[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 96 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H6917-H6950]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H6917]]

DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

                              (Continued)


                   amendment offered by mr. gutknecht

  Mr. GUTKNECHT. 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. Gutknecht: Page 95, after line 21, 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec. 422. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby 
     reduced by 1.9 percent.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, if 
the gentleman would agree, that we have a time limit agreement on the 
gentleman's amendment and all amendments thereto of 20 minutes.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I would cede to the chairman of the 
subcommittee, yes, 20 minutes, 10 each side.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Ten minutes to each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] will 
control 10 minutes in support of his amendment and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis] will control 10 minutes in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, some of us were extremely disappointed a few weeks ago 
when we passed the conference committee report on the budget because in 
that budget, we reneged on a promise that we made last year and we 
increased spending by about $4.1 billion over what we had agreed to 
spend in last year's budget resolution.
  Back in November 1994, the people of the United States I think sent a 
pretty clear message. They wanted us to put the Federal Government on a 
diet. They wanted us to balance their budget. I think, by backtracking 
on some of the commitments we made last year, we made a serious mistake 
and not only a breach with the taxpayers of America today but, more 
importantly, with our children.
  So I am offering again the same amendment that I offered last week, 
and I intend to offer it to every appropriation bill from this point 
forward to eliminate the 1.9-percent in discretionary spending on every 
appropriation bill that comes through this House. Now, if we will do 
that, we can recover that fumble and get back the $4.1 billion that we 
overstepped in the budget agreement just a few weeks ago. I want to 
just briefly say what this 1.9-percent amendment will not 
affect, because I think there will be some misstatements on this floor 
of the House, and I think there is some misunderstanding. First of all, 
this amendment will not affect compensation of veterans. It will not 
affect pensions for veterans. It will not affect veterans insurance and 
indemnities. It will not affect the readjustment in education benefits 
for veterans, and it will not affect burial benefits, because I think 
sometimes people are concerned about that. It will not affect mandatory 
spending.

  So, Mr. Chairman and Members, what will the amendment affect? Well, 
it will affect discretionary spending, including administrative costs 
for the Federal bureaucracy. It will include $1.2 billion for Mission 
to Planet Earth, $4.3 billion for community development block grants. 
It will affect the $50,000 travel budget for the VA Secretary. And it 
will affect up to $15 million for the EPA employee bonus program.
  Finally, it will affect, although a previous amendment may have 
changed this, the $365 million for AmeriCorps. So it will have some 
impact.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are really talking about is less than 2 cents. 
It is about keeping our faith with the American people, set about 
keeping the promise we made just 1 year ago and the promise that many 
of us made in the elections 2 years ago. Mr. Chairman, I hope that 
Members will support the amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and I ask unanimous consent that he be 
permitted to control that 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 2 minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in the strongest of 
opposition to the gentleman's amendment. We all know the potential 
impact of across-the-board cuts, but this 1.9-percent cut indeed could 
be devastating to this very delicately developed bill. Let me tell the 
Members what this amendment would do.
  For those of us who care about VA medical care, this across-the-board 
cut would impact those programs by no less than $323 million, a minor 
little cut in VA medical care that we fought so hard today to increase 
by $40 million. Under those circumstances, that would mean that 
thousands of veterans would not be able to receive inpatient medical 
treatment and thousands would not receive their outpatient care.

[[Page H6918]]

  It also would cut $124 million from EPA, $375 million from our 
housing programs, $258 million from NASA, and $62 million from the 
National Science Foundation.
  Mr. Chairman, I think most around here know that this subcommittee 
has done very diligent work in an attempt to reduce the rate of growth 
of government. We made by far the largest contribution to those 
reductions we are looking toward as we move in the direction of a 
balanced budget by 2002. We are not in that process, though, interested 
in destroying these programs and particularly undermining our ability 
to deliver the services out there to people in communities that we all 
really care about and really need many of those services.
  So while I know my colleague from Minnesota is sincere in his efforts 
to cut the budget, we believe we have done the job in as balanced a 
manner within the committee as possible, and we urge a very strong 
``no'' vote on this across-the-board cut.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not want to cast any ill feelings toward 
the chairman of this subcommittee or to the other subcommittees. In 
fact, I think the entire Committee on Appropriations has done a very 
good job. If some will remember the Fram oil filter commercials from 
years ago, ``you can pay me now or you can pay me later.'' What we are 
really saying is we do not have the moral fortitude, we do not have the 
courage to actually cut an additional $4.1 billion this year from 
domestic discretionary spending, but somehow in just 2 years, we will 
find the courage to cut $47 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, we are talking about 2 cents this year. I do appreciate 
the work that the subcommittee has done, and I certainly appreciate 
these programs and I appreciate the veterans as much as anybody. But I 
think most veterans understand that balancing the budget transcends all 
of our responsibilities, and I think if we say, well, this group is 
going to be exempt and this group is going to be exempt, we will never 
get to the goal of balancing the budget.
  So with all due respect, I think that this is a good amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Neumann].
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, today this great Nation of ours stands 
$5.2 trillion in debt. That is literally $20,000 for every man, woman, 
and child in the United States of America. Every year as we keep 
spending more money than we are talking in, we just keep adding to that 
debt and our children get to get that debt. This is their inheritance, 
that is what we are going to pass on to our children.
  When this Congress came in here 2 years ago, we said we are going to 
be different. We said we were going to balance the budget, we were 
going to do it by the year 2002. We got off to a great start. For the 
first year, we met our targets and we did what we said we were going to 
do and stayed on track, and things were going pretty good until about 2 
weeks ago.
  Two weeks ago, we passed a budget plan through this Congress that 
literally has the deficit going back up again. Let me say that one more 
time. The budget plan that we passed 2 weeks ago has the deficit going 
back up again next year. That is not OK.
  Tonight we offer an amendment that literally reduces spending by 1.9 
percent to help get us back on track to a balanced budget, back to 
where we belong, 1.9 percent. That is not 20 percent. That is less than 
2 cents out of every dollar. Is there really anyone out there in this 
entire country that does not believe we can find 2 cents out of every 
dollar of waste in government spending? I believe we can. I honestly 
believe we can go into these bills and we can find 2 cents on the 
dollar of waste.
  We are not talking 20 cents here. Two cents on the dollar. If we are 
able to do that, we can get ourselves back on track to a balanced 
budget and do what is right for the future of this great country of 
ours. That is what this Congress is all about. That is what our service 
to our country is all about. It is what we ought to be doing here 
tonight.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly encourage support of this amendment.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment. It is a bad amendment because 
if the Members of this House were to vote for this amendment, it would 
certainly show irresponsibility. This is because earlier today the 
House accepted a 0.4 percent across-the-board reduction amendment 
sponsored by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump].
  I think we need to take a moment and just understand what that 
amendment has already done as an across-the-board reduction amendment. 
The Stump amendment cuts $79 million from HUD, an area of the budget 
that has already been cut $2.3 billion. It cut $26 million from EPA, an 
area that already had been cut $494 million. It further cuts $54 
million from NASA, which has already been cut $1.1 billion.
  Now, the offerer of the amendment would have us think this is just a 
1.9-percent small reduction that does not amount to anything. But we 
have to consider the amounts already cut from these important areas and 
add to it the fact that, as the chairman of the subcommittee has just 
said, this 1.9 percent is not so small. It cuts VA medical care, which 
was protected from reduction under the Stump amendment. This amendment 
cuts medical care by $323 million, an area that all day long through 
one amendment after another we have protected on behalf of the 
veterans. This one hurts the veterans.
  It cuts HUD, in addition to the cuts of the Stump amendment, by $374 
million. This is an area of the budget already cut $2.3 billion. It 
cuts EPA by $124 million, an area already cut by $494 million. And it 
cuts NASA by $258 million, an area already cut $1 billion, as I said 
before.
  I think the amendment, under these circumstances with these facts, 
ought to be strongly rejected by the Members of this House.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds and yield to 
the gentleman from Mississippi.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. MONTGOMERY. The gentleman is absolutely right. Under medical care 
for veterans, under this amendment, we are going backward. We are 
losing by $280 million. We are going down, down, down. So this 
amendment should be soundly defeated if we have any care for veterans 
and their medical care.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump].
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that while a 1.9-percent cut does not seem 
like much, we have to understand what this does. With all due respect, 
the gentleman is correct when he says it will not affect mandatory 
veterans benefits, but what he is not saying is it will affect our 
ability to deliver those benefits to them and to process them.
  As the ranking member just mentioned, the thing that hurts me the 
most in this amendment is the cut to medical care. That is the worst 
place in the world that we could cut veterans benefits. So I would ask 
the gentleman to reconsider this; $323 million out of medical care 
certainly does hurt our honored veterans, as the gentleman put it a 
while ago.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Souder].
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to first comment briefly on the 
question of veterans benefits. Should this amendment pass, I would be 
more than willing, as I am sure many others would, to look at how to 
transfer money into veterans medical inside this bill from HUD or other 
sections.
  That is not the question we are trying to get at here. Veterans 
benefits go up. We are trying to keep some of them out. I am willing to 
back more, and have looked at several amendments to back more money for 
veterans. But overall we have to look at the Federal deficit. Many of 
us are very upset that the deficit is increasing in our second year of 
office. This amendment is not targeted at this bill, it is being 
offered to every bill.
  We talk a lot about balancing the budget. The fact is we are not 
moving toward a balanced budget. We took a step in the wrong direction. 
Maybe we will over 7 years. We cannot bind Congress over 7 years, 
unless there is a

