, That no funds from any other
appropriation, or from funds otherwise made available to the
Corporation, shall be used to pay for personnel compensation
and benefits, travel, or any other administrative expense for
the Board of Directors, the Office of the Chief Executive
Officer, the Office of the Managing Director, the Office of
the Chief Financial Officer, the Office of National and
Community Service Programs, the Civilian Community Corps, or
any field office or staff of the Corporation working on the
National and Community Service or Civilian Community Corps
programs: Provided further, That to the maximum extent
practicable, the Corporation shall increase significantly the
level of matching funds and in-kind contributions provided by
the private sector, shall expand significantly the number of
educational awards provided under subtitle D of title I, and
shall reduce the total Federal costs per participant in all
programs.

amendment offered by mr. hoekstra

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 18.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Hoekstra: In the item relating to
``Corporation for National and Community Service--national
and community service programs operating expenses''--
(1) after the sixth dollar amount, insert the following:
``(increased by $30,000,000)''; and
(2) strike the tenth proviso.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of today, the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] will be recognized for 10
minutes, and a Member in opposition will be recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, last week I informed the House of two very disturbing
examples of waste in the AmeriCoprs Program. The first was the $13
million spent on training and technical assistance contracts with such
organizations as the AFL-CIO and the new Multicultural Institute.

{time} 1545

Both of those were funded for $400,000 each. The other was the
opening of the new AmeriCorps Leadership Training Center overlooking
the San Francisco Bay and the Golden Gate Bridge. This amendment seeks
to strike the line-item appropriation which funds what I consider
wasteful spending and put the money in the pockets of local and
national charities around the country.
This amendment moves $30 million back into the direction and the
priorities for this program, a program that I voted for 3 years ago.
This amendment moves money away from Washington bureaucracy, Washington
bureaucrats, and moves it directly back to local charities,
individuals, and young people in our communities.
Let us talk about these two examples. The Presidio. What is the
Presidio Leadership Center? It is nothing more than magical bureaucrats
telling local charities, charities like Big Brothers, Big Sisters, you
need the Federal Government in order to find a shared purpose or to
develop new leaders.
This is a myth. Private charities have operated for years without
training provided by the magical bureaucrats. I am sure they will
continue to do so long after AmeriCorps and its magical bureaucrats are
gone. Remember, AmeriCorps is the organization that cannot even balance
its books.

[[Page H6889]]

The real danger here is that the training at the Presidio contributes
to the deterioration of the identity of local and national charities
and replaces it with a Federal cookie-cutter look and a Federal way of
operating. This is destructive to the goodwill of many, if not of all,
of these charities. It is destructive of the goodwill these charities
have earned in the communities in which they serve.
Furthermore, the costs of housing magical bureaucrats at the Presidio
are very high. Staff on site of the Presidio have noted that they
expected to train only 300 people in 1996. For that they need a budget
of $1.1 million. this equals a cost of approximately $3,300 per
trainee, not including the cost of transportation or lodging. The
Washington office of AmeriCorps disputes this figure and expects costs
to average almost $900 per member, again excluding the cost of
transportation.
Either way, in my opinion, this is an awfully expensive means of
training volunteers and their leaders. There is a better way to spend
this money. There is a better way that we should do it. This is by
moving it to local volunteers.
Why are the costs so high? Well, according to the GSA, San Francisco
is not the bargain basement place to rent facilities. Rentable space in
San Francisco is almost twice as expensive as Midwestern cities.
In fact, the rate paid by AmeriCorps for this space, while lower than
the allowable amount, is still substantial. Additionally, since
grantees are responsible to pay for the cost of getting to the
Presidio, its coastal location makes for an expensive trip for the vast
majority of AmeriCorps members. It would appear that this site was
chosen by magical bureaucrats for its beautiful location and not for
its cost or proximity to local charities.
This is a fact even AmeriCorps is beginning to see. According to
Harris Wofford, the corporation is considering closing the Presidio
Leadership Center in line with its reinvention program. A document
provided to me last week by Mr. Wofford stated:

Given the current investment in reinventing government, the
Corporation for National Service is exploring the possibility
of whether the services provided by the Presidio Leadership
Center could be done more cost-effectively by an outside
provider by privatizing the current operations.

In short, the Presidio Leadership Center could not pass the
reinventing-Government test, and even the corporation is beginning to
see that it should be closed. When AmeriCorps started, it was intended
to be a catalyst for volunteers at the local level. It was not intended
to try to become an national training center. It does not have the
capabilities. It does not have the skills to fulfill that mission.
Restore AmeriCorps back to the intent and the direction that we put in
place.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Who wishes to control the time in opposition to the
amendment?
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] is recognized for
10 minutes.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield one-half
of that time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], chairman of
the subcommittee, and that he be permitted to control that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
the time.
I rise in opposition to the amendment eliminating funding for
AmeriCorps Presidio Leadership Center.
The AmeriCorps Program reaps many benefits for local communities. The
leadership center ensures that national service leaders administering
national service programs receive quality training, leadership
development, and environmental technical assistance to train corps
members to provide services in communities such as tutoring and
conflict resolution, environmental cleanup, and improving community
service and other community services.
The Presidio Leadership Center exclusively trains only individuals
and program staff associated with the Corporation for National Service,
program directors of Learn and Serve America, the National Senior
Service Corps, and the AmeriCorps Program. While it may use training
techniques developed by corporate trainers, the learning center does
not conduct training for any corporate clients.
In the interest of time, Mr. Chairman, I may have to put some of my
statement in the Record. I did want to say the cost for rental at the
Presidio is 26 percent less than the current GSA approved rate for San
Francisco.
I would like to address the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra],
the author of the amendment, to say that so much confidence do people
have in the Presidio Leadership Center that I would be willing to put
on the record language that would say, provided further that the
corporation shall submit to the subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent
Agencies of the House Committee on Appropriations no later than 6
months from the date of enactment of this act a plan to ensure that the
corporation will not directly operate the Presidio Leadership Center,
that there would be an effort to privatize the funding of the Presidio
Leadership Center and the corporation would no longer be operating it.
Would the gentleman be receptive to that idea?
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, later on this afternoon I will have an
amendment specifically dealing with the Presidio. At that point in
time, I would be very willing to incorporate that language into the
amendment. Perhaps we could have a dialog between now and then, if
necessary, to put that language into the amendment at that time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, is this not the gentleman's amendment on
the Presidio Leadership Center?
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to
yield, this amendment includes the Presidio Training Center but also
includes significant other funds used by the corporation in training,
including contracts with the AFL-CIO and a number of other agencies.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I hope that the gentleman would consider
first of all supporting the National Service and AmeriCorps but
specifically in terms of Presidio Leadership Center, when we get to
that particular amendment, the language that I have just stated.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague, the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra]. The amendment would transfer
the $30 million earmarked for quality and innovative activities to the
$201 million earmarked for AmeriCorps grants. If this amendment is
adopted, there would be no need for the series of amendments involving
number 16, 17, 19, and 20, because this amendment would terminate all
quality and innovative activities.
It reduces those accounts further than any of the other amendments.
Innovative and demonstration grants help to build the ethic of service
among AmeriCorps programs, and persons of every age who participate in
the program. Disability grants, these grants assist programs to enroll
participants with disabilities and to accommodate their participation.
Mr. Chairman, there are people who have questions about AmeriCorps;
however, AmeriCorps has not had adequate time to be evaluated. There
are some very positive results as well as questions developing on the
horizon.
I want a bill. Yet, I really believe I will not get a bill signed
into law if this amendment and others like it were to be passed. I must
say that if we have a bill that does not include quality and innovative
grants, I personally would be very disconcerted by this level of
funding. Clearly, at a level of $365 million in this total program,
there is no

[[Page H6890]]

reason to add funds for AmeriCorps grants. The various programs are
well balanced. So, I would oppose my colleague's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Farr].
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to these
amendments to cut back on AmeriCorps. Let me just tell my colleagues a
personal story.
In 1960, when President Kennedy got elected, I was a young college
student. He introduced the concept that young Americans could serve
this country by serving in the Peace Corps. I and 60 other Members of
Congress now serving joined the Peace Corps all at different times and
had this incredible experience. That cost this country probably about
$18,000 for 2 years experience. I think everybody will recognize that
on the 35th anniversary of the Peace Corps that this country has gotten
out a lot more than it has put in.
I think AmeriCorps serves the same purpose in this country and
certainly it has gotten even stronger support by the private sector
than Peace Corps ever had. AmeriCorps is getting private funding from
General Electric Corp., from Tenneco Gas, from Nike Shoes, from Fannie
Mae, and others because this program is out reaching the needs of this
country and in places where all of the good programs that we in the
Federal Government try to trickle down to the people, they still do not
reach certain hard niche areas. AmeriCorps is doing that.
Part of AmeriCorps is certainly bringing together the attention of
the private nonprofits in this country that we need to collaborate. I
find that the AmeriCorps volunteers in our district are doing an
incredible job and get complimented all the time. In fact, what they
want is more and more.
It gets to the issue here then, as you get more sophisticated in your
dealing with the management of AmeriCorps and the management of felt
needs in the local communities, you are going to need these leadership
training programs sufficient as offered at the Presidio in San
Francisco. I think it would be a great damage to this country to even
cut back on AmeriCorps, to cut back on the programs that are supporting
AmeriCorps and, in fact, if anything this Congress ought to be
increasing it, not making a political football out of it.
I ask that Members reject these amendments.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment does not cut AmeriCorps. My amendment
moves spending from training 300 people at a cost of $1.1 million at
the Presidio or going through expensive training programs by different
agencies, my amendment actually moves that into block grants or moves
it into the grant dollars, meaning that we will have 1,500 more young
people earning dollars for college and higher education. That is where
we are moving the dollars. We are moving it to the communities. We are
moving it to the young kids. We are taking it away from the
bureaucrats.
And to think that AmeriCorps is the place for innovation. Eighty-nine
million Americans today volunteer on a regular basis. To believe that
AmeriCorps, remember, this is the organization that does not even keep
auditable books. This is the place that the rest of the charitable
world is going to look to in terms of innovation and how to run quality
programs. Give me a break. AmeriCorps should be looking to places like
Habitat for Humanity, looking at places like the Salvation Army and
saying, how do you get 89 million Americans to volunteer in your
organizations?
Come on, we have been having charitable organizations in America long
before AmeriCorps existed. AmeriCorps was intended to be a catalyst to
facilitate these organizations, not to tell them how to do it.

{time} 1600

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, am I correct that I have the right to
close?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is correct.
The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] has 4 minutes remaining,
the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] has 3\1/4\ minutes remaining,
and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] has one-half minute remaining.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], my colleague, that I see wanted to speak.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Hoekstra] for that very gracious and bipartisan gesture.
First of all, I hate to do this to the gentleman, but I will take his
time and rise in opposition to his amendment.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield but say to the gentleman, do not
take up all my time.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. That is not a surprise, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is a gentleman with that
gesture.
I rise in opposition to the amendment for a couple reasons. First of
all, it does not save a dime, it just simply moves $30 million from one
account to another account. Second, it micromanages the AmeriCorps
Program, and it says:

We in Congress know exactly the way that you should be
spending your money, we are going to tell you exactly what to
do with an innovative education training program that the
Governors are running pretty darn well.

