[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.

                          ____________________