[[Page H6919]]

constitutional amendment. We cannot bind the next Congress. All we can 
be held accountable for is what we do during our 2 years in office.
  A 1.9-percent cut across the board would get us, if we went back to 
our other appropriations bills, back to no bump-up in the second year. 
That is the intent of this amendment.
  Had others balanced off and figured out what priorities were inside 
that bill, we would not be faced with this. But we cannot constantly 
say, oh, well, we want to balance the budget but not here, but not 
here; 1.9 percent is a very small amount, yet it is what the difference 
is as to the trend line of where this country is going.
  I, and many others, came here to reduce the size of Government, to 
put more power back to the States, and to make sure we stopped 
mortgaging our children's future. At this point, my children will be 
saddled with such a debt and such a high potential of bankruptcy of 
Medicare, of Social Security, of all of our Federal programs, unless we 
get a handle on it, that I believe it is time that we do at least these 
small steps.
  Every year in this budget it gets harder. If we cannot change 1.9 
percent now, how in the 3d year or the 4th year, the 5th year, the 6th 
year, and the 7th year are any of those numbers realistic? I urge this 
body to vote ``yes'' on this simple amendment.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to the statement made by the 
gentleman from Minnesota who just left the well and who acknowledged 
that money would be taken out of the medical care account, which I have 
already stipulated would be about $323 million. He commented that, if 
this amendment passed, he would be willing to look at ways that we can 
transfer that money back into that part of the bill.
  Well, I submit to Members of the House that is not the way we 
legislate and that is not the way that this House should legislate. In 
addition to that, that particular gentleman does not sit on the 
Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies. He will not be 
involved in the conference on this bill. He will not have the ability 
to be able to do anything else about this bill.
  We have to act on this bill based upon what would happen tonight if 
we were to pass this irresponsible amendment. I would urge the Members 
again to vote ``no'' on this. The gentleman from Minnesota says 1.9 
percent is very small. I contend that there is nothing small about a 
$323 million reduction in medical care.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to say that this debate really is about what is responsible, 
and I think that is what this Congress should do.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Hostettler].
  (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment to reduce across the board the VA-HUD appropriations bill by 
1.9 percent. First of all, let me reiterate the fact that, in fact, we 
spend $121 million more on VA medical expenditures than we did over 
1996 in this bill with the 1.9 percent cut, so that even with the 
reduction in spending, even with the savings for the next generation, 
we will increase VA medical expenses by $121 million.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a responsible amendment. My dad was a veteran 
and he served in North Africa, Sicily, Italy, France, and was on his 
way into the South Pacific when he got the good news that World War II 
was over. But my father, who passed away earlier this year, never meant 
for that victory in World War II to result in a time when his 
grandchild, who is going to be born later this year, is going to have a 
$187,000 bill to pay in interest on the debt.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a responsible amendment, and I ask for its 
adoption.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
  (Mr. NEUMANN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I just rise because I keep hearing all 
this stuff about cutting, cutting, cutting, cutting. I think we have an 
obligation to let the American people know that this bill is not going 
down in spending, it is going up in spending by about $4 billion from 
last year to this year.
  So when we get all done talking about all these cuts, the American 
people have a right to know that spending is increasing in this bill. 
And even if our amendment is passed, spending from last year to this 
year, in good old Wisconsin language, is going up because we are 
spending more of the American taxpayers' money.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] has 2 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the right to close.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] is the 
gentleman who originally opposed the amendment and claimed the time, 
but yielded to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes]. Under the 
procedure today, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] has the 
right to close.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with the gentleman from 
California closing.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I will even yield that to the 
gentleman from Ohio, if he would like.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I do not need the additional time.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery].
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me 
this time, and I should point out that I hope my colleagues would 
oppose this amendment. We were able earlier today to get for the 
veterans benefits an additional $17 million. Under this amendment it 
takes $19 million out of the benefits, so we actually lose $2 million 
out of the benefits program.
  This is based on claims, that it takes 158 days now to process a 
claim in the benefits department. If we keep taking money away from us, 
it is going to take us forever to process these claims. It should be 
less than 90 days. Because we do not have the staff, and we are going 
to lose 600 employees anyway if we defeat this amendment, so by taking 
another $2 million out of the benefits, it does not make any sense at 
all.
  On the VA health care, we are trying to open up outpatient clinics so 
we can take care of more veterans. We are cutting this $323 million 
more under this amendment, so certainly I believe that the House should 
defeat this amendment.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to go over again, and I do understand that there will be cuts 
as a result of this 1.9 percent reduction, but if we look down the 
path, sooner or later we are going to have to pay the price for this. 
If we cannot make $4.1 billion worth of cuts this year, how are we 
going to make $47 billion worth of cuts in a couple of years? The 
answer is we probably are not.
  Let me just say this. Again, this 1.9 percent reduction will not 
affect mandatory spending on veterans benefits, including compensation 
of veterans, pensions for veterans, veterans insurance and indemnities, 
readjustment in education benefits and burial benefits. This amount 
will affect none of those. It affects domestic discretionary spending.
  If we could adopt this simple little amendment that is less than 2 
cents on every dollar, we can recover the fumble this House made a few 
weeks ago when we reneged on the promise we made last year.
  Mr. Chairman, my grandmother said, ``If you always do what you have 
always done, you will always get what you have always got.'' 
Unfortunately, this Congress is starting to do what previous Congresses 
have always done.
  We are starting to say well, manana, manana. We will balance the 
budget in 2 years or 3 years. Well, some of us will not be back next 
year, and maybe this amendment will cause some of us not to be back, 
but, ladies and gentlemen, as long as we are here, we ought to do the 
right thing, and the right thing is to keep the promises we made in the 
campaign of November 1994.
  To keep the promises we made last year with our 7-year budget plan, 
we need to get back on our path towards a

[[Page H6920]]

balanced budget; 1.9 percent on the rest of the appropriations bills 
will get us there. I hope Members will support the amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  I am very impressed by the presentation by my colleague from 
Minnesota, Mr. Gutknecht. And to paraphrase his grandmother, I would 
say, ``If you do not always do what you have always done, you are not 
going to get what you always got.''
  The objective of the gentleman is not different than our mutual 
effort to eliminate the deficit. The subcommittee takes this work very 
seriously. It is very important for all of us to know that the House, 
particularly this Member, as well as the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Gutknecht] are committed to changing the pattern of spending that have 
been a part of our past. But that does not mean that we have to 
overnight tear the heart out of important programs or undermine very 
carefully crafted efforts to move in the direction of reducing all 
traditional patterns of spending.
  What we are about here, in all of these efforts, is to reduce the 
rate of growth of our government. We all recognize that there are other 
elements to the government process than just spending. There are growth 
opportunities in terms of our economy. The taxing system is producing 
more revenues. Indeed, over time, as we reduce the pattern of spending 
and the revenues grow, we get to 2002 and we have a balanced budget. 
That is our objective.
  The time we suggest that the way to solve the budget is to cut every 
program, eliminate programs that are very important to people, is the 
time we have a counterrevolution. That could lead to real disaster in 
terms of our economy. We are attempting to make sense out of this 
process in this bill.
  So far, through the rescission process, the 1996 bill this year, this 
subcommittee will have passed over $17 billion of reduced spending, a 
significant shift in pattern for this subcommittee. I tell the author 
of this amendment, as I oppose the amendment and ask that the Members 
vote ``no,'' I tell the author that I too am committed to balancing 
this budget.
  I am a absolutely convinced we are on a pathway to help with that, 
especially in terms of discretionary spending.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 456, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Gutknecht] will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                              {time}  1915


                   amendment offered by mr. hoekstra

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, at the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], I ask unanimous consent that 
the pending demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan be withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is rejected on a voice vote.