Governor Engler is doing welfare reform out of this program. Governor
Romer is doing quality child-care providing out of this program.
Governor Wilson is improving education mentoring through this program.
So innovative things are going on at the State level, and Thomas
Jefferson said many, many years ago that we should allow our States to
serve as laboratories for democracy and see what works best at the
local level. That is precisely what is happening with this program now,
from Republican and Democratic Governors, from mentoring children to
reforming welfare.
I urge, even though the gentleman has granted me all this time, my
colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague that this may be perceived as
micromanaging. It is micromanaging to the tune of $30 million, it is
micromanaging back to the direction of a program that I voted for 3
years ago that said we are going to focus these dollars at local
programs, we are going to focus it on the young people, and we are
going to try to make an impact at the grass-roots level, and we are
also going to be a world-class organization. In too many places with
this program we have consistently been disappointed. It is not a world-
class organization. We are moving money into bureaucracies and
buildings and bureaucrats in Washington. We want, I want, to have the
impact at the local level.
I have got serious questions about this program after 3 years. But it
is kind of like if we are going to do the program, let us move the
money to the kids in the local agencies, and that is what it does. Let
us not put it in the Presidio, let us not give it to the AFL-CIO. These
people that are running these agencies at the local level are some of
our most talented people, the people that are involved in the
charitable organization are some of the most talented people at the
local level. They work for Fortune 500 companies, they are successful
entrepreneurs, they know how to manage, they have access to these
training capabilities at the local level.
We do not need a redundant organization here in Washington or in San
Francisco. When organizations at this level, when these people at the
local level, are looking to enhance their capabilities and their
skills, they are not going to come to the Corporation for National
Service to see how they can improve their programs. They have got those
skills at the local level.
Let us save this $30 million, let us move it to where it can have a
positive impact, and I think that that is the right place to go. This
is what is characterized earlier today--this is not a

[[Page H6891]]

mean-spirited amendment. I believe that this is a constructive
amendment to move dollars back to the direction where we wanted this
program to be when we passed it in 1993.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] is recognized
for 30 seconds.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I obviously will be very brief.
As my colleagues can tell, I am a great supporter of AmeriCorps. I
think it is one of the greatest programs that we have done here in
Congress, and I hope that we will give it strong support, increasing
support.
The issue here is not AmeriCorps. It is about cost. And remember that
it is not just a debate about cost, but it is a debate about value.
Defeat these amendments. It is not just the price of everything, but
it is also the value of something. The AmeriCorps is a great value to
this country.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 456, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra]
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

office of inspector general

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $2,000,000.

Court of Veterans Appeals

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for the operation of the United
States Court of Veterans Appeals as authorized by 38 U.S.C.
sections 7251-7292, $9,229,000, of which $634,000, to remain
available until September 30, 1998, shall be available for
the purpose of providing financial assistance as described,
and in accordance with the process and reporting procedures
set forth, under this heading in Public Law 102-227.

Department of Defense--Civil Cemeterial Expenses, Army

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses, as authorized by law, for
maintenance, operation, and improvement of Arlington National
Cemetery and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery,
including the purchase of one passenger motor vehicle for
replacement only, and not to exceed $1,000 for official
reception and representation expenses, $11,600,000, to remain
available until expended.

Environmental Protection Agency

science and technology

For science and technology, including research and
development activities, which shall include research and
development activities under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA),
as amended; necessary expenses for personnel and related
costs and travel expenses, including uniforms, or allowances
therefore, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not
to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for GS-18;
procurement of laboratory equipment and supplies; other
operating expenses in support of research and development;
construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation and
renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project,
$540,000,000, which shall remain available until September
30, 1998.

environmental programs and management

For environmental programs and management, including
necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for personnel
and related costs and travel expenses, including uniforms, or
allowances therefore, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902;
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for
individuals not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the
rate for GS-18; hire of passenger motor vehicles; hire,
maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchase of reprints;
library memberships in societies or associations which issue
publications to members only or at a price to members lower
than to subscribers who are not members; construction,
alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and renovation of
facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project; and not to
exceed $6,000 for official reception and representation
expenses, $1,703,000,000, which shall remain available until
September 30, 1998.

office of inspector general

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, and for construction, alteration,
repair, rehabilitation, and renovation of facilities, not to
exceed $75,000 per project, $28,500,000.

buildings and facilities

For construction, repair, improvement, extension,
alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of,
or for use by, the Environmental Protection Agency,
$107,220,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That EPA is authorized to establish and construct a
consolidated research facility at Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, at a maximum total construction cost of
$232,000,000, and to obligate such monies as are made
available by this Act for this purpose: Provided further,
That EPA is authorized to construct such facility through
multi-year contracts incrementally funded through
appropriations hereafter made available for this project:
Provided further, That, notwithstanding the previous
provisos, for monies obligated pursuant to this authority,
EPA may not obligate monies in excess of those provided in
advance in annual appropriations, and such contracts shall
clearly provide for this limitation.

hazardous substance superfund

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses to carry out the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA), as amended, including sections 111 (c)(3),
(c)(5), (c)(6), and (e)(4) (42 U.S.C. 9611), and for
construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and
renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project;
not to exceed $2,200,000,000, to remain available until
expended, consisting of $1,950,000,000 as authorized by
section 517(a) of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), as amended by Public Law
101-508, and $250,000,000 as a payment from general revenues
to the Hazardous Substance Superfund as authorized by section
517(b) of SARA, as amended by Public Law 101-508: Provided,
That funds appropriated under this heading may be allocated
to other Federal agencies in accordance with section 111(a)
of CERCLA: Provided further, That $11,000,000 of the funds
appropriated under this heading shall be transferred to the
``Office of Inspector General'' appropriation to remain
available until September 30, 1997: Provided further, That
notwithstanding section 111(m) of CERCLA or any other
provision of law, not to exceed $59,000,000 of the funds
appropriated under this heading shall be available to the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to carry out
activities described in sections 104(i), 111(c)(4), and
111(c)(14) of CERCLA and section 118(f) of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986: Provided further,
That $35,000,000 of the funds appropriated under this heading
shall be transferred to the ``Science and technology''
appropriation to remain available until September 30, 1998:
Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under
this heading shall be available for the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry to issue in excess of 40
toxicological profiles pursuant to section 104(i) of CERCLA
during fiscal year 1997: Provided further, That $861,000,000
of the funds appropriated under this heading shall become
available for obligation only upon the enactment of future
appropriations legislation that specifically makes these
funds available for obligation.

leaking underground storage tank trust fund

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses to carry out leaking underground
storage tank cleanup activities authorized by section 205 of
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and
for construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and
renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project,
$46,500,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That no more than $7,000,000 shall be available for
administrative expenses: Provided further, That $577,000
shall be transferred to the ``Office of Inspector General''
appropriation to remain available until September 30, 1997.

oil spill response

(including transfer of funds)

For expenses necessary to carry out the Environmental
Protection Agency's responsibilities under the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990, $15,000,000, to be derived from the Oil Spill
Liability trust fund, and to remain available until expended:
Provided, That not more than $8,000,000 of these funds shall
be available for administrative expenses.

state and tribal assistance grants

For environmental programs and infrastructure assistance,
including capitalization grants for State revolving funds and
performance partnership grants, $2,768,207,000, to remain
available until expended, of which $1,800,000,000 shall be
for making capitalization grants for State revolving funds to
support water infrastructure financing; $100,000,000 for
architectural, engineering, planning, design, construction
and related activities in connection with the construction of
high priority water and wastewater facilities in the area of
the United States-Mexico Border, after consultation with the
appropriate border commission; $50,000,000 for grants to the
State of Texas, which shall be matched by an equal amount of
State funds from State resources, for the purpose of
improving wastewater treatment for colonias; $15,000,000 for
grants to the State of Alaska subject to an appropriate

[[Page H6892]]

cost share as determined by the Administrator, to address
wastewater infrastructure needs of rural and Alaska Native
Villages; $129,000,000 for making grants for the construction
of wastewater treatment facilities and the development of
groundwater in accordance with the terms and conditions
specified for such grants in the Report accompanying this
Act; and $674,207,000 for grants to States and federally
recognized tribes for multi-media or single media pollution
prevention, control and abatement and related activities
pursuant to the provisions set forth under this heading in
Public Law 104-134: Provided, That, from funds appropriated
under this heading, the Administrator may make grants to
federally recognized Indian governments for the development
of multi-media environmental programs: Provided further, That
of the $1,800,000,000 for capitalization grants for State
revolving funds to support water infrastructure financing,
$450,000,000 shall be for drinking water State revolving
funds, but if no drinking water State revolving fund
legislation is enacted by June 1, 1997, these funds shall
immediately be available for making capitalization grants
under title VI of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended.

working capital fund

(including transfer of funds)

There is hereby established in the Treasury a franchise
fund pilot to be known as the ``Working capital fund'', 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 Administrator 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 such 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
such fund: Provided further, That such fund shall be paid in
advance from funds available to the Agency 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 Administrator: Provided further, That
such 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 Agency 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 provision

Sec. 301. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
made available in this Act to the Environmental Protection
Agency for any account, program or project may be transferred
to Science and Technology for necessary research activities,
subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Report
accompanying this Act.

Executive Office of the President

office of science and technology policy

For necessary expenses of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, in carrying out the purposes of the
National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and
Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6601 and 6671), hire of
passenger motor vehicles, and services as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109, not to exceed $2,500 for official reception and
representation expenses, and rental of conference rooms in
the District of Columbia, $4,932,000.

council on environmental quality and office of environmental quality

For necessary expenses to continue functions assigned to
the Council on Environmental Quality and Office of
Environmental Quality pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, the Environmental Quality Improvement Act
of 1970, and Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, $2,250,000.

Federal Emergency Management Agency

disaster relief

For necessary expenses in carrying out the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), $1,320,000,000, and, notwithstanding 42
U.S.C. 5203, to become available for obligation on September
30, 1997, and remain available until expended.

disaster assistance direct loan program account

For the cost of direct loans, $1,385,000, as authorized by
section 319 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.): 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 $25,000,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct loan program, $548,000.

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for,
including hire and purchase of motor vehicles (31 U.S.C.
1343); uniforms, or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109,
but at rates for individuals not to exceed the per diem rate
equivalent to the rate for GS-18; expenses of attendance of
cooperating officials and individuals at meetings concerned
with the work of emergency preparedness; transportation in
connection with the continuity of Government programs to the
same extent and in the same manner as permitted the Secretary
of a Military Department under 10 U.S.C. 2632; and not to
exceed $2,500 for official reception and representation
expenses, $168,000,000.

office of inspector general

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $4,533,000.

emergency management planning and assistance

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, to
carry out activities under the National Flood Insurance Act
of 1968, as amended, and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of
1977, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the Federal Fire
Prevention and Control Act of 1974, as amended (15 U.S.C.
2201 et seq.), the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended
(50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), sections 107 and 303 of the
National Security Act of 1947, as amended (50 U.S.C. 404-
405), and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, $209,101,000.

emergency food and shelter program

To carry out an emergency food and shelter program pursuant
to title III of Public Law 100-77, as amended, $100,000,000:
Provided, That total administrative costs shall not exceed
three and one-half percent of the total appropriation.

national flood insurance fund

For activities under the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968, the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, and the
National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994, not to exceed
$20,981,000 for salaries and expenses associated with flood
mitigation and flood insurance operations, and not to exceed
$78,464,000 for flood mitigation, including up to $20,000,000
for expenses under section 1366 of the National Flood
Insurance Act, which amount shall be available until
September 30, 1998. In fiscal year 1997, no funds in excess
of (1) $47,000,000 for operating expenses, (2) $335,680,000
for agents' commissions and taxes, and (3) $35,000,000 for
interest on Treasury borrowings shall be available from the
National Flood Insurance Fund without prior notice to the
Committees on Appropriations. For fiscal year 1997, flood
insurance rates shall not exceed the level established for
such rates as of June 1, 1996.

working capital fund

For the establishment of a working capital fund for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, to be available without
fiscal year limitation, for expenses and equipment necessary
for maintenance and operations of such administrative
services as the Director 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 such 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 such fund:
Provided further, That such fund shall be reimbursed or
credited with advance payments from applicable appropriations
and funds of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, other
Federal agencies, and other sources authorized by law for
which such centralized services are performed, including
supplies, materials, and services, at rates that 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 Director:
Provided further, That income of such fund may be retained,
to remain available until expended, for purposes of the fund:
Provided further, That fees for services shall be established
by the Director at a level to cover the total estimated costs
of providing such services, such fees to be deposited in the
fund shall remain available until expended for purposes of
the fund: Provided further, That such fund shall terminate in
a manner consistent with section 403(f) of Public Law 103-
356.

administrative provision

The Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
shall promulgate through rulemaking a methodology for
assessment and collection of fees to be assessed and
collected beginning in fiscal year 1997 applicable to persons
subject to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
radiological emergency preparedness regulations. The
aggregate charges assessed pursuant to this section during
fiscal year 1997 shall approximate, but not be less than, 100
per centum of

[[Page H6893]]

the amounts anticipated by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency to be obligated for its radiological emergency
preparedness program for such fiscal year. The methodology
for assessment and collection of fees shall be fair and
equitable, and shall reflect the full amount of costs of
providing radiological emergency planning, preparedness,
response and associated services. Such fees shall be assessed
in a manner that reflects the use of agency resources for
classes of regulated persons and the administrative costs of
collecting such fees. Fees received pursuant to this section
shall be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as
offsetting receipts. Assessment and collection of such fees
are only authorized during fiscal year 1997.