                    amendment offered by mr. markey

  Mr. MARKEY. 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. Markey: Page 95, after line 21, 
     insert:
       Sec. 422. None of the funds made available to the 
     Environmental Protection Agency under the heading ``HAZARDOUS 
     SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND'' may be used to provide any 
     reimbursement (except pursuant to section 122(b) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980) of response costs incurred by any 
     person when it is made known to the official having the 
     authority to obligate such funds that such person has agreed 
     to pay such costs under a judicially approved consent decree 
     entered into before the enactment of this Act, and none of 
     the funds made available under such heading may be used to 
     pay any amount when it is made known to the official having 
     the authority to obligate such funds that such amount 
     represents a retroactive liability discount attributable to a 
     status or activity of such person (described paragraphs (1), 
     (2), (3) or (4) of section 107(a) of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980) that existed or occurred prior to January 1, 1987.

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, is there an agreement on time for this 
amendment?
  Mr. MARKEY. On the amendment which is now pending, there is a 40-
minute agreement on time, 20 minutes evenly divided.
  I am sorry. I apologize, Mr. Chairman. There has not yet been an 
agreement reached on time.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Would the gentleman entertain an request for an 
agreement on time? I know both the chairman and the ranking member are 
anxious to move this along. I would be receptive to an agreement on 
time.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, we would have to object to an agreement on 
time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, as all who are listening are well aware, 
the Contract With America was intended as a full-scale, all-out attack 
upon the environment of our country. There was an agenda put together 
in the beginning of this Congress towards the goal of eviscerating most 
of the laws which have been placed upon the books over the last quarter 
of a century to protect the environment in our country.
  One of the primary assaults upon the environment was begun in the 
Committee on Commerce last year, culminating, in the fall, upon a 
Superfund reform bill introduced by the Republican Party. Its intent, 
for all intents and purposes, to gut the Superfund bill, to make it 
ineffective.
  The centerpiece, in their own words, of their Superfund gutting bill 
was to take hundreds of millions of dollars a year, billions of 
dollars, billions over the next decade, and to give money back to 
polluters, polluters who have already accepted responsibility for 
having polluted their own neighborhoods, for having ruined the water in 
their communities, for having led to the deaths of small children 
because of exposure to toxics, giving money not to the communities in 
order to help clean up but to the polluters themselves.
  Now, the centerpiece of this proposal is still embodied in the 
Republican appropriations bill. In it is included a provision taking 
$861 million over the next year and making it available to give back to 
polluters who already accepted responsibility for their pollution and 
their responsibility to clean it up.
  Now, here is how it works: If you happen to have been a polluter, 
congratulations to you. You may already have won millions of dollars in 
cash prizes from the Grand Old Party. The Ed McMahon polluters 
clearinghouse sweepstakes. Here is how it works. Just wait for this 
appropriations bill to pass, enacting reforms. Pretty soon the EPA 
Superfund prize van will pull up to your corporate headquarters and 
hand you a Federal Government taxpayer check, if you can identify 
yourself as a polluter. Here is how it works. First, is your toxic 
waste dump listed on the Superfund site on the national priorities 
list? In other words, that you are one of the worst polluters in 
America. You must answer yes to that question to qualify for this 
Federal money.
  Second, did you even incur cleanup costs since they introduced their 
bill last October? That is, once, if you were there on October 18 as a 
polluter, you qualify for this money.
  Third, was your liability attributable to activities which occurred 
prior to 1987? That is after the Superfund bill passed in 1981 so that 
in fact we knew that and you knew that the Superfund law was on the 
books, and have you accepted responsibility in a court-ordered, a 
court-ordered consent decree in which you have already agreed to accept 
liability to clean up the site yourself?

[[Page H6921]]

  If you qualify under all of those standards, then you are a grand 
prize winner as a polluter. You qualify for the $861 million a year, 
billions of dollars over the next decade, which can be and will be 
given out to polluters.
  Now, this, it seems to me, is an absurdity. We do not have $861 
million a year for a new program to hand over to polluters when we are 
cutting Medicare, when we are cutting student loans, when we are 
cutting every other social program. We cannot have this program pile up 
to $6 and $8 billion over the next decade, gobbling up what limited 
resources we have as we target the 2002 for a balanced budget.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio very much 
for yielding to me.
  This provision has to be stricken from the Republican proposal, has 
to be cut out. That is what this amendment does. It just ensures that 
not only under the bill which the Republicans introduced last year, 
H.R. 2500, but under any bill which is ever introduced, we do not give 
money back to polluters who have already accepted court-ordered consent 
decree responsibility as to their responsibility to clean up the site. 
It makes no sense whatsoever.
  So this is a very simple proposal. It gets right at the heart of what 
it is that the Republicans want to propose as a reform of environmental 
laws, giving money to polluters. We have operated for the last 15 years 
under the notion of the polluter pays, if they are responsible. The 
Republican proposal transforms it into the taxpayer pays the polluter. 
We are so sorry, it is going to cost you money for having to clean up 
the mess you created in the community, this neighborhood nightmare, 
which has taken all the property in the neighborhood off of the tax 
rolls, which could have led to the deaths or the creation of disease in 
families within the community. That is their new notion. We take care 
of the polluters.
  So the Markey-Pallone-Borski amendment deletes this ability to be 
able to hand this money over to the polluters. It is a very clean, 
simple vote. As we go through the rest of the night, there will be 
attempts to take out one small attempt at doing it, last year's 
version, but it does not deal with any other version. The money stays 
there, all $861 million.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] is going to seek to make 
an amendment which just says, well, we are not going to use H.R. 2500, 
last year's version, but it does not say anything about any other 
version, which is what the Markey amendment says. You cannot do it. It 
is impossible under the Markey amendment. The Boehlert amendment says, 
well, we got caught; we got caught off base. We do not want to have 
this on our record. So we are going to withdraw it. Let us wait until 
Bob Dole is President so he will not be vetoing this so we can just do 
it with the majority of the votes in the House and the Senate. We are 
going to pull it back right now. We got caught. But no way are we going 
to take out the $861 million. In no way are we going to put a 
limitation on it being used by other mechanisms to give rebates to 
polluters, no. We are going to take out that part of the Markey 
amendment.
  So this is a very clean, simple amendment that deals with the heart 
of the challenge to the Superfund program which for 12 years was under 
Republican control.
  Remember this tonight, my colleagues: Yes, it was passed by a 
Democratic Congress but Rita Lavell and Ann Gorsuch and a whole line of 
Republican administrators for 12 years, right up to 1993, had 
responsibility for it. Only in the last years has it been put in the 
hands of an administrator who is fully committed to its implementation.
  If this program was not as fully effective as it could have been, and 
we do believe it should be reformed, blame those Republican 
administrators, one of whom even went to jail in a contempt of Congress 
citation, for their lack of regard for our congressional intent.
  So this is at heart a vote on whether or not in fact we are going to 
keep to the soul of what the Superfund program was meant to achieve; 
that is, that those who were responsible must pay. And we are not going 
to use limited taxpayer dollars as a handout to them. As we go through 
this debate, Mr. Boehlert will attempt to take one small portion of it, 
one small attempt, the initial attempt, and to say, we are not going to 
use that route anymore, but make it impossible to have a straight up or 
down vote on whether or not any other attempt which the Republicans 
have contemplated can in fact be used to give this money over to 
polluters.
  I want everyone to understand this debate, as it unfolds, because it 
gets right at the heart of what we believe as Democrats should be the 
intent of this program, which is personal responsibility, personal and 
corporate responsibility. Those who created the messes should clean 
them up. Those who have accepted legal responsibility in the courts 
should clean them up. We should not have to turn to the taxpayers, tip 
them upside down, have $861 million over the next year and billions 
more in years after that used to clean up the messes which corporate 
executives are responsible for.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, let us get one thing straight first of all. 
The taxpayers that I know the gentleman from Massachusetts is so fond 
of and wants to protect, the taxpayers who pay into the Superfund and 
the very polluters that he is talking about. He would allow the 
impression out there that somehow these taxpayers, Mr. and Mrs. Joe 
Sixpack, are paying, are going to pay for these cleanups. And we simply 
cannot allow that argument to stand. It makes no sense.
  The Superfund program is basically funded to the tune of $1.6 billion 
a year until, of course, the President vetoed those taxes that go into 
the Superfund, $1.6 billion a year that come from the oil companies, 
the chemical companies, from chemical feedstocks, and the environmental 
income tax, that is really what funds the program.
  So my friend from Massachusetts, who I know is a great friend of the 
taxpayers, has received a lot of awards for his stand on lower taxes 
and protecting the taxpayer, I am appalled, frankly, that my friend 
from Massachusetts would make the argument here on the floor of the 
House of Representatives that somehow the taxpayer is going to bail out 
these evil corporate polluters when, in fact, they are paying the taxes 
in the first place. They are not getting their money's worth, folks.
  All you have to do is look at the program, 15 years of failure, about 
5 percent of the sites on the national priorities list cleaned up. We 
have spent $30 billion in public and private moneys to clean up these 
sites. And what do we have to show for it? the average site rests on 
the NPL for 10 to 12 years. The average cost of a site to be cleaned up 
is between $25 and $30 million. And guess what?

                              {time}  1930

  Only about half of that really goes to actual cleanup.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to my colleagues that a vote for the 
Markey amendment is basically a vote for the status quo.
  Now, if my colleagues like the idea of a Superfund program that fits 
all the qualifications that I just mentioned in terms of abject 
failure, then they want to support the Markey amendment because the 
Markey amendment essentially is an SOS amendment, ``some old stuff,'' 
and we are going to continue with the same process that we had before, 
and I have got to think we are better than that.
  I think we can learn from the mistakes of past Democrat Congresses 
that foisted this program on us, first of all, in a lame-duck session, 
signed by a lame-duck President, in overreaction to a couple of 
situations in New York State and Missouri, and then in 1986 we 
compounded that felony by voting for a reauthorization of the program 
that made it even worse, and some of the architects behind the original 
bill and the 1986 reauthorization are the same people who are opposing 
meaningful reform in this program. And I say shame

[[Page H6922]]

on them and shame on their memory of what they have accomplished in the 
last 15 years, which is practically nothing.
  And so it gives us an opportunity finally, under a Republican 
Congress, to really deal with the problem at hand and to clean these 
sites up, and I would suggest to my colleagues that that is our goal 
and that is what we are trying to accomplish with our bill that we have 
introduced [ROSA] Refund of Superfund Act.
  Make it very clear that the Markey amendment stands for the status 
quo.
  This is clearly the most egregious environmental program that anybody 
could have ever invented, and I do not understand why my friend from 
Massachusetts would want to sustain that for another several years.
  I had an opportunity the other day to find a rather interesting piece 
of reading material. It is a coloring book that is put out by the 
Environmental Protection Agency. It is called the ``Superfund Team, 
Mother Mouse,'' and instead of protecting children from contamination 
by cleaning up Superfund sites, the EPA apparently is indoctrinating 
them with a Superfund Man and Mother Mouse routine.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. OXLEY was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I understand we have no time constraints on 
this particular amendment; is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, this is the coloring book, and let me quote 
from the book where Mother Mouse meets the U.S. EPA remediation 
workers:

       She was smiling and humming when all of a sudden she heard 
     someone coming. She saw a strange sight. ``Oh my. What a 
     fright!'' Two people wore white suits with hoods on their 
     heads and gloves on their hands. ``They're creatures from 
     Mars,'' she screamed. ``Quick. Get in the house. Pull tight 
     the laces. Don't make a sound. Stay in your places.'' ``But 
     we know them--they're keen!'' the children cried out. 
     ``They're the Superfund Team! The Superfund Team!'' the kids 
     said with a shout.

  This is actually a publication of the government of the United States 
of America. We have established a special hazardous waste cleanup 
program with its own taxes to pay for the self-promotion of the 
Environmental Protection Agency. The sad part is that in real life the 
men in white suits do not show up for years while mother and the 
children still live by the contamination.
  Let us not waste time on coloring books, outrageous delays, endless 
lawsuits and bureaucratic bickering. Let us clean up the pollution for 
a change. Contaminated sites are still sitting around as giant 
festering sores on the landscape primarily because of the 
contentiousness Superfund's liability system causes. One can be held a 
hundred percent liable for the entire cost of cleanup at a site which 
could stretch into hundreds of millions of dollars even if they did not 
cause any of the contamination, even if they were not even alive when 
the contamination occurred, and even if they acted completely legally 
at the time, or even if they were ordered to put contamination at the 
site by the Federal Government or some local government.
  Does that strike my colleagues as a reasonable Federal statute? I do 
not think so, and that is why the NFIB, the National Federation of 
Independent Business, who represent over 600,000 small businesses in 
this country today, along with local governments, school boards and 
other local organizations oppose the Markey amendment. As a matter of 
fact, the NFIB has made this a key vote.
  I want to stress to my colleagues in the House on both sides of the 
aisle this is the NFIB key vote on the Superfund bill this session, and 
let us understand exactly where they are coming from. They understand 
what a disaster this Superfund statute really is.
  Let us make certain for a change that we will deal with real cleanups 
this time instead of spending it on coloring books, on lawyers, on 
bureaucracies, and get this job done once and for all.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.
  Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I am curious. Did not Carol Browner and the 
EPA come before the gentleman and ask for an increase in funding, and 
now the gentleman is telling us they are spending dollars, taxpayer 
dollars, on coloring books?
  Mr. OXLEY. That is precisely correct.
  Mr. BUYER. That is pretty disgraceful.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope everybody has listened very closely to the 
comments by my dear friend from Ohio and looked at these wonderful 
posters that he has put up. The wonderful posters that my good friend 
from Ohio has put up do not mean anything and they do not have anything 
to do with the debate in which we are now engaged.
  There are two amendments pending. The first is an amendment by my 
good friend from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey]. That amendment does two 
very simple things. It says first that one cannot give rebates to 
polluters in connection with cleanup.
  Now, I have heard some rather novel and stressed explanations of why 
that might be a good idea, but the simple matter is that is a device to 
pay the polluter. That is something that has always been alien to the 
principles that we have had with regard to dealing with Superfund.
  Second, it would prohibit compensating people who have already cut a 
deal with the Federal Government and with other polluters to clean up 
and to allocate the responsibilities.
  My good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] who is a 
most sincere Member of this body, has come forward with an amendment 
which says that the first is a good idea, that we should not pay 
polluters for cleaning up. But he says that we should permit polluters 
to continue to get paid after they have cut a deal so that they 
essentially would be drawing moneys above and beyond what they should 
get in terms of their cleanup.
  Now, this is a most curious posture, and I am sure that the gentleman 
from New York will have an interesting explanation for this. It is 
going to, I am sure, be extremely interesting, and he has nodded 
``yes'' to me, but I think it is probably going to lack merit.
  Now having said these things, there has been pending a long time an 
effort to get a decent cleanup under Superfund. I was highly critical 
of the last Superfund bill, and I was roundly criticized by a lot of 
people for being very much opposed to many of the things they tried to 
do in terms of compounding the difficulty of enforcement. So I do not 
apologize for anybody for my views on this.
  I will tell my colleagues there is urgent need for enactment of new 
and improved Superfund legislation, get rid of some of the things that 
my good friend from Ohio, Mr. Oxley, properly complained about. There 
is time, however, to address this question.
  Last Congress we reported out legislation out of the Committee on 
Commerce. It was duly killed by my Republican colleagues, who did not 
want to move forward on Superfund legislation during the last Congress.
  The Republicans during the last Congress killed our efforts to pass a 
better Superfund bill, and I know it distresses them to have this fact 
revealed because it is one of the nasty little secrets that they carry 
around in their pocket.
  Now having said this to my colleagues, I think that we should observe 
that there is the ability on the part of my Republican colleagues to 
address Superfund. They chair the committee, they chair the 
subcommittee, they have the majority of the House, and they have 
extraordinary discipline.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DINGELL. I will yield to my friend because I know he has 
something important to add, and I am sure he wants to agree with me. 
But I want to conclude my statement, and I know he understands because 
I listened to