General Services Administration

consumer information center fund

For necessary expenses of the Consumer Information Center,
including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $2,260,000,
to be deposited into the Consumer Information Center Fund:
Provided, That the appropriations, revenues and collections
deposited into the fund shall be available for necessary
expenses of Consumer Information Center activities in the
aggregate amount of $7,500,000. Administrative expenses of
the Consumer Information Center in fiscal year 1997 shall not
exceed $2,602,000. Appropriations, revenues, and collections
accruing to this fund during fiscal year 1997 in excess of
$7,500,000 shall remain in the fund and shall not be
available for expenditure except as authorized in
appropriations Acts: Provided further, That notwithstanding
any other provision of law, the Consumer Information Center
may accept and deposit to this account, during fiscal year
1997, gifts for the purpose of defraying its costs of
printing, publishing, and distributing consumer information
and educational material; may expend up to $1,100,000 of
those gifts for those purposes, in addition to amounts
otherwise appropriated; and the balance shall remain
available for expenditure for such purpose to the extent
authorized in subsequent appropriations Acts.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

human space flight

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the
conduct and support of human space flight research and
development activities, including research, development,
operations, and services; maintenance; construction of
facilities including repair, rehabilitation, and modification
of real and personal property, and acquisition or
condemnation of real property, as authorized by law; space
flight, spacecraft control and communications activities
including operations, production, and services; and purchase,
lease, charter, maintenance and operation of mission and
administrative aircraft, $5,362,900,000, to remain available
until September 30, 1998.

science, aeronautics and technology

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the
conduct and support of science, aeronautics and technology
research and development activities, including research,
development, operations, and services; maintenance;
construction of facilities including repair, rehabilitation,
and modification of real and personal property, and
acquisition or condemnation of real property, as authorized
by law; space flight, spacecraft control and communications
activities including operations, production, and services;
and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance and operation of
mission and administrative aircraft, $5,662,100,000, to
remain available until September 30, 1998. Chapter VII of
Public Law 104-6 is amended under the heading, ``National
Aeronautics and Space Administration'' by replacing
``September 30, 1997'' with ``September 30, 1998'' and
``1996'' with ``1997''.

mission support

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in
carrying out mission support for human space flight programs
and science, aeronautical, and technology programs, including
research operations and support; space communications
activities including operations, production and services;
maintenance; construction of facilities including repair,
rehabilitation, and modification of facilities, minor
construction of new facilities and additions to existing
facilities, facility planning and design, environmental
compliance and restoration, and acquisition or condemnation
of real property, as authorized by law; program management;
personnel and related costs, including uniforms or allowances
therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; travel
expenses; purchase, lease charter, maintenance, and operation
of mission and administrative aircraft; not to exceed $35,000
for official reception and representation expenses; and
purchase (not to exceed 33 for replacement only) and hire of
passenger motor vehicles; $2,562,200,000, to remain available
until September 30, 1998.

office of inspector general

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, $17,000,000.

Administrative Provisions

(including transfer of funds)

Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds
appropriated for ``Human space flight'', ``Science,
aeronautics and technology'', or ``Mission support'' by this
appropriations Act, when (1) any activity has been initiated
by the incurrence of obligations for construction of
facilities as authorized by law, or (2) amounts are provided
for full-funding for the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite
(TDRS) replenishment program, such amount available for such
activity shall remain available until expended. This
provision does not apply to the amounts appropriated in
``Mission support'' pursuant to the authorization for repair,
rehabilitation and modification of facilities, minor
construction of new facilities and additions to existing
facilities, and facility planning and design.
Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds
appropriated for ``Human space flight'', ``Science,
aeronautics and technology'', or ``Mission support'' by this
appropriations Act, the amounts appropriated for construction
of facilities shall remain available until September 30,
1999.
Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds
appropriated for ``Mission support'' and ``Office of
Inspector General'', amounts made available by this Act for
personnel and related costs and travel expenses of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall remain
available until September 30, 1997 and may be used to enter
into contracts for training, investigations, cost associated
with personnel relocation, and for other services, to be
provided during the next fiscal year.

National Credit Union Administration

central liquidity facility

During fiscal year 1997, gross obligations of the Central
Liquidity Facility for the principal amount of new direct
loans to member credit unions, as authorized by the National
Credit Union Central Liquidity Facility Act (12 U.S.C. 1795),
shall not exceed $600,000,000: Provided, That administrative
expenses of the Central Liquidity Facility in fiscal year
1997 shall not exceed $560,000: Provided further, That
$1,000,000, together with amounts of principal and interest
on loans repaid, to be available until expended, is available
for loans to community development credit unions.

National Science Foundation

research and related activities

For necessary expenses in carrying out the National Science
Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875), and
the Act to establish a National Medal of Science (42 U.S.C.
1880-1881); services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109;
maintenance and operation of aircraft and purchase of flight
services for research support; acquisition of aircraft;
$2,422,000,000, of which not to exceed $226,000,000 shall
remain available until expended for Polar research and
operations support, and for reimbursement to other Federal
agencies for operational and science support and logistical
and other related activities for the United States Antarctic
program; the balance to remain available until September 30,
1998: Provided, That receipts for scientific support services
and materials furnished by the National Research Centers and
other National Science Foundation supported research
facilities may be credited to this appropriation: Provided
further, That to the extent that the amount appropriated is
less than the total amount authorized to be appropriated for
included program activities, all amounts, including floors
and ceilings, specified in the authorizing Act for those
program activities or their subactivities shall be reduced
proportionally.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. WALKER

Mr. WALKER. 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. Walker: In the item relating to
``National Science Foundation--research and related
activities'', after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $9,110,000)''.
In the item relating to ``National Science Foundation--
salaries and expenses'', after the second dollar amount,
insert the following: ``(reduced by $9,110,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of today, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] will be recognized for 10
minutes, and a Member in opposition will be recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, just 3 weeks ago the House voted by a 70-vote margin
not to increase the salaries and expense account of the National
Science Foundation by $9.1 million to a total of $134.3 million.
Unfortunately, the VA-HUD bill that we have before us now defies that
specific House vote and puts the money into the salary and expense
account despite the House determination.
What this amendment does is merely conforms the NSF salaries and
expense account to the House-passed authorization level and moves the
freed-up money, the $9.1 million into the NSF research account where it
is authorized. In other words, it takes the money out of bureaucracy
where the money is not authorized and puts it

[[Page H6894]]

into university research where it has been authorized.
The reason for doing this is because the administration has been
playing election-year politics with this account. If my colleagues can
look on this chart, the administration actually takes salaries and
expenses up in 1997 and then drops them off a cliff out to the year
2000, and the fact is it will cost, under the administration's plan,
several hundred jobs at NSF, according to a letter that I have recently
received from the NSF director.

The President proposes to increase the National Science Foundation
S&E account in fiscal 1997, then cut it by $11 million in fiscal 1998
down to $118 million and then another $11 million in fiscal 1999 to
$107 million, and then another $6 million in the year 2000 to a level
of $101 million.
In the meantime, what we intend to do in our proposal is to reduce
the S&E account from $127 million in fiscal 1996 to $120 million in
fiscal year 1997.
Furthermore, our plan then calls for level funding until the year
2000, and our plan allows NSF to make the proper gradual steps to
maintain efficiency. Our plan would not have the drastic cuts
represented in the administration plans between the years 1998 and the
year 2000. Over the same time frame our plan provides $34 million more
for salaries and expenses than does the President's plan. The
additional $34 million in our overall budget plan buys a lot more
morale.
Our science authorization bill adopted the S&E account numbers used
in the budget resolution for $120 million. Ironically, the
administration was quick to point to our authorization bill and the
impact that it would have on NSF. However, when we asked for the same
analysis applied to the President's numbers, suddenly that was not
available.
I would like to include a record at this point of our exchange of
letters on that matter.

{time} 1615

By confirming the NSF S&E account to the House-passed authorization
level, we can increase the NSF account by $9 million. The research
account supports all aspects of science to promote discovery,
integration, dissemination, and employment of new knowledge to society.
The research account funds a broad range of fundamental research
activities, including awards for individuals and small groups of
investigators, research centers, national user facilities such as the
supercomputing centers, the national astronomy centers, and the
academic research fleet. Also, the research account supports activities
such as the international scientific partnerships and the research and
logistics in the Arctic and Antarctic regions.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It
increases science funding and reduces bureaucracy. It makes the VA-HUD
bill consistent with the House-passed authorization. It adds no budget
authority and reduces budget outlays.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] seek time in
opposition to the amendment?
Mr. STOKES. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] is recognized for
10 minutes.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield half of my
time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], chairman of the
Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies of the Committee on
Appropriations, and that he be permitted to control that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
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 express my appreciation to
the distinguished ranking member for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The amendment
will harm what is widely recognized as an efficient and well run
Federal agency that has the vital role of supporting basic research and
education.
With NSF, we have the unusual situation of a Federal agency that is
the inverse of a bloated bureaucracy. For the past 10 years, as its
workload has doubled, the agency had held its staffing level constant,
while learning to work smarter.
NSF has moved aggressively to streamline the proposal review process,
for example, by moving toward electronic proposal submission and
review. Paper has been reduced and the interactions between external
reviewers and NSF staff has been made more effective.
Despite the record of holding down administrative costs and the
evident progress NSF has made to improve the efficiency of its internal
operations, the amendment seeks to punish the agency by cutting its
budget for salaries and administrative expenses by nearly 6 percent
relative to the fiscal year 1996 appropriations level. But the actual
impact of the amendment on personnel is worse--closer to a 9 percent
cut--because fixed expenses, such as building rent and utility costs,
cannot be reduced.
This proposal has not been advanced on the basis of any evidence
whatsoever that suggests that NSF is squandering resources or has an
excess of staff. The cut is proposed in the absence of any supporting
facts, without any convincing rationale, and in fact, contrary to
available evidence on the efficiency and effectiveness of NSF in
administering its programs.
What other Federal agency operates on 4 percent of its total budget
and has a better record for administrative efficiency? Because NSF is a
lean organization with little management flab, the cut that would be
imposed by the amendment will translate into slashing staff positions
by as much as 10 percent and in turn reduce the ability of the agency
to carry out its responsibilities.
The amendment cuts the internal operating budget for NSF and shifts
the funds to the account for research grant support. That is, it
increases the research budget for NSF while simultaneously degrading
the ability of the agency to administer the extra funds. The losers
will be the researchers at universities and colleges throughout the
Nation who rely on NSF for support. If this amendment succeeds, they
can expect delays in proposal reviews and awards.
The bill as reported by the Appropriations Committee provides the
appropriate and necessary funding for NSF's internal operations. It
will provide only a 1.5 percent increase above the fiscal year 1996
appropriations level for salaries and administrative expenses--hardly a
lavish increase.
But by providing this funding, the bill as reported will help ensure
that NSF continues to effectively manage its research programs and will
avoid significant demoralization of one of the Federal Government's
most effective and dedicated cadre of employees.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this ill-considered and harmful
amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, following the comments of my colleague, the gentleman
from California, George Brown, I would like to repeat one of the points
that he made. The National Science Foundation's operating expenses are
approximately 4 percent of the agency's budget. That is a figure that
compares quite favorably with the 10 percent in overhead costs, which
is the norm for nonprofit research foundations. Beyond that, it
probably competes very well with a broad cross-section of other Federal
Government programs as well as agencies.
The argument that taking this action merely reflects the actions
planned for fiscal year 1998 by the administration is sending the wrong
message is it relates to these percentages. Congress has already
supported the Foundation and its efforts to promote sound science
research. We should take this opportunity to show that we continue to
support the Foundation and will not let the administration compromise
the operations of the agency by reducing its capacity to conduct merit-
based reviews of proposals prior to awarding grants.