[[Page H6923]]

him with great interest even though his comments were, in good part, 
irrelevant to the discussion that we are engaged in.
  Having said these things and expressed great respect for my good 
friend from Ohio, who is not only a dear friend but one of the finest 
Members in this body, even though he is wrong in this matter, I would 
observe that the Republicans have the full capability to move forward. 
We stand ready to assist them in moving forward on good legislation.
  I will observe that good legislation does, however, not embody the 
principle that we should pay the polluters for cleaning up. We should 
cause the polluters to pay, and we should not absolve those who have 
arrived at a settlement of the responsibility that they have achieved 
by having set at risk the health and the welfare and the well-being and 
the environment of the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues then to reject the amendment 
offered by my good friend from New York, for whom I also have enormous 
respect, and to adopt the amendment offered by my good friend from 
Massachusetts because it says that the polluter pays, the polluter gets 
no break for his wrongdoing, whereas the gentleman from New York says 
that he might get some.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dingell was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Dingell], who I have a great deal of respect for, and he is usually 
right on most issues, but let me remind him about the last Congress 
when I think the gentleman in the well was the chairman of the 
committee, and we had Democrats chairing the committee.
  Mr. DINGELL. That is right, and we reported out a good Superfund bill 
unanimously out of the Committee on Commerce, and my Republican 
colleagues----
  Mr. OXLEY. I am amazed, I must say, at being in the minority for all 
the time that I was in the Congress for the first 14 years, and then to 
be honored with apparently the title of being able to kill the 
Superfund bill----
  Mr. DINGELL. And the gentleman is a fine chairman----
  Mr. OXLEY. As a minority I am truly honored. I did not realize I was 
that good, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman is a fine chairman, and all he has got to 
do to get us a Superfund bill to the floor which is really meaningful 
is to see to it that the subcommittee convenes, writes a bill, and 
reports it out and excludes paying the polluter.
  Now I guess the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] wants me to 
yield to him?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. No, I am just listening with rapt attention.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I am mightily distressed at that, and I 
therefore yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, our Republican colleagues rejected the bipartisan bill 
that was approved 44 to 0 by the Energy and Commerce Committee in the 
103d Congress in favor of a new bill, H.R. 2500, that was not 
introduced until October 1995. It seems that it took 10 months to 
figure out how to destroy the bipartisan agreement we had achieved in 
the prior Congress after months of stakeholders discussions.
  It is my firm belief that we should dedicate as much Superfund money 
as possible to cleanup, and not to relieving polluters of their 
responsibility. And that is exactly what Mr. Markey's amendment is 
designed to do.
  Mr. Markey's amendment will assure that Superfund money will be spent 
on cleanup and not on reimbursing polluters. The Markey amendment will 
ensure that existing consent decrees, under which parties have agreed 
to conduct or pay the costs of cleanup, will not be disturbed. Why 
should EPA expend enormous transaction costs to revisit existing 
consent decrees when the parties to those decrees have agreed to 
conduct a cleanup? If those parties have agreed, why do they expect to 
be relieved of their obligations under these decrees?
  This amendment absolutely does not disturb the EPA's ability to 
provide funding at sites where there are existing consent decrees if 
EPA decides to provide funding to cover all or part of the shares of 
insolvent or defunct parties. This amendment does not adversely affect 
the EPA's ability to fund the relief contained in the recent Superfund 
liability proposals offered by the Democratic members of our Committee 
as well as the administration. Our recent proposals include fair share 
funding, limitations on municipal owner liability, exemptions for small 
business generators and transporters of waste, and exemptions for 
generators and transporters of municipal waste. The administration's 
letters in support of Mr. Markey's amendment confirm that this 
amendment is consistent both with the administration's Superfund reform 
initiatives as well as the liability proposals we have offered during 
our bipartisan negotiations.
  Moreover, this amendment will not bring Superfund cleanups to a halt. 
That is, unless companies decide to use this as a hollow excuse to 
breach their agreements to perform cleanup under the consent decrees 
they have already signed.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Markey amendment to assure that 
Superfund moneys are spent on what I had thought was our mutual goal--
expediting cleanup.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the vote on the Markey amendment today is nothing short 
of a referendum on Superfund itself. If my colleagues think Superfund 
is effective, if my colleagues think that the program is doing a good 
job of cleaning up our Nation's worst toxic waste sites quickly and 
effectively, if my colleagues think that the Girl Scouts, churches, 
small businesses, local governments, and many, many other polluters are 
polluters and that we should continue throwing good money after bad to 
lawyers and consultants, then, by all means, my colleagues should 
support the gentleman's amendment. If, on the other hand, they have 
even the faintest idea of how badly broken Superfund truly is, they 
should join me in vigorously opposing the Markey amendment.

                              {time}  1945

  The amendment would prevent any meaningful Superfund recovery from 
taking place by eliminating even the possibility of allowing some fair 
share or ``orphan share'' funding under the program. The amendment 
effectively prohibits any retroactive liability relief whatsoever. 
Superfund's system of retroactive liability is so fundamentally unfair 
that it has forced parties caught up in a never ending blame that 
delays cleanup and threatens human health.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that no one, and I mean no 
one, believes that the current Superfund law is working. Here is what 
people have said. President Clinton; yes, President Clinton: ``We all 
know it doesn't work,'' he says, ``the Superfund has been a disaster. 
All the money goes to lawyers and none of the money goes to clean up 
the problem it was designed to clean up.''
  The EPA Inspector General has said that ``On a site-by-site basis, it 
is clear that liability negotiations consume a lot of time and delay 
completion of the site.''
  In a 1994 editorial, that bastion of conservative thought, the New 
York Times, said that

        Superfund has failed the efficiency test: of the $13 
     billion spent by government and companies, one fourth has 
     gone to what are euphemistically called ``transaction 
     costs,'' fees to lawyers and consultants, many of them former 
     Federal officials who spin through Washington's revolving 
     door to trade their Superfund expertise for private gain.

  A year earlier, the Washington Post editorialized that Superfund ``is 
generating intolerable injustices and needs to be fixed. Many of these 
cases,'' as they say, ``are grossly unfair, and all invite furious 
litigation as small companies, big ones, banks, mortgage holders, local 
governments and insurers all go after each other. That is why a high 
proportion of the money spent so far has gone not to cleanups but into 
lawyer's fees.''
  The Seattle times editorial board wrote that Superfund ``has created 
a legal swamp, enriching lawyers while accomplishing precious little 
cleanup.''
  And a 1994 USA Today editorial said that ``Superfund is absurdly 
expensive, hideously complex, and sometimes patently unfair. As a 
result, it invites litigation the way dung attracts flies: not by 
seeking but just by being.''