[[Page H6895]]

Fundamental to the merit-based review process is an adequate staff to
prepare documents and abstracts for use by peer panels. Reducing the
staff by up to 10 percent, as is likely under this proposal, would
hinder the operations of the organization and place the peer review
process in jeopardy.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairmam, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Walker amendment. I want to
say first, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Basic Research of the
Committee on Science, with direct authorization and jurisdiction over
the National Science Foundation, that I believe it is a well-run
agency. They have their problems internally, like every other agency
does, including the Congress, of course, but their overall reputation
under director Neal Lane is very good.
Nevertheless, I want to point out two things about the Walker
amendment. First, I understand, of course, that the National Science
Foundation would rather have the administration's recommendations for
the salaries and expense account than it would like to have the
authorizing committee, the Committee on Science's recommendations. This
is because for the first year, the year we are debating right now, the
administration recommends an increase in funding on that account, while
the Committee on Science recommends a decrease.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly cannot blame anybody for preferring an
increase over a decrease. But the point is it does not stop there. The
point is that after the first year, after the fiscal year we are
debating now, fiscal year 1997, look what happens to the salaries and
expense account of the National Science Foundation under the
administration's proposal. It drops precipitously, until after the
first year the proposal from the administration for this very account
falls below the Committee on Science recommendation. The Committee on
Science recommendation does indeed go down, but then it is level to the
year 2000. The administration's proposal goes down and keeps going
down, year after year.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that even if this reduction takes place,
the National Science Foundation ought to be able to find ways, other
than laying off personnel, to cut its overhead. But I would point out
that if we are creating really such a disaster for the National Science
Foundation, then it is off the Richter scale what the administration
will do to the National Science Foundation if their complete budget
recommendations are followed.
So I believe that in the long run, the National Science Foundation is
better off in this account under the chairman's amendment than under
the administration's.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out one other thing. That is that
certainly every agency is facing tight budgets here. Every agency would
like to have greater funds, but every agency must tighten its belt as
we seek to balance the budget. it seems to me that $9 million is better
put into the account that does actual research funding, which is the
purpose of the National Science Foundation, and they find other ways to
cut their overhead.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself a minute.
Mr. Chairman, a reduction of $9 million from the level in this bill
could require a reduction of up to 120 FTE's, and would hinder the
management and operation of NSF's programs and its merit review
decisionmaking process, the distinguishing characteristic of NSF's
mission.
Staff cuts and other reductions would significantly impede the
quality, timeliness, and effectiveness of important research and
education programs, and would have a negative effect on the agency's
ability to serve the science community and the public. This is contrary
to everything we are trying to do to make Government work better and to
serve the public more effectively.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Ehlers].
(Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of this amendment. I
recognize the point that has been made by others, that the National
Science Foundation employees are loyal, they are hardworking, and it
would be improper and not good practice to pass the amendment and
reduce the amount available for salaries and expenses. That is true of
many areas of Government.
I am very familiar with the National Science Foundation. Indeed, I
can verify that these are very good employees. They are loyal employees
and they work very, very hard. But we are in a time where we are facing
a $5 trillion national debt. We are facing interest payments of $300
billion per year. We have to tighten the belt. The question is, where
is the belt going to be tightened?
When it comes to the National Science Foundation, are we going to
tighten the belt in grants or are we going to tighten it in
administration? Those are issues we struggled with in the Committee on
Science. We reached the conclusion that we should tighten the belt in a
number of areas, but certainly also in the administrative expenses,
salaries. It is a difficult decision, but it was one that was made in
the committee and that was adopted by the House as a whole.
The question before us now is whether we are going to stick with that
decision, whether we are going to follow the authorization that was
made by the Committee on Science and the House, or whether we are going
to change gears here and shift to another approach based on the
Committee on Appropriations' recommendation. I believe it is very
important for us to stick with the authorization that was passed out of
the Committee on Science and through the full House, and not switch at
this point. We want to stay with the previous decision, and pass an
appropriation that matches the authorization.
At issue here is more than just where the money is going. At issue is
the role of the authorization committees. I believe we have to be
consistent and stay with the recommendation we decided on earlier.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] is
recognized for 1\3/4\ minutes.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, the argument made against this amendment
coming from those who have spoken suggests that the NSF is a well-run
agency. Indeed, the NSF has been a well-run agency, but the problem is
that NSF is going to have to face the need for budget reductions. The
question is, does it come out of the hide of research or does it come
out of the hide of administration?
We have suggested that we can in fact eliminate one directorate at
NSF and save the kinds of money we are talking about saving, and put
NSF on the track toward the kinds of personnel that can be sustained
over a long period of time while we balance the budget.
The pattern that is suggested by the approach of the Committee on
Appropriations is what Neal Lane has told me in a letter will result in
a reduction from 1,200 full-time equivalent employees at the present
time to 800 people in the year 2000. That is what will destroy the NSF.
So we suggested it is time now to begin the process of changing NSF to
a better administrative structure. That is what we do. That is what the
House has endorsed.
At the same time, we put more money into the universities and into
the localities across the country; take the power out of Washington and
put the power back out in the country; make certain that the money is
spent for research, nor for bureaucracy. That is what we will do in
this amendment. This amendment will permit us to begin the reform of
NSF, to get a better administrative structure there, to have less
expense for administration and more money for basic research. I think
that is the right route to go.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members to support the amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.

{time} 1630

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.

[[Page H6896]]

Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] is recognized
for 2\1/4\ minutes.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time. I appreciate the opportunity to say a few more good
words about the National Science Foundation.
Basically, the message I want to communicate to Members here is that
the Committee on Appropriations has done a better job of facing up to
the needs of our science establishment in this country than, in my
opinion, the authorizing committee has done. I do not often say this,
because I, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] does, have a
very high opinion for the work of the authorizing committee. So when I
say it in this connection, I hope it will carry a little bit of extra
weight.
The fact of the matter is that since the early 1980's the NSF budget
has tripled, the workload doubled, and its staffing levels have
actually declined and they will continue to decline. The charts that
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] has shown show two
different rates of decline, and the gentleman thinks that that portion
of the chart which reflects his views as to the rate of decline is the
best.
I happen to disagree with that. I think in this situation the rate of
decline which is mandated by almost any effort to balance the budget is
best reflected by the President's own budget over this period of time,
which in my opinion will provide additional funding.
Now, it would be a normal situation that we would not propose a
drastic cut in an agency's staffing level when that agency is known to
be extremely efficient and have probably the best record of overhead
costs or operating costs of any agency in the Government. One would
expect that there would be something egregious about the way the agency
is being conducted to warrant that kind of a drastic cut. But this is
not the case with the National Science Foundation. I know of nothing
said here that speaks to the issue of their efficiency in an adverse
fashion.
So I ask my colleagues to vote to support the Committee
Appropriations in this case and reject the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 456, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Walker] will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

major research equipment

For necessary expenses of major construction projects
pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as
amended, $80,000,000, to remain available until expended.

education and human resources

For necessary expenses in carrying out science and
engineering education and human resources programs and
activities pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act of
1950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875), including services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and rental of conference rooms in
the District of Columbia, $612,000,000, to remain available
until September 30, 1998: Provided, That to the extent that
the amount of this appropriation is less than the total
amount authorized to be appropriated for included program
activities, all amounts, including floors and ceilings,
specified in the authorizing Act for those program activities
or their subactivities shall be reduced proportionally.

salaries and expenses

For necessary salaries and expenses of the National Science
Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875);
services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire of passenger motor
vehicles; not to exceed $9,000 for official reception and
representation expenses; uniforms or allowances therefor, as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; rental of conference rooms
in the District of Columbia; reimbursement of the General
Services Administration for security guard services and
headquarters relocation; $134,310,000: Provided, That
contracts may be entered into under salaries and expenses in
fiscal year 1997 for maintenance and operation of facilities,
and for other services, to be provided during the next fiscal
year.

office of inspector general

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
as authorized by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, $4,690,000, to remain available until September 30,
1998.

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

payment to the neighborhood reinvestment corporation

For payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
for use in neighborhood reinvestment activities, as
authorized by the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act
(42 U.S.C. 8101-8107), $50,000,000.

Selective Service System

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Selective Service System,
including expenses of attendance at meetings and of training
for uniformed personnel assigned to the Selective Service
System, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 4101-4118 for civilian
employees; and not to exceed $1,000 for official reception
and representation expenses; $22,930,000: Provided, That
during the current fiscal year, the President may exempt this
appropriation from the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 1341, whenever
he deems such action to be necessary in the interest of
national defense: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated by this Act may be expended for or in connection
with the induction of any person into the Armed Forces of the
United States.

TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 401. Where appropriations in titles I, II, and III of
this Act are expendable for travel expenses and no specific
limitation has been placed thereon, the expenditures for such
travel expenses may not exceed the amounts set forth
therefore in the budget estimates submitted for the
appropriations: Provided, That this section shall not apply
to travel performed by uncompensated officials of local
boards and appeal boards of the Selective Service System; to
travel performed directly in connection with care and
treatment of medical beneficiaries of the Department of
Veterans Affairs; to travel performed in connection with
major disasters or emergencies declared or determined by the
President under the provisions of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; to travel
performed by the Offices of Inspector General in connection
with audits and investigations; or to payments to interagency
motor pools where separately set forth in the budget
schedules: Provided further, That if appropriations in titles
I, II, and III exceed the amounts set forth in budget
estimates initially submitted for such appropriations, the
expenditures for travel may correspondingly exceed the
amounts therefore set forth in the estimates in the same
proportion.
Sec. 402. Appropriations and funds available for the
administrative expenses of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development and the Selective Service System shall be
available in the current fiscal year for purchase of
uniforms, or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
5901-5902; hire of passenger motor vehicles; and services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
Sec. 403. Funds of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development subject to the Government Corporation Control Act
or section 402 of the Housing Act of 1950 shall be available,
without regard to the limitations on administrative expenses,
for legal services on a contract or fee basis, and for
utilizing and making payment for services and facilities of
Federal National Mortgage Association, Government National
Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation,
Federal Financing Bank, Federal Reserve banks or any member
thereof, Federal Home Loan banks, and any insured bank within
the meaning of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Act,
as amended (12 U.S.C. 1811-1831).
Sec. 404. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 405. No funds appropriated by this Act may be
expended--
(1) pursuant to a certification of an officer or employee
of the United States unless--
(A) such certification is accompanied by, or is part of, a
voucher or abstract which describes the payee or payees and
the items or services for which such expenditure is being
made, or
(B) the expenditure of funds pursuant to such
certification, and without such a voucher or abstract, is
specifically authorized by law; and
(2) unless such expenditure is subject to audit by the
General Accounting Office or is specifically exempt by law
from such audit.
Sec. 406. None of the funds provided in this Act to any
department or agency may be expended for the transportation
of any officer or employee of such department or agency
between his domicile and his place of employment, with the
exception of any officer or employee authorized such
transportation under 31 U.S.C. 1344 or 5 U.S.C. 7905.
Sec. 407. None of the funds provided in this Act may be
used for payment, through grants or contracts, to recipients
that do not share in the cost of conducting research
resulting from proposals not specifically solicited by the
Government: Provided, That the extent of cost sharing by the
recipient shall

[[Page H6897]]

reflect the mutuality of interest of the grantee or
contractor and the Government in the research.
Sec. 408. None of the funds in this Act may be used,
directly or through grants, to pay or to provide
reimbursement for payment of the salary of a consultant
(whether retained by the Federal Government or a grantee) at
more than the daily equivalent of the rate paid for Level IV
of the Executive Schedule, unless specifically authorized by
law.
Sec. 409. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be
used to pay the expenses of, or otherwise compensate, non-
Federal parties intervening in regulatory or adjudicatory
proceedings. Nothing herein affects the authority of the
Consumer Product Safety Commission pursuant to section 7 of
the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056 et seq.).
Sec. 410. Except as otherwise provided under existing law
or under an existing Executive order issued pursuant to an
existing law, the obligation or expenditure of any
appropriation under this Act for contracts for any consulting
service shall be limited to contracts which are (1) a matter
of public record and available for public inspection, and (2)
thereafter included in a publicly available list of all
contracts entered into within twenty-four months prior to the
date on which the list is made available to the public and of
all contracts on which performance has not been completed by
such date. The list required by the preceding sentence shall
be updated quarterly and shall include a narrative
description of the work to be performed under each such
contract.
Sec. 411. Except as otherwise provided by law, no part of
any appropriation contained in this Act shall be obligated or
expended by any executive agency, as referred to in the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 et
seq.), for a contract for services unless such executive
agency (1) has awarded and entered into such contract in full
compliance with such Act and the regulations promulgated
thereunder, and (2) requires any report prepared pursuant to
such contract, including plans, evaluations, studies,
analyses and manuals, and any report prepared by the agency
which is substantially derived from or substantially includes
any report prepared pursuant to such contract, to contain
information concerning (A) the contract pursuant to which the
report was prepared, and (B) the contractor who prepared the
report pursuant to such contract.
Sec. 412. Except as otherwise provided in section 406, none
of the funds provided in this Act to any department or agency
shall be obligated or expended to provide a personal cook,
chauffeur, or other personal servants to any officer or
employee of such department or agency.
Sec. 413. None of the funds provided in this Act to any
department or agency shall be obligated or expended to
procure passenger automobiles as defined in 15 U.S.C. 2001
with an EPA estimated miles per gallon average of less than
22 miles per gallon.
Sec. 414. None of the funds appropriated in title I of this
Act shall be used to enter into any new lease of real
property if the estimated annual rental is more than $300,000
unless the Secretary submits, in writing, a report to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Congress and a period of
30 days has expired following the date on which the report is
received by the Committees on Appropriations.
Sec. 415. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and
Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the
greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products
purchased with funds made available in this Act should be
American-made.
(b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance
to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using
funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal
agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to
such entity a notice describing the statement made in
subsection (a) by the Congress.
Sec. 416. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
used to implement any cap on reimbursements to grantees for
indirect costs, except as published in Office of Management
and Budget Circular A-21.
Sec. 417. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year
1997 pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be
absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
Sec. 418. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for any program, project, or activity, when it is
made known to the Federal entity or official to which the
funds are made available that the program, project, or
activity is not in compliance with any Federal law relating
to risk assessment, the protection of private property
rights, or unfunded mandates.
Sec. 419. Such funds as may be necessary to carry out the
orderly termination of the Office of Consumer Affairs shall
be made available from funds appropriated to the Department
of Health and Human Services for fiscal year 1997.
Sec. 420. Corporations and agencies of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development which are subject to the
Government Corporation Control Act, as amended, are hereby
authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of
funds and borrowing authority available to each such
corporation or agency and in accord with law, and to make
such contracts and commitments without regard to fiscal year
limitations as provided by section 104 of the Act as may be
necessary in carrying out the programs set forth in the
budget for 1997 for such corporation or agency except as
hereinafter provided: Provided, That collections of these
corporations and agencies may be used for new loan or
mortgage purchase commitments only to the extent expressly
provided for in this Act (unless such loans are in support of
other forms of assistance provided for in this or prior
appropriations Acts), except that this proviso shall not
apply to the mortgage insurance or guaranty operations of
these corporations, or where loans or mortgage purchases are
necessary to protect the financial interest of the United
States Government.
Sec. 421. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to pay the salaries of
personnel who approve a contract for the purchase, lease, or
acquisition in any manner of supercomputing equipment or
services after a preliminary determination, as defined in 19
U.S.C. 1673b, or final determination, as defined in 19 U.S.C.
1673d, by the Department of Commerce that an organization
providing such supercomputing equipment or services has
offered such product at other than fair value.

Mr. LEWIS of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the remainder of title IV through page 95, line
21, 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.

amendment offered by mr. stump

Mr. STUMP. 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. Stump: Page 95, after line 21,
insert the following new section:
Sec. . The amount provided in title I for ``Veterans
Health Administration--Medical care'' is hereby increased by,
the amount provided in title I for ``Departmental
Administration--General operating expenses'' is hereby
increased by, and the total of the amounts of budget
authority provided in this Act for payments not required by
law for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997 (other than
any amount of budget authority provided in title I and any
such amount provided in title III for the American Battle
Monuments Commission, the Court of Veterans Appeals, or
Cemeterial Expenses, Army), is hereby reduced by,
$40,000,000, $17,000,000, and 0.40 percent, respectively.

(Mr. STUMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today is
coauthored with my good friend and ranking member of the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery], and
also by the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Solomon].
Mr. Chairman, we offer this amendment with great regard for the
difficulty of assembling the annual appropriation bill for departments
and agencies as diverse as those in H.R. 3666.
The amendment is very straightforward and addresses two areas of
funding in the bill we are concerned about--VA medical care and the
general operating expenses for the Veterans Benefits Administration.
The effect of this amendment would be to increase VA medical care
funding by $40 million and increase the general operating expenses for
the Veterans Benefits Administration by $17 million over the amounts
currently provided in the bill.
The increase in VA medical care would be consistent with the House
Budget Resolution.
It would also provide the VA with the potential for increasing the
number of outpatient visits at hospitals experiencing substantial
workload increase due to seasonal, as well as permanent migration of
veterans;

Beginning to address the nearly $1 billion backlog in medical
equipment purchases through expanded sharing with the private sector on
capital costs and operation of expensive high-tech medical equipment;
and
Establishing a limited number of community based clinics in areas
with increased veteran population.
The increase in the amendment for the Veterans Benefits
Administration will help prevent funding from falling to levels which
would negatively impact the current backlog in claims processing.
The President's budget request already cuts 624 positions out of the
benefit claims processing staff. Currently, 373,505 claims are
backlogged at VA regional offices around the country.

[[Page H6898]]

Original compensation claims decisions are taking 151 days, while
original pension claims are taking 88 days.
Appealing a claim through the Board of Veterans Appeals currently
averages 641 days and the appeals backlog now stands at nearly 60,000
cases. The VA has indicated that the additional $20 million reduction
in this bill would add 50,000 cases to the current claims backlog.
This amendment is supported by the following veterans service
organizations: the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled
American Veterans, AMVETS (American Veterans of WWII, Korea and
Vietnam), Vietnam Veterans of America, Paralyzed Veterans of America,
and the Non-Commissioned Officers Association.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge Members to support the Stump-
Montgomery-Solomon amendment.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Stump-
Montgomery-Solomon amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the increased funding for veterans health care
contained in this bill really is not enough. For years funding for the
medical care account could not keep pace with the increase in medical
inflation. To be fair to the committees, we have been getting about a
5- to 6-percent increase for medical care. In our hospitals it takes 10
percent to really cover these hospitals and take care of the inflation.
Even though this bill is at the level requested by the
administration, it would lead to a reduction, Mr. Chairman, of over
5,000 employees in the VA health care system in 1997. These 5,000
employees are presently working, providing health care and helping the
veterans and their families.
Mr. Chairman, adding $40 million to the VA medical care account will
not restore all of the employees who are being cut, but it will help
some of them.
We also ought to provide at least the amount requested for the
Veterans Benefits Administration. We had a hearing last week at our
committee at which we discussed the delays in processing claims for
benefits, and a number of my colleagues on the floor today
have mentioned that veterans' claims do not get processed quickly.

It now takes 154 days to process a claim for compensation, and
veterans would like to see this cut in half. Even with the additional
$17 million which the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump] is
recommending, the Veterans Benefits Administration projects a loss of
600 employees, nearly 5 percent of the work force. if we cannot at
least meet the administration's request, current delays in deciding
claims will probably get worse.
I appreciate the support of our colleagues on this amendment, and the
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump] and the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon] have worked with the chairman and the ranking minority, and I
certainly hope they will accept this amendment.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, just a few words on behalf of the amendment. The first
thing I want to do is just to commend the gentleman from California
[Mr. Lewis] and certainly the ranking member for the great job that
they have done on this particular bill.
This bill takes in not only the Department of Veterans Affairs, but
the housing and all of the other independent agencies, and I do not
think I would want their job, because when they are given the overall
caps and the allocations to mete out these moneys, they just do not go
that far. So again, I want to commend them for the great job they have
done.
We have a problem, though. One problem is that President Clinton has
said that he will veto this bill for, among other things, the fact that
it does not have quite enough funding for the Veterans' Administration.
Specifically he mentioned the hospital health care, medical care
delivery system.
This amendment does provide $40 million for that, and another $17
million, as the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] has
outlined, and I will not get into that. But the truth of the matter is
that we have two reasons why we need to support this amendment.
One is that we depend on an all-voluntary military in our country
today, and the people that are attracted to the military have to know
that that medical care delivery system is going to be there. That is an
earned benefit; it is a part of the contract that we make in enticing
them to join the military today. They have to know it is going to be
there tomorrow, 20 years from now, 40 years from now.
The other reason is because we have such an aging veterans
population. I had a meeting in Saratoga Springs just last Monday with
all of the veterans. We were talking about the funding that we have in
this bill for the Saratoga National Veterans Cematere. It is the only
one within hundreds of miles for any these veterans around the Albany
capital district area. All of these veterans that were there, almost
every one of them, some of them were from the Korean war, but most from
World War II, ages between 72 and 77 years of age, and those people
need help.
This small amendment here will go a long way toward not only sending
a message and letting the President know that he no longer can veto
this bill because of a lack of funding for the Veterans'
Administration, but it will go a long way toward satisfying the
concerns that our veteran population have.
So I want to commend the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], the
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery], the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis], and our ranking member over here for the
outstanding job that they have done.
I hope my colleagues will accept the amendment. I know they have had
a terrible job in trying to work this out. But the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis] will find a way; he is the kind of guy that can
do it. So I wish him luck.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, we have learned over time that when we present an
amendment or a bill on the floor that involves funding for veterans
medical care, the House is going to pass that amendment regardless of
what the amendment does. As we have gone through this process over the
last year-and-a-half, every one of the accounts in this bill have been
asked to reduce their rates of growth. But every time we have had a
discussion relative to restraining areas of growth in the veterans
accounts, to say the least, the House has indicated that, these
programs are a sacred cow to Members on both sides of the aisle
This Member has spent a great deal of time since assuming this
chairmanship attempting to evaluate the past history of veterans
programs, what the veterans authorizing committee has done for
veterans, and the responses of the Committee on Appropriations.
The one thing that I would like to suggest to the membership as well
as to others who are listening, it is most disconcerting to me that we
seem to be very proud of the funding levels provided to veteran
programs. We pound our chests and tell our constituents how great we
are, and yet seemingly, many of us have failed to try to measure
effectively how these funds are being used out there in the hospitals
where the veterans are supposedly being served.
I must tell you, we treat veterans like sacred cows on the House
floor and sometimes they are treated like cattle out there where the
service is delivered, and it is time that we changed that, and the
authorizing committees as well as the appropriations committees should
take a serious look at the way these services are being delivered. Oh,
we are so proud, but I must say, I know of a veteran who slept in the
hall of a hospital for 2 weeks in Los Angeles recently because he was
just being ignored, despite the money that was provided. These stories
drive this Member nuts. In the meantime, I must suggest that we do none
of these things without pain.
This account has been treated differently than any other within our
entire bill. And with this amendment, we go beyond the President's
request which is already an increase of $444 million, and add another
$40 million. But we take it from other accounts. Each of you have an
interest in these accounts, so you should know exactly what this
amendment does. It reduces $79 million from HUD housing; that is, aged
housing, disabled people, and the poorest of the poor. It reduces $26
million from EPA, $54 million from NASA.