[[Page H6924]]

  Mr. Chairman, the evidence is clear. Superfund is badly broken. That 
is precisely why I have made Superfund reform a top priority of the 
Committee on Commerce in this Congress. All other reform proposals are 
on the table, including the 103d Congress's Superfund deal, the 
administration's new liability proposal, Republican proposals drafted 
by my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mike Oxley] and 
myself, contain some element of the fair share funding which the Markey 
amendment would prohibit.
  In fact, the administration has the statutory authority to use so-
called mixed funding under the law, and Administrator Browner recently 
announced that EPA would expand its use of orphan share funding to the 
tune of $40 million a year. This amendment would eliminate EPA's 
ability to implement even the modest administrative reform of the 
Superfund proposal.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Bliley was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, the vote on this amendment is very simple. 
If members support Superfund reform, vote ``no'' on the Markey 
amendment.
  It simply amazes me, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from 
Massachusetts would offer the amendment. Massachusetts has 32 sites, 
three-two, 32 sites listed on the national Superfund priorities list. 
Construction on cleanup remedy is complete on only 2 of these sites, 
even though 14 of them have been on the NPO list since 1983. It is 
astonishing that we cannot decide how to clean up a Superfund site in 
the time it took our forefathers to hold a Boston tea party, declare 
independence, fight a Revolutionary War, write a new Constitution, and 
establish a whole new government.
  My friend sent out a ``Dear Colleague'' letter last week saying 
``Superfund is working in my district.'' Now he is introducing an 
amendment to prevent Superfund from working in anyone else's district. 
I would think the gentleman would not be so callous toward the people 
across the country who live near Superfund sites to block legislation 
that will get those sites cleaned up, especially since only 2 of 34 
sites in his home State have been cleaned up.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat amazed by what I am hearing on the other 
side, because earlier today when we discussed my amendment that simply 
would have required that this $861 million in contingency money for the 
Superfund Program be simply put to use this year to fund the Superfund 
Program and to make it possible to work on new sites and continue work 
on existing sites where work has already started, what I was hearing 
from my friends on the other side of the aisle in opposition to it, 
basically I got the impression they were denying that this money would 
ultimately be used for a rebate program that gives money back to the 
polluters.
  But having listened to some of the debate tonight, it seems like just 
the opposite. I do not know if anyone has specifically admitted on the 
other side that that is what this money would be used for, but they 
certainly do not seem to indicate that is a problem, using it for that 
purpose.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot have it both ways. We cannot come in here 
earlier in the day, or last week in a press conference, and say, ``Oh, 
we are great because we are going to provide so much more money for the 
Superfund Program, we are going to do even more than the Democrats 
want, and then later on say, oh, well that money might be used for a 
rebate program, or we have to do all these changes to the Superfund 
Program first before we are going to make the money available, and we 
are not exactly sure that the money is going to be used for.

  That is the impression I am getting from the other side of the aisle. 
It scares me and makes it more crucial to have this amendment passed to 
make sure that the money will not be used, if it ever does become 
available, for this rebate program to polluters. Essentially, the 
debate this evening is on the Superfund Program.
  All of a sudden now, the Republicans, or most of them on the other 
side, are suggesting that what they are really all about here is that 
they want to dramatically change the Superfund Program. I would contend 
that what they really want to do is abolish the Superfund Program, or 
at least make it ineffective.
  The bottom line is that Superfund is working, contrary to the 
statements that my colleagues are making on the Republican side of the 
aisle. Sites are getting cleaned up. In my district, 7 of 9 sites are 
in some phase of cleanup. Nationally there are 1,284 sites on the 
national priority list, and in more than one quarter of them, or 346, 
construction has been completed, that means clean up. Construction has 
commenced at more than 470 other sites and final cleanup decisions have 
been made at about 150 other sites. So there are nearly 1,000 sites 
where construction has either been completed or begun, or a cleanup 
decision is made.
  I would point out that this administration has also cleaned up more 
toxic waste sites than in the previous 10 years. All it takes is an 
administration that cares about a Superfund Program, rather than one 
that does not believe in the Superfund Program.
  In the Committee on Commerce when we were marking up the Republican 
Superfund bill, there were many members who basically suggested we 
should not even have a Superfund at all and we should just let the 
States do their own thing with toxic waste clean up. I do not agree 
with that. I do agree with one statement that the gentleman from Ohio, 
the chairman of our subcommittee, made tonight when he said that this 
is a key vote. This is a key vote because basically this is the only 
amendment on the floor this year that will clearly define where people 
stand: Either you are for polluter pays, which is the basis for the 
Superfund Program, or you are for pay the polluter, which is what the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey have said. That is what this is all about. 
This appropriations bill will allow the Government to pay the polluter. 
I do not think that is right. I do not think that is the way the 
program should be set up.

  I also want to make mention of another theme that I keep hearing from 
the other side of the aisle. That is that somehow the Democrats on this 
side do not want to see the reforms in the Superfund Program that would 
help small businesses or help municipalities. In fact, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] and the rest of us have repeatedly said 
we would exempt small businesses, the little guys who do not have the 
financial means to contribute to the cause of cleanup.
  We would exempt municipalities, residential homeowners, small 
nonprofits. We would exempt any person who contributed less than 110 
gallons of liquid hazardous substance, 200 pounds. We would cap the 
liability. There is nothing in this amendment, there is nothing in this 
amendment that would preclude any of those changes in the Superfund 
Program from taking place.
  The reason we are offering this amendment is because we do not want 
to see change the cornerstone of the Superfund Program, and that is 
that the polluter should pay to clean up the mess, if you will, that he 
left behind. Once you get rid of that, you will not have an effective 
Superfund Program anymore. That is why this amendment is so crucial, 
and I would urge its adoption.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Markey amendment. 
Every proposal that has been put forward on Superfund includes the 
proposal that rebates be paid. If the gentlemen say they are opposed to 
rebates, then they are opposed to every reform proposal that has been 
put forward. They are opposed to fundamental reform. They must want to 
see the lawyers continue to get the money, rather than the money going 
into actually cleaning up these Superfund sites.
  In fact, I find it more curious and more curious that we have heard 
from several of the opposition that the Superfund is working. The 
President of the United States, Mr. Clinton, President Clinton, has 
said that it is not working. Carol Browner, the EPA administrator, says 
that the entire

[[Page H6925]]

Superfund law should be rewritten from start to finish. The EPA 
Inspector General said it is not working. But even though their 
President and their EPA and their Inspector General say it is not 
working, we have heard them say tonight that Superfund is working. The 
evidence is very clear. The statistics which have already been 
presented indicate that that is simply not the case.
  The amendment before us is a funding limitation on the EPA spending 
bill that would preclude any reimbursement to persons who are 
potentially liable under the Superfund statute. All legislative 
proposals to reform Superfund, even the EPA's proposals, involve some 
element of reimbursement. Let me again emphasize that. The amendment 
before us ensures that none of these reforms can go forward.
  The author has amended his amendment twice before bringing it to us, 
but it is still fatally flawed. It freezes the status quo and it 
protects the livelihood of all those wonderful Superfund lawyers. So if 
Members want to protect the lawyers, then they should support the 
amendment before us. But if Members want to reform Superfund, then 
oppose this amendment.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join the gentleman from 
Massachusetts and the gentleman from New Jersey in offering this 
amendment to keep Superfund from changing from a polluter pays program 
to one where the taxpayers pay the polluters. This amendment would 
prohibit use of the Superfund appropriation for payoffs to polluters, 
very simply. This amendment would maintain the principle that major 
corporate polluters should pay to clean up the dangerous toxic waste 
sites they have created.
  Since the beginning of the 104th Congress, the majority has attempted 
to find a way to let these corporate polluters off the hook. Even 
though more than 80 percent of Superfund toxic waste sites are located 
near drinking water sources, they want to reduce standards for cleanup 
and use tax money to pay polluters for the limited remaining cleanup.
  The majority has tried and tried again and then tried a third time to 
come up with a plan to help out corporate polluters. They could have 
been developing a plan to let small businesses and municipalities 
escape the Superfund liability web. They could have been developing a 
plan to help America's urban communities develop their brownfields 
sites that are so important for job creation. They could have been 
developing a plan that would implement a fair share allocation plan 
that would eliminate the high transaction costs resulting from the 
current liability requirements. Unfortunately, none of these things 
have been done.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill contains only $1.3 billion for Superfund.