[[Page H6899]]

It is a 0.4 percent across-the-board cut. Well, frankly, that is easy
to do. You say it is a small amount, but every account should give,
except very select accounts.
I would suggest to the Members that this across-the-board cut
jeopardizes the amendment in the long term, for I believe the other
body will look somewhat askance at this action. Indeed, the question of
this general funding will be seriously attended to in the conference
committee.
So while I have suggested to the authorizing committee I had other
sources in mind to increase this account, they chose an across-the-
board cut. I think the general membership should know that the
authorizing committee chose this action rather than other specific
tradeoffs that were feasible offsets.

{time} 1645

Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I want to
congratulate my good friend Bob Stump whom I served with many years ago
on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Sonny Montgomery who has been a
real stalwart on behalf of veterans, and Mr. Solomon for so many years
who has always taken the case of our veterans. For years before I came
to this body, I had a commitment to the veterans hospitals and the
veterans delivery system in this country. I think this is an excellent
amendment. I understand the frustrations of Mr. Lewis. I share those
same frustrations because as the former chairman of military
construction, I have fought the battle about quality of life and
helping our veterans. There is never enough money and never enough of a
high priority for our veterans.
I want to congratulate everybody that has worked so hard on this
amendment and I hope that it will pass overwhelmingly because it is a
debt that we owe to our veterans and it is something that we do not do
enough of. I congratulate everyone who had a part in this amendment. I
thank the Members for bringing it to our attention.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] was
concerned, and I understand what he said about some of the treatment at
these VA hospitals.
We have the largest hospital system in the world, 171 hospitals, 234
outpatient clinics, and a number of nursing homes. The system cannot be
run perfectly. At the Mayo Hospital and Johns Hopkins, they have a lot
of problems also, the service is very complicated and problems develop.
But if they will come to the committee when they have these problems,
to the gentleman, as I told Mr. Lewis, we will try to help him or her.
We will get that man out of the hall. We will get him a bed. We are
doing the best we can, we are making some improvements, and I
appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Mr. HEFNER. I thank the gentleman. Certainly they are not without
their faults and without their problems. Even our private hospitals
sometimes have instances where they operate on the wrong foot or what
have you. These things happen, but they are not unique. Our veterans
hospitals, the people that work in those VA hospitals are so committed,
they work long hours, they work for less pay in most cases, the doctors
are committed.
I just commend the people that work in these health delivery systems,
the hospitals. Again I want to thank the people that put together this
amendment, and I hope that the committee will accept it. If they do not
accept it, I hope it is passed overwhelmingly.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks of my
chairman of the VA-HUD Subcommittee on Appropriations. He brings to
this floor a tough bill. It is a bill that has many other sections in
it where we have had, because of the fiscal constraints, to cut very
important programs affecting people. Housing is one specific example
where earlier today we had an amendment, where people who are poor, who
are disadvantaged, who are dependent upon public funds have had to
suffer from these cuts.
In the area of the veterans, VA medical care was funded at the budget
request, receiving an increase of $444 million above 1996. Veterans
were not shortchanged here at all. I do not think anyone ought to think
that the amendment that is before us today was based upon or predicated
upon the fact that veterans in this bill were in any way shortchanged.
At some point in time, we have to understand that we cannot just
continue to increase the veterans budget at the expense of all the
other Americans who are dependent upon other sections in this bill. I
understand the predicament the chairman is in, and I understand what
will happen in terms of this amendment. But I think that at some point
in time we have to understand, and this comes from one who happens to
be a veteran, that there are other Americans whom we have to treat in
the same manner that we treat veterans.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stump-Solomon-
Montgomery amendment to the fiscal year 1997 VA-HUD appropriations
bill. The amendment, as we know, would add 40 million much needed
dollars to the VA's medical care account. We all know that $40 million
will not solve the funding problems being experienced by the VA.
However, it will permit the VA to add to its flexibility in providing
services such as community nursing home care and adult day care to our
Nation's veterans, and it will allow the VA to continue to establish
more access points in its further effort to bring VA care to the
communities across the Nation right where the veteran is.
As chairman of the Hospitals and Health Care Subcommittee, I have
seen over and over again how often our veterans have in fact been
shortchanged. Our veterans are aging. As they get older, there are
greater needs that they have. They experience more acute care needs.
The cost of providing that health care is increasing every year. Yet we
have seen over and over in the discretionary spending, the veterans
taking a disproportionate amount of the cuts. And so earlier this year
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the full committee in which Sonny
Montgomery for years was chairman, on which Bob Stump is doing such a
wonderful job, in its views and estimates to the Committee on the
Budget, recommended a $505 million increase in VA medical care. This
increase of $40 million will not get us there, but it will at least
move us in that direction. It will get us closer to what the full
committee recommended.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that this is a responsible amendment, and
that it will move this spending bill in the direction of helping our
veterans and meeting our commitment to our veterans. I strongly urge my
colleagues to endorse the Stump-Solomon-Montgomery amendment to the VA-
HUD and that we work toward this. Our veterans have always enjoyed
strong bipartisan support. I am hopeful that that tradition will
continue today.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I
just want to say that from the perspective of the majority, and I
believe the minority, it is our intention to accept this amendment and
clearly it would receive a positive vote. I would just as soon not take
too much time of the House as we go through these votes.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my enthusiastic support for the
Stump-Montgomery-Solomon amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will increase the VA's medical care
account by $40 million. I would like to commend the bipartisan sponsors
of this amendment for their recognition of the pressing need to
maintain an adequately funded VA medical care account.
The bill that we are currently considering already provides a
substantial increase in the medical care account over last year's
funding level. It includes the budget request of the President of more
than $17 billion. This is $444.5 million dollars more than the fiscal
1996 level. By passing this amendment, we are further strengthening our
commitment to providing quality medical care for our Nation's veterans.

[[Page H6900]]

The need for adequate resources for veterans health care is nowhere
more evident than in the congressional district that I represent.
Located within New York's 19th District are two VA hospitals: the
Castle Point Medical Center and the Franklin D. Roosevelt Medical
Center. Both of these facilities are working to improve efficiency and
extend the limited Federal resources they have, without compromising
the quality of the health care provided to the veterans. Many of these
reforms and changes are going to be difficult to adjust to, but many of
them are also necessary to eliminate waste and maintain a viable and
healthy VA health care system. Other reforms are still necessary to
ensure the long-range stability of the system.
However, as this reform process moves forward, we must never lose
sight of the fact that the freedom that our veterans have provided us
and secured for our country did not come without a price. Accordingly,
we must remember that providing health care for our veterans when they
are in need, as they provided service when the Nation was in need, does
not come without a price, either. It is a fundamental responsibility of
our Government to see the adequate medical care is always provided to
our veterans. This bill, improved by this amendment, will help to
ensure that this responsibility is met.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will help the veterans in my district,
my State, and the country as a whole. I strongly urge all Members to
join with me and support its passage.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to indicate my strong support
for the amendment to H.R. 3666 offered by VA Committee Chairman Stump
and our ranking member, Sonny Montgomery.
Mr. Chairman, these days it is very difficult to put together an
appropriation bill that will meet with agreement on both sides of the
aisle, let alone with the other body and the White House. I
congratulate Chairman Lewis on a fine job overall, and hope he will be
able to agree to Chairman Stump's amendment.
As I understand, the amendment will add $40 million to VA healthcare
and $17 to VA's benefit administration general operating expenses. This
additional funding will go a long way to improve healthcare for our
veterans. But, as chairman of the Veterans Compensation and Pension
Subcommittee, I would be especially gratified to see improvements to
processing times for VA claims as a result of the $17 million increase.
Nobody has been a bigger watchdog of VA claims processing than I have
been over the past couple of sessions. I am a firm supporter of making
sure VA moves down the path of strategic planning and business process
reengineering. Veterans who depend on their benefits, whether its for
education or compensation, should receive those benefits in a timely
fashion. I encourage the VA to carefully prioritize these extra funds
for the purpose of serving veterans through improved claims processing.
We owe a debt to our veterans. We can continue our commitment to
honor them by actively working to reform and improve VA healthcare,
compensation and benefits processes, among other programs. This
additional funding will go a long way toward reinforcing our support
for veterans and their families. And, I urge my colleagues to vote in
favor of the Stump-Montgomery amendment and H.R. 3666.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump].
The amendment was agreed to.

amendment offered by mrs. thurman

Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 69 offered by Mrs. Thurman: Page 95, after
line 21, insert the following new section:
Sec. (a) Plan for Allocation of Health Care Resources by
the Department of Veterans Affairs.--(1) The Secretary of
Veterans Affairs shall develop a plan for the allocation of
health care resources (including personnel and funds) of the
Department of Veterans Affairs among the health care
facilities of the Department so as to ensure that veterans
having similar economic status, similar eligibility priority,
or similar medical conditions and who are eligible for
medical care in those facilities have similar access to care
in those facilities, regardless of the region of the United
States in which they reside.
(2) The plan shall reflect, to the maximum extent possible,
the Veterans Integrated Service Network, as well as the
Resource Planning and Management System developed by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to account for forecasts in
expected workload and to ensure fairness to facilities that
provide cost-efficient health care. The plan shall include
procedures to identify reasons for variations in operating
costs among similar facilities and ways to improve the
allocation of resources among facilities so as to promote
efficient use of resources and provision of quality health
care.
(3) The Secretary shall prepare the plan in consultation
with the Under Secretary for Health of the Department of
Veterans Affairs.
(b) Plan Elements.--The plan under subsection (a) shall set
forth--
(1) milestones for achieving the goal referred to in the
subsection; and
(2) a means of evaluating the success of the Secretary in
meeting that goal through the plan.
(c) Submittal to Congress.--The Secretary shall submit the
plan developed under subsection (a) to Congress not later
than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Plan Implementation.--the Secretary shall implement the
plan developed under subsection (a) within 60 days of
submitting it to Congress under subsection (b), unless within
such period the Secretary notifies the appropriate committees
of Congress that the plan will not be implemented, along with
an explanation of why the plan will not be implemented.

Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest in this last
debate, and I think there are very few people on this floor that do not
support the amendment that our colleagues from Arizona and Mississippi
have introduced, and has been accepted, giving an additional $40
million to the VA system. However, and I am sure that the gentleman
from Arizona [Mr. Stump] knows this better than anybody, in Arizona he
needs additional money because between the years of 1980 and 1990 more
than 24 veterans came to Arizona per day.
But what I cannot understand in all of this conversation is why
Congress, when appropriating all of these extra resources, and maybe
even somewhat based on the comments of Mr. Lewis about the gentleman
from Los Angeles, why are we not making sure that those resources are
going to those States that need these dollars, rather than under the
same funding formula that we have seen over the last 50 years to, in
fact, some hospitals that have empty beds.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment today has four qualities that I think
should compel this Congress to rise in unanimous support of it: It
costs nothing. It eliminates wasteful spending. It is bipartisan in
nature. And, most importantly, it is about equity for our Nation's
veterans.
This amendment is identical to a bill that I introduced on April 25,
H.R. 3346. This measure would require the VA to link the allocation of
its resources to facility workloads, and is based on the resource
planning and management system in which the VA has already invested a
great deal of time and money. Moreover, this measure would require the
VA to implement the plan within 60 days of submitting it to Congress.
Unfortunately, under the VA-HUD appropriations we are not going to be
able to offer this amendment. I ask the chairman, and I beg the
question, if not now, when?
I brought up this very same issue on the floor last year during the
fiscal year 1996 VA-HUD appropriations. Similar language was stripped
from the Senate fiscal year 1996 bill in conference, and now it appears
that we may go another year without implementing the basic, budget-
neutral, cost-cutting measure that would benefit all veterans.
The VA recently released census data which shows that Florida's Fifth
District has the highest veterans' population in the country. In fact,
of the 10 highest-ranked congressional districts in veterans'
populations, 7 are in Florida.
The migration of veterans continues a pattern that we have been
seeing for years. For example, in my home State of Florida, between
1980 and 1990, more than 96 veterans came to Florida per day. This
should come as no shock to States such as Georgia, Nevada, North
Carolina, Alaska, Hawaii, and Virginia, because they also have seen
similar growth.
Make no mistake about it, Mr. Chairman, I welcome them to Florida,
these brave men and women who have courageously sacrificed so much for
our country. However, I have been urging the VA for years to reallocate
its resources based on the shift in veterans' population.
On June 6, Congress took a step in that direction and passed H.R.
3376, which requires the VA to develop a 5-year strategic plan for its
health care system. While I supported this measure, it was a modest
attempt to address the problem of the reallocation of health care
resources.