                              {time}  2000

  That money should be used for cleanups, not for corporate payoffs. 
With this amendment, corporate polluters would still be held 
responsible for cleaning up the toxic messes that they created.
  Mr. Chairman, money from corporate polluters has funded most of the 
Superfund cleanups that have taken place. If that source of money is 
eliminated without being replaced, Superfund cleanups would have to be 
drastically reduced.
  With the low level of funding in this bill, using any fund to pay 
corporate polluters would mean less cleanup, less protection of the 
environment, less protection of drinking water.
  All of this leads to one question: Where is the Superfund reform? 
Everyone has agreed that Superfund reform is absolutely critical. But, 
we have been waiting for 18 months for the majority to move a bill to 
the full committee level. In the waning months of the 103d Congress, 
Administrator Browner put together a consensus bill that was backed by 
a remarkable coalition, business, State and local governments and 
environmental groups and Democrats and Republicans.
  Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, under Administrator Browner there have 
been more cleanups in the first 3 years than in the previous 12 years 
of the Superfund program. Unfortunately, the bill that Administrator 
Browner crafted died at the end of the last Congress.
  For the past year-and-a-half, the Republicans have ignored H.R. 228, 
the bill based on the Coalition agreement. Their substitute for the 
broad-based agreement is no Superfund reform at all. In three months of 
negotiation, all we got was a three-page outline asking us which of 
their previously rejected solutions we wanted to take.
  I want to remind my Republican colleagues, they are in the majority. 
If they want to bring their bill to the floor, then do so. Until then, 
the Markey-Pallone-Borski amendment will prevent this special treatment 
for special interests. I urge support of this amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Markey amendment. Before I get into the meat of my argument, let me 
just make a couple of points.
  This is sort of grand theater here tonight. We have witnessed that 
for the last 48 hours. What really disturbs the new minority is that 
they are not yet adjusted to the fact that they are in the minority, no 
longer in the majority, and that the majority is stepping up to the 
plate and addressing in a responsible way very important environmental 
issues.
  For example, the new minority keeps saying the new majority wants to 
pay the polluters. That is unmitigated nonsense, plain and simple. We 
are talking about a so-called retroactive liability discount scheme 
that was floated about several months ago and we rejected it. It is off 
the table. No one agrees that we should have retroactive liability 
discount, because we do not want to pay the polluters. Everyone agrees 
to that.
  Now, the concept of should those who pollute pay be embraced? You are 
darn right it should be. We should force those who pollute to pay, 
because we have an obligation to our children and future generations to 
leave them with a cleaner, safer, healthier environment, and we intend 
to do just that.

  However, my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], 
the author of this amendment, suggests that the present program should 
be left intact; do not make any adjustments. Mr. Chairman, I would 
suggest that the gentleman from Massachusetts talk to his President and 
my President, the fellow who occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He 
thinks there should be some changes and has provided some money in the 
budget for liability relief.
  The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, a woman for 
whom I have the greatest of respect and I work with on a partnership 
basis, Carol Browner, thinks there should be some liability relief, and 
I agree with her.
  Here is who we should relieve. We should relieve those small business 
people, the innocent people who are victimized and caught up in this 
scheme. I am not just saying that, you are saying that, your 
administration is saying that, Carol Browner is saying that, President 
Clinton is saying that, we are all saying that. However, under Mr. 
Markey's amendment, oh, no, we do not want to provide any relief for 
anybody, we want to keep it as it is because we have just heard from 
another colleague that the system is working quite well.
  I do not know many people in America that think Superfund reform is 
working as intended, and believe me, it was well intended, because we 
want to clean up toxic waste sites. That is very important to all of 
us. But the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] says things are 
all right and some of those people who are supporting his amendment 
seem to conclude that it is all right.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], the ranking member of 
the subcommittee I am privileged to chair, keeps coming up with the old 
saw that we are going to pay polluters. I would say to the gentleman 
that he knows we have no intention of doing so. The gentleman and I 
agree that that would be lousy policy, and, boy, we are not going to 
pay those polluters, nor should we.
  And guess what, fellow Republicans? I know my colleagues have 
examined that idea and agree that we should not pay them, but should we 
pay some liability relief? You are darn right. Do

[[Page H6926]]

my colleagues want to know why? Because the American people are sick 
and tired of spending all of their time in the courts with their 
lawyers, everybody suing everybody and these toxic waste sites are not 
being cleaned up.
  What about my kids? What about my grandchildren and future 
generations? We want to leave them with a cleaner, a healthier, a safer 
environment.
  Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues what is wrong with the Markey 
amendment. There is a lot wrong with it. First of all, let me increase 
your comfort, because we are going to eliminate any possibility 
whatsoever that we can pay polluters, because I am going to offer a 
substitute amendment pretty soon, and I am sure my colleagues will 
support that, because we are going to make it abundantly clear to one 
and all and to history that no way are we going to pay polluters. We 
are going to make sure that retroactive liability discount scheme never 
surfaces again, nor should it. That is good news.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Only if you will support that amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, toward the goal of supporting that 
amendment, I would just like to clarify. If the gentleman would yield, 
would the gentleman's amendment prohibit any rebates to polluters who 
have already signed?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am glad the 
gentleman brought that up. I am glad the gentleman brought that up, and 
reclaiming my time, because my good friend from Massachusetts brought 
me to my next point, here is the deal there, and it is very important 
to remember this.
  We are opposing restrictions on liability relief, as is the 
administration. Let me point that out. The administration wants to have 
some liability relief. Because, guess what? Some people have stepped up 
to the plate, they have assumed their responsibility, they are going to 
fulfill their responsibility.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Boehlert was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, let me get to these points and then I 
will be glad to yield to my friend because we are good friends and we 
work together on these things and usually on environmental issues we 
see eye to eye. I do not know how the gentleman got misguided in this 
instance.
  We want to say to people who have stepped up to the plate and have 
accepted their responsibility, good for you, and if we pass legislation 
that provides some relief for small business, that is going to allow 
some assistance to these small businesses. That is very important, and 
we are going to say something else.
  Mr. Chairman, this may never become law. My colleagues know how we 
deal in this institution. We may end up never having this measure law, 
and if we never have this measure law and we go on with a continuing 
resolution, the Markey language would prevail and never more could we 
provide any liability relief for small businesses and for 
municipalities, those communities across the country that are so hard-
pressed to make ends meet.

  And what would they have to do? They would have to go to their 
taxpayers, their property taxpayers. What a lousy way to raise money, 
increase their property taxes, all if this amendment as proposed 
passes. But I do not think it is going to pass, because I think people 
recognize that we have an obligation to go forward in a responsible 
way.
  Now, to those who argue that we do not have a plan to deal with the 
subject, let me point out, a year ago I presented a plan, a very good 
plan that a lot of people embraced. Now, you know what the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency said in response 
to an examination of my plan? This is Carol Browner. I think she should 
be Secretary Browner, because I think EPA is very important, and I 
think it should be a Cabinet level agency. She said, Boehlert's 
proposal is something the Clinton administration would feel very, very 
comfortable with. It is a very attractive proposal. It goes a long way 
toward removing lawyers from the system, and I think it is a wise and 
informed position.
  Now, let me make this one point, this one point. The point is, and 
this is why I say it is grand theater. It is disturbing to so many of 
my good friends on the other side of the aisle that Republicans are 
acting in a responsible manner dealing with an environmental issue, 
because guess what? My colleagues on the other side of the aisle feel 
they own that issue, and we are the bad guys, we are uncaring and 
insensitive and we do not want to address in a responsible way the 
environment, but that is wrong, we do, and we are proving it. Yesterday 
we proved it with safe drinking water legislation. Today we are proving 
it as we are urging with all of the compassion that we can find that we 
have meaningful Superfund reform, and I say to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], his proposal would not allow that.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I know that the 
gentleman is not acting in a deliberate attempt to totally misrepresent 
what my amendment does; although he has, I know it is not deliberate. 
So I welcome the opportunity to clarify for the gentleman what it is 
that my amendment does.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to reclaim my time, I am 
going to let the gentleman continue, because this is grand theater.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York so 
much, because this goes right to the heart of what we are talking 
about.
  Just for the record so that everyone who is listening is not all 
confused, the Environmental Protection Agency wrote yesterday that they 
support the Markey amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Markey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Boehlert was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman if he would 
continue to yield.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I will continue to yield for 30 seconds, 
because I want half of that time. This is fairness.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Justice as well also 
supports the Markey amendment.
  Now, I know that the gentleman has some general language there from 
Carol Browner speaking about him as an individual, and let me say this, 
the halo over his head could not be shinier after the last year and a 
half of missionary work.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, this is a good time to reclaim my time 
since we are talking about the halo over my head. I will reclaim my 
time, because that is a good note on which to close, referring to a 
halo over someone's head. Administrator Browner was not talking about 
me, and I would appreciate any kind words she would care to share about 
me, but she was talking about the Boehlert proposal.
  That is very important. We want meaningful Superfund reform. We want 
a cleaner, safer, healthier environment for our kids and grand kids, 
and I think we can get it if we deal in a responsible manner by voting 
for what I will soon offer as a responsible substitute to the Markey 
amendment.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I must speak on this bill, and I echo the words of the 
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley]. If 
you are on a train ride and year after year you go on and you keep 
riding on this train ride and it does not get to where you want; what 
do you do? You stop the train or you get off. This is where we are 
tonight. And what we have here is a responsible bill that takes us off 
the train heading in the wrong direction.
  Superfund was hastily enacted in 1980 following national publicity 
over a few chemical waste sites. Originally, EPA got $1.6 billion in 
funding to clean up over 1,000 nationwide sites. As my colleagues can 
see from this chart, after nearly 15 years and an estimated $20 billion 
in State and Federal and private funds spent on the Superfund Program, 
less than 10 percent, less than 10