[[Page H6901]]

Quite simply, H.R. 3376 does not go far enough because it does not
compel the VA to enact it. If Congress does not compel the VA to enact
such plans, they simply become more ineffectual studies.

I challenge each Member to go home to their districts and ask the
veterans that they represent if the VA needs another study. For years
the VA has studied the problem of resource allocation and, accordingly,
developed the RPM system. While the aim of the 1994 measure was on
target, the results continue to be unsatisfactory.
According to the GAO, and I quote:

Although the RPM lets the VA identify inequities in
resource distribution, VA has, so far, chosen not to use the
system to help ensure that resources are distributed more
equitably.

Let me emphasize that Congress needs to do more than request
additional resource allocation plans, and instead compel the VA to
implement those in which they have already invested.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, under a previous agreement, I will ask
unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. But I would hope that in
this debate, and as we have heard in the conversations that have taken
place on this floor in previous amendments, I still hope that we do not
lose sight. We can all talk about veterans' health care, but if the
dollars are not going where the veterans are, we can all say we have
done a great job, but if they are not following where those veterans
are, then we have all done a disservice to those veterans.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me say
that I was very hesitant to even reserve the point of order relative to
the gentlewoman's proposed amendment, largely because I believe her
amendment and this discussion is very important.
There is not any question that if we do not use the moneys we deliver
with priority and properly to serve our Nation's veterans. I think she
makes a very, very important point.
Since I have had this job, the Department has indicated that they are
going to be responsive to our requests for similar prioritization.

{time} 1700

I would urge the gentlewoman to keep her eye on this target, for it
is an important one. I think it is very significant that Members who
are not necessarily on this subcommittee put the needle in our side, as
well as the Department's side, to make sure that we follow through in
this process.
So while the gentlewoman suggests she is going to withdraw the
amendment, nonetheless she has provided a great service by providing
this very important point to us.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I want to voice in my strongest support for
linking future VA medical funding with the demographic shift in
veterans' populations, as the Thurman amendment would do today. I would
urge the chairman to work to include some version of the amendment in
future VA authorizing and funding bills.
VA medical expenditures are determined largely by past expenditures,
not by veterans populations. Veterans populations, like that in my home
State of Nevada, are rapidly growing without any comparable increase in
funding resources.
For example, Nevada has experienced the fastest growth of veterans in
the Nation--with no other State in the country even close. Between 1980
and 1990, Nevada's veterans population grew an amazing 37 percent--or
at an average rate of 13 veterans a day; while others like the District
of Columbia have seen their veterans population drop by as much as 20
percent over the same period. Yet, the money does not follow the
veterans.
This is not an equitable allocation of scarce resources.
Total VA expenditures in Nevada in fiscal year 1995 amounted to
$1,258 per veteran. This puts Nevada at the bottom of the scale. Many
States that have been losing veterans get twice the funding per
veteran, and some even more than that. This is patently unfair and I
will continue to push for Congress to develop an equitable funding
equation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for responding to our push last year to
increase VA medical care funding to the President's request. Until
Congress can allow veterans more choice in how they receive care, and
until we can take care of the bloated bureaucracy, full-funding is a
minimum level we must maintain to ensure our former warriors receive
promised health care coverage.
Also, Mr. Chairman, thank you for recognizing the continued need to
fully fund the State veterans home grant account. This year's level of
$47 million is $7 million over the President's request. It is my hope
that some of this grant can be used in southern Nevada to help build a
critically needed home for our veteran population.
Representing a State with the fastest veteran population growth, the
largest amount of veterans as a percentage of population, and one of
only a handful of States without a veterans home, I can tell you that
this will mean a great deal to Nevada veterans.
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. It there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Florida?
There was no objection.

amendment offered by mr. tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT. 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. Tiahrt: Page 95, after line 21,
insert the following new section:
Sec. 422. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by increasing the amount made available for
``Veterans Health Administration--Medical Care'', increasing
the amount made available for ``Veterans Health
Administration--Medical and Prosthetic Research'', reducing
the amount made available for ``Corporation for National and
Community Service--National and Community Service Programs
Operating Expenses'', and reducing the amount made available
for ``Corporation for National and Community Service--Office
of Inspector General'', by $20,000,000, $20,000,000,
$365,000,000, and $2,000,000, respectively.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple, very
straightforward. It asks for a very clear choice. We can either fund
this so-called paid volunteer program called AmeriCorps or we can fund
the veterans. It would transfer approximately $20 million to the
Veterans Health Administration medical care and $20 million to VA
medical and prosthetic research. The remaining would go toward deficit
reduction.
Let us remember for just a moment the gulf war crisis. We had a
crisis; our young men and women rose to the occasion. They answered the
call. They volunteered their time, even their lives in some instances.
We succeeded with victory. They came home. We declared them heroes. We
had parades. But yet for many of them, for many of them, the war is not
over. They still face gulf war syndrome. Instead of spending money on
this higher priority, we are spending it on paid volunteers.
What is a volunteer, Mr. Chairman? Earlier today we heard that the
American Heritage College Dictionary defines a volunteer as someone who
does charitable or helpful work without pay. The stated purpose of the
creation of the AmeriCorps in 1993, was to promote voluntarism in this
country, particularly among young people. The problem with AmeriCorps
is quite clear. It pays people to do something that millions of
Americans already do without financial reward. An independent survey
showed that in 1994, 89.2 million Americans, 18 and over, volunteered
in some capacity for an average of 4.2 hours per week. They were not
moved by the lure of a lucrative Government job, but instead by the
true spirit of voluntarism and genuine service.

True volunteers are people, both young and old, who donate their time
and energy and spirit to help others. AmeriCorps is not true
voluntarism. According to a 1995 GAO audit, it was reported that it
cost taxpayers about $27,000 per year per recipient in AmeriCorps. Mr.
Chairman, true volunteers do not expect to be paid $15.65 an hour or
receive health insurance or a stipend to go to college, as the average
AmeriCorps volunteer does.
During 1993 and 1994, it was reported that 1,200 paid AmeriCorps
volunteers worked at the Department of Agriculture, 525 work at the
Interior Department, 210 at the Justice Department, 135 at EPA, and 60
at the National Endowment for the Arts. If that is not bad enough, Mr.
Chairman, almost half of the money spent on

[[Page H6902]]

AmeriCorps ends up funding the Federal bureaucracy or paperwork, rather
than in community service.
Mr. Chairman, while I respect the goals of these young men and women
who are involved in AmeriCorps, I greatly admire the 89.2 million
Americans who volunteer their time, energy, and their spirit without
being paid. AmeriCorps may do worthy work, but can we really afford to
pay volunteers to do volunteer work? Can we afford to teach our youth
that voluntarism means getting paid over $15 per hour? Do we really
believe that the best way to help cultivate a new generation of true
volunteers is by paying college students to do volunteer-type work? And
do we really believe that this money cannot be better spent on the
veterans?
Last week the Pentagon confirmed, Mr. Chairman, what many of us had
believed, that some of our gulf war vets may have been exposed to nerve
gas after the Army blew up an Iraqi ammunition depot that contained
rockets armed with chemical agents.
The intent of my amendment would be to transfer $40 million from
AmeriCorps to the VA health care and research. I believe these accounts
are underfunded in the committee's mark, especially in light of last
week's revelation by the Pentagon. What Member does not believe we
should not have a moral obligation of this Congress to do whatever we
can to find out what is causing the ailments that have plagued nearly
10,000 of our courageous gulf war vets? If American soldiers were
exposed to chemical agents, it is incumbent upon this Congress to
allocate American tax dollars in a judicious and prudent manner.

We still have veterans who suffer from agent orange and even some
that go back to problems that come out of the Korean conflict and World
War II. So, Mr. Chairman, my amendment offers a simple choice for this
House. Will we continue to fund the President's liberal experiment on
how to kill the flame of real voluntarism in America, or will this
House vote to allocate those precious dollars to the courageous men and
women who are willing to volunteer their lives to protect our freedom?
My amendment would require that each Member of this House decide for
themselves who will they support, this Nation's veterans or President
Clinton's paid volunteers. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a commitment
to both the true spirit of voluntarism and to our Nation's vets. I urge
its adoption and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest to the House that we have had a number of
amendments on the floor today that relate to the veterans. Right now as
I understand it, the discussion between my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle, we have kind of all concluded that veterans' amendments
have kind of the same fate in this place, so I am going to propose that
we accept the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from
Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].
The amendment was agreed to.

amendment offered by mr. bentsen

Mr. BENTSEN. 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. Bentsen:
Page 95, after line 21 insert the following new section:
Sec. 422. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to issue,
reissue, or renew any approval or authorization for any
facility to store or dispose of polychlorinated biphenyls
when it is made known to the Federal official having
authority to obligate or expend such funds that there is in
effect at the time of the issuance, reissuance, or renewal a
rule authorizing any person to import into the customs
territory of the United States for treatment or disposal any
polychlorinated biphenyls, or polychlorinated biphenyl items,
at concentrations of more than 50 part per million.

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my amendment to
prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from using any fund to
allow the importation of PCB waste to be incinerated in the United
States.
Mr. Chairman, it is a simple proposition that we should not be in the
business of importing more hazardous waste into the United States. It
is particularly disturbing that the Federal Government would agree to
import PCB's when such a decision flies in the face of scientific
evidence, our international trade agreements, and most importantly, our
constituents' health and safety.
On March 18, 1996, the EPA issued a final rule allowing the
importation of large quantities of polychlorinated biphenyls, reversing
a ban that had been in place since 1980. PCB's are a dangerous class of
chemicals used in electrical insulation and other products that cause
adverse health effects, including cancer, reproductive damage, and
birth defects. The March 18 rule gives a blanket authority to domestic
waste incinerators to import PCB's with no new regulation or oversight
by EPA. It is a bad idea and it is a fatally flawed rule.
We know from scientific research that PCB's accumulate in the
environment and move toward the top of the food chain, contaminating
fish, birds, and ultimately, humans. When incinerated, PCB's release
dioxin, one of the most toxic chemicals known to man. As a result,
PCB's are the only chemical that Congress identified for phaseout under
the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. Since 1976, PCB's have not
been manufactured in the United States.
With this ban in place, the amount of PCB's in the United States has
steadily decreased, but the range of health and environmental effect
has not. Incinerators in Kansas, Utah, Pennsylvania and two sites in
southeast Texas burn more than 800,000 tons of domestic PCB waste each
year.
Let me be perfectly clear. My amendment does not intend to address
the incineration of domestic PCB's; rather, I seek to halt the
importation of PCB's for incineration. The EPA has failed to offer
scientific data or analysis to justify a reversal of this ban. Their
longstanding position has always been that PCB imports pose an
unreasonable risk to health and safety.
On December 6, 1994, EPA emphasized that, and I quote: ``The import
of PCB's into the United States and the distribution of commerce of
PCB's present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the
environment.''

Now, a year and a half later, the EPA has reversed itself with no new
studies, no new research, and, no new reports that PCB's are anything
less than a substantial risk to human health and the environment. It is
difficult to understand why the EPA would change its position without
any new scientific evidence.
This rule might be necessary if Canada and Mexico, the two countries
expected to send us most of the PCB's, did not have facilities located
within their borders to dispose of PCB waste. Both countries have
facilities designed to handle PCB waste, and Mexico even exports some
PCB waste to Europe for disposal.
I would also like to add that the Canadian disposal industry proposed
EPA's rule and presented compelling evidence that Canada is fully
capable of handling their own PCB waste, and Mexico even exports some
PCB waste to Europe for disposal. EPA agreed with that view as late as
December 1994 when they said and I quote: ``EPA does not want to
encourage the expansion of PCB's when there are feasible alternatives
already in place.''
In addition, EPA's new rule to allow the importation of PCB's also
contradicts our international trade agreements. I believe in free trade
but this issue is not about trade. It is about human health and the
environment. We are not trying to erect a barrier to trade in order to
protect the domestic PCB market. Congress long ago established that
PCB's should not be considered for international trade on the ground of
public health and safety. The GATT and the World Trade Organization
expressly permit a ban on the importation of PCB's. Although the
general objectives in NAFTA encourage open borders, the agreement
clearly dictates that domestic laws and procedures should be given
priority with regards to hazardous waste.
The United States should not unilaterally make this decision to allow
the import of PCB waste, especially if international discussions are
ongoing on how to address this problem. EPA is

[[Page H6903]]

currently involved in negotiations between the United States and our
NAFTA partners, and the United Nations is preparing recommendations on
the disposal and transport of hazardous waste including PCB's. We
should continue these negotiations instead of moving unilaterally
forward to set their course.
Ultimately, the United States has the potential to import over
230,000 more tons of PCB waste from Canada and Mexico and many more
tons from other nations as far away as Japan and Europe. These
countries do not accept our PCB waste, so I find it difficult to
understand why we should accept theirs. The United States should not
become the world's wastebasket, but this misguided EPA rule does just
that.
As I mentioned before, PCB's are a known carcinogen that have been
linked to cancer, birth defects, and other health problems in numerous
studies. A report released by the Center for the Biology of Natural
Systems concludes that emissions from incinerators are migrating long
distances and contaminating the Great Lakes.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the Members support the Bentsen
amendment to ban the importation of PCB's. This does not address the
domestic incineration, but it is something we should not be in the
business of importing hazardous waste.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Bentsen amendment, and I
commend my colleague from Houston for his leadership on this important
issue.
On March 15, the EPA issued a final rule to amend the Federal PCB
regulations and allow the import of PCB waste for disposal in permitted
facilities in the United States.
This rule allows the importation of foreign PCB waste for disposal in
the United States.
The EPA has estimated that the United States disposal industry would
receive $50 to $100 million annually if PCB's are imported into the
United States from Canada and Mexico.
And where would PCB's be disposed? In Kansas, Utah, Pennsylvania,
Port Arthur, TX, and Deer Park, TX.
Mr. Bentsen's amendment would prohibit the EPA from using any funds
to implement its final rule.
PCB's when incinerated release dioxin--one of the most toxic
chemicals known.
Dioxin, as we all know, causes a wide range of adverse health effects
and it accumulates in the environment.
The incineration of PCB's is recognized as a health hazard.
That's why the Congress designed a phaseout of domestic PCB
manufacture in the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976.
It is irresponsible to reverse ourselves now and I urge my colleagues
to support this important amendment.
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.

{time} 1715

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman
from Texas, Representative Bentsen, a proposal to put a moratorium on
the importation of PCB's.
I speak particularly because a community in my district is struggling
with this very issue. Not only is there a proposed dump site for PCB's,
it is situated about 500 yards from a lake, which is, of course,
connected, as all water is in Michigan, to the Great Lakes system.
For those not familiar with PCB's, these are not just garden variety
carcinogens. In fact, PCB's are the only substance ever specifically
banned by an act of the U.S. Congress. This happened under the Toxic
Substance Control Act, section 6(e), enacted in 1976. And now we are on
the verge of importing PCB's from other countries.
PCB's are a menace in many ways. They are a group of extremely toxic
and long-lived chemicals formerly used as insulating materials in
electrical transformers. They are known carcinogens. They disrupt the
hormone system and cause reproductive and developmental damage. There
have been estimates that a lot of the fertility costs in this country
for people dealing with sterility comes from exposure to PCB's. Tumors,
deformities, reproductive abnormalities and reduced survivorship are
widespread in exposed fish, birds and mammal populations.
This is a terrible problem here in this country and, yes, we are
working hard to find ways to deal with the materials that we have
generated here within our own borders, but why would we want to open
our borders to this kind of poison from all over the world, not just
from Canada and Mexico? If we look at the rule, it is not limited to
those two countries.
My understanding is that the only reason for doing this is to make
the existing dump sites profitable, and, of course, this should not be
the goal of the U.S. Government. The goal of the U.S. Government should
be to keep its citizens safe. And to keep our citizens safe we should
stand very clearly with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen] in
support of no longer importing PCB's.
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in extraordinary sympathy with the goals that
have been expressed by my colleagues from Texas and the previous
speaker from Michigan. There is no question but that PCB's represent an
enormous danger to the health and well-being of people in the United
States and, yes, in Canada and in Mexico and other places in the world.
But I rise in opposition to this amendment.
I understand the intent of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen] to
protect the environment and public health, and I share that goal;
however, I believe that this amendment would actually harm efforts to
deal in an intelligent and economical and in an environmentally sound
and friendly way with the problem posed by large quantities of PCB's in
storage in North America.
Now, just as my friends from Texas have facilities in their districts
which deal, I believe inappropriately, with PCB's, so in my district is
there a company which recycles PCB-contaminated electrical equipment.
This company can in most instances recycle 75 percent or more of the
equipment material. This process saves an enormous amount of landfill
space by allowing the reuse of the large carcasses of transformers and
other electrical equipment. The recycling method also reduces by a
significant amount the volume of materials that need to be incinerated.
With 24,000 metric tons of PCB-contaminated equipment in storage in
Canada and the Great Lakes Basin area, a complete prohibition on
importing will have a potential health risk for the United States
citizens. Canada has only one permanent disposal facility and
incinerator in the Province of Alberta, more than 2,000 miles away from
the closest storage site. This means that those 24,000 metric tons of
PCB-contaminated equipment will not be disposed of any time soon.
Canadian industries and United States companies operating there
benefit from an additional disposal option: Recycling. Beyond this, the
Great Lakes region benefits from the disposal rather than the continued
storage of this material, and we all benefit in encouraging recycling
rather than incineration of PCB's.
This company is currently working to develop a process that would
completely neutralize PCB's, eliminating the need for incineration
altogether. I will absolutely concede that that need still remains. But
without the ability to access recyclable material from Canada and
Mexico, this company, S.D. Myers, will be unable to continue that
environmentally beneficial work and will be forced to lay off dozens of
employees.

I raise this simply because of the importance that the U.S. EPA
places on this particular technology. They point out that the concept
that legitimate recycling of these materials is an option that should
be available. Both costs and long-term liability can be significant
issues, but they should not preclude someone from choosing proper
recycling as the best value option for disposal. EPA promotes green
technology, including recycling; however, in this instance the terms of
the enforcement agreement were negotiated on the contracts that they
had in place at the time. EPA generally does not require another
Federal agency to dispose of PCB's using specific EPA-approved disposal
technology.
And I emphasize this point in particular. On the issue of
environmental

[[Page H6904]]

advantage of recycling PCB-contaminated material, recycling is
preferred to landfilling or incineration. On this matter, we agree
entirely.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SAWYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that the gentleman and I
have tried to work out our differences on this amendment. I think we
are trying to head in the right direction. Unfortunately, we are at
cross-purposes because of the PCB by-product. What they are doing with
the transformers I think makes sense, except it still results in the
importation of PCB's whether they are landfilled or incinerated, and
the transport of that, which is the problem.
And it still comes back to our feeling that we should just not be
importing that. We disagree with EPA on their analysis.
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
gentleman's desire to protect the health of citizens he represents. If
his amendments passes, however, there would be some reduction in the
activity of the facility in his district. However, the incineration of
domestic PCB's, and perhaps those from our military posts overseas
would continue. If the goal of his amendment is to stop the
incineration of PCB's, then I firmly believe the fastest way to
accomplish that is to allow companies like S.D. Myers to continue to
develop the technologies that will make incineration obsolete.
I appreciate his willingness to discuss this technical issue with my
office prior to the offering of this amendment on the floor, but in
offering it in this way, it precludes the kind of option that requires
careful consideration through the legislative process, and I therefore
oppose his amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a discussion with the gentleman in
the well.
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity that the
gentleman offers me. I had just really gotten to the end of the
presentation I wanted to offer. I believe, however, to expand on the
last point, that we have the opportunity to reach a congenial agreement
on this matter, something that I have been working with EPA for the
last 3 years to reach a responsible, environmentally sound
accommodation on and one that I believe can be made to meet the needs
of his district and many others across the United States if we have the
time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me
suggest to the gentleman, as well as the gentleman who is offering the
amendment, that this discussion and this issue reminds me very much of
the low-level radioactive waste issue that is facing many of our States
currently.
Years ago we in the Congress recognized the problem of accumulations
of low-level radioactive waste in location after location around the
country. So we sort of regionalized it and said that areas or States
would create compacts where this could be accumulated. Then when we got
to the point where there was such a site located, the local people
became involved and nobody wanted something like this in their own
backyard.
We have a PCB problem that is very real. We have to deal with it.
Candidly, we are not going to particularly be successful opposing this
amendment at this point, but it certainly is not helping us really get
a handle on this important problem. In the final analysis, we have a
responsibility to do that.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman is saying
about not in our backyard or whatever. The gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Gene Green, and I and others represent probably the largest
petrochemical complex or one of the largest petrochemical complexes in
the United States, and we appreciate the need for taking care of our
own and we appreciate the need to take care of what is produced
domestically in the United States. But what the issue here is, and it
contradicts everything EPA has said up through 1994, they have
consistently said we should not be importing PCB's.
All we are saying is let us not get into the business of importing
hazardous waste. Let us deal with what is our own right now before we
get into turning this into some bulge bracket market.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I
appreciate both the gentlemen, particularly the gentleman from Ohio's
comments recognizing this difficulty, and it is a policy problem that
needs to be approved. I must say that at this point I do not see us
dealing with it in a serious way, and I would hope as we go forward
here that we do come together and find real solutions.
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to raise a question with both of
the gentlemen, but particularly with the gentleman from Ohio,
Representative Sawyer.
I had an opportunity to speak with people from the Canadian
government a couple of weeks ago on this issue and I was surprised to
find, A, that the Canadian landfills are not at this point
overutilized, and they have no problem with accommodating their PCBs
generated in that country. Second, they have not determined as a matter
of public policy that they want to see their PCB waste leave.
So, in fact, are we not talking about allowing PCBs to come into the
country as a way to accommodate those landfills already here in the
country as opposed to necessarily trying to help out Canada or Mexico?
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from California. Our goal
is not to accommodate any particular landfill, but rather to reduce in
the Great Lakes region the enormous concentration of stored PCB's.
Landfilling by most environmental accounts, including the EPA, is a
decidedly inferior technology to the kinds that are involved in
recycling. We are trying to improve the volume of those PCB's that can
be recycled along with PCB-contaminated equipment rather than simply
storing them there or landfilling them there or anywhere else.
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, in
my district the dump is not yet created. The dump is not yet created,
and the incoming waste is what will allow that to become profitable.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, at this
point let me say that we do have a serious problem with PCB's, but also
with a number of amendments remaining on this bill.
Let me say to the author of the amendment it is my intention to
accept the amendment, and we will have some discussion, hopefully
between now and the time we go to conference. There are some very
serious difficulties remaining for the country, as well as, indeed, the
world, but I would suggest that we accept the amendment and see if we
can move forward.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I
appreciate that and I would be more than happy to work with the
chairman.
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I just
wanted to express my thanks to the gentleman for his concern and
interest in this matter and that of the ranking member, the gentleman
from Ohio, Congressman Stokes, and for the willingness of my friend
from Texas to accommodate a variety of conflicting needs.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
The amendment was agreed to.
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.
Boehner) having assumed the chair, Mr. Combest, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the

[[Page H6905]]

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.

____________________