[[Page H6927]]

percent of the 1,300 sites that the EPA has place on the Superfund 
national priority list have been completely cleaned up.
  Now, I do not think the taxpayers would be happy with that if we 
spent $20 billion and only 10 percent of the sties were cleaned up, and 
that is what this chart shows. Is that progress? Is that a train that 
is going in the right direction? Lord knows not.
  The EPA originally estimated it would take $7 million and 5 to 8 
years to clean up an average site. Today the studies indicate an 
average of 11 years and $25 to $40 million in cost per site; estimates 
of the entire national cleanup effort range from $300 billion to $1 
trillion. They are estimating it is going to cost $1 trillion when 
Federal facilities are included in the cleanup.
  What this means is simple. The existing Superfund Program must be 
replaced with a new program in which the benefits justify its costs, 
which is equitable, cost effective, and limited in size and scope when 
feasible. It should be targeted to address real, current, and 
significant risks to human health and environments posed by the past 
disposal of hazardous substances. Retroactive liability, a joint and 
several liability must be remedied. We must change and work on that, 
and the size and scope of the Federal national priority list should be 
kept. States should be given the opportunity to delegate implementation 
of the reforms of the Federal Superfund Program at the sites, as well 
as provided with incentives to implement their own reform programs in a 
fair and cost-effective manner.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, this is what this bil does, and what the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] does is return us to the status quo, to 
the train that continues to go in the wrong direction after all of 
these years since 1980. So there is no use continuing to throw money 
into this program without reform.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. Chairman, this is why we need term limits around here. This is 
why we need to change Congress and not have one party dominate Congress 
for 40 years, because they are on the same train going in the wrong 
direction. There are no new ideas.
  But, lo and behold, the Republican majority comes in, we have 
Chairman Oxley with new ideas and a new program. And once and for all 
we start to say this train is going in the wrong direction, and we are 
going to move forward, stop this train and move it in the right 
direction. That is what this program does. So term limits is good for 
Members and term limits is good for the majority after 40 years of the 
Superfund Program.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Markey amendment. I 
might point out that this program can be improved vastly, and I call 
for the defeat of the Markey amendment and passage of the Republican 
plan.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to rise in opposition to the Markey amendment 
here tonight. I did take special interest, though, when the gentleman 
from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, spoke, when I noticed and it first came 
to my attention that the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, had 
32 sites in his own district, of which only 2 had been cleaned up, and 
then when I noticed the district of Mr. Pallone, the 6th District of 
New Jersey has 9 Superfund sites, zero have been completely cleaned up, 
7 of those sites came in 1983.
  Really, I find it very fascinating that Members would want to defend 
the status quo when in fact so many Superfund sites have been on the 
books for so long. If our commitment is to a healthier and safer 
environment, what are we doing? Time out. What in fact are we doing?
  The purpose of Superfund is to protect public health from the 
dangerous release of materials in a cost effective manner. Sixteen 
years after the law was enacted, lawyers, not the environment, have 
become the big winners. What I have here is a scroll. On this scroll is 
a list of thousands and thousands of lawyers who have been retained at 
over 1,300 of the Superfund sites. Let me just continue on, and I will 
speak as this goes on, and I will move slowly and everybody in America 
can read this list of lawyers.

  Each year on average, only 5 sites are removed from the national 
priority list, and each year citizens pay $4.5 billion on the cleanup 
costs. That is because 47 percent of the total Superfund costs are 
spent on lawyers and legal expenses.
  It is difficult right now for the Democrat Party here because they 
have to face a choice. The choice is between a constituency that 
supports them on the environmental issues, that gives a lot of money to 
their congressional campaigns, and trial lawyers who fund their 
campaigns with a lot of money. What we have here are all these trial 
lawyers, so I guess I have to assume that they are siding with the 
lawyers here tonight.
  The liability aspect is so measured that even local governments are 
being sued millions of dollars on Superfund simply because they picked 
up the garbage. In Indiana alone, 32 Superfund sites are awaiting 
action. In my district, we have Continental Steel in Kokomo, IN. It has 
been on the national priority list for 10 years. The Federal Government 
has already spent nearly $13 million on contamination removal, yet it 
is still considered worst on the Indiana list.
  I applaud Chairman Mike Oxley for having come to Indiana to actually 
look at the Continental Steel site. I imagine the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Oxley] can recall looking at the spent pickle liquor that was 
right next to Wildcat Creek. That spent pickle liquor still has the 
risk of contamination into the water because money is going to all 
these lawyers. It is all the lawyers.
  I applaud the gentleman from Ohio because he chooses the environment. 
He wants to side with the millions of people who live next to these 
Superfund sites. But what I find here today is the Democrats are siding 
with the scroll and all the lawyers.
  Everyone must agree that Superfund is broken and will require 
additional funding to fix it. We need to reform Superfund, the joint 
and several liability, in order to immediately clean up the Superfund 
sites by using Superfund business taxes to clean up these sites rather 
than litigating and negotiating.
  This amendment would prevent significant reform of the current 
Superfund liability system by preventing these funds from being used to 
clean up the sites. Instead, this amendment will keep the status quo of 
taking money from taxpayers and lining the pockets of all of these 
lawyers.
  The list keeps going and going and growing as environmental law 
continues to grow. Forty-seven percent of all of the money has gone to 
all these lawyers instead of cleaning up all the sites.
  One could say, ``This is a little bit about theater here tonight.'' 
It is Mr. Chairman. This is a little bit about theater. But the reality 
and the fact fo the matter is that money that should be going to make 
our enviroment healthier and safer is going to line the pockets of 
trial lawyers, who will in turn send that money into many campaigns 
because the Democrats want the majority back. I think that is 
shameless, that they would choose that over the environment.
  I will stand with the environment, and I applaud the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Oxley] here tonight. God bless you. Vote down the Markey 
amendment.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, 
out of courtesy inasmuch as he was referred to by the last speaker.
  Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate the gentleman's yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say, first of all, it is very easy to 
come on the floor and start disparaging the lawyers. There are a lot of 
lawyers involved in a lot of things in this place including on the 
floor of this House.
  What did Voltaire say: the first thing we do is kill all the lawyers. 
Maybe that is what the gentleman wants to do, but I do not think that 
is the issue here tonight.
  The issue here tonight is whether or not the corporations and the 
individuals who polluted these sites and created the mess are going to 
be responsible for cleaning them up. If we eliminate that as a basic 
tenet of the Superfund Program, it will no longer be a viable program. 
The taxpayers will

[[Page H6928]]

be basically paying for things that will not happen because there will 
not be enough money to do the cleanup.
  The gentleman mentioned my district specifically. Of the nine sites 
in my district, seven of them I mentioned are in various phases of 
cleanup but most of them are in very advanced stages where they are 
actually doing just monitoring now of the overall program. One site has 
actually been deleted from the list. Again the gentleman talks about 
our side of the aisle. This administration, as I said before, has done 
more cleanups in the last few years than have done in the whole 10 
years prior to that of the Superfund Program. It has also deleted more 
sites from the NPL list than any previous administration. So we are 
talking here about a Democratic administration that cares about the 
program, that believes in the program, that wants to make certain 
changes in the program that are beneficial but still keep the program 
intact.
  What you want to do tonight, and I am amazed when I listen to the 
debate on the floor, is destroy and get rid of the program.
  I just wanted to make one additional comment again based on my friend 
from New York and what he said about this codisposal option, because 
that upsets me a great deal. One of the sites that I have is in 
advanced stages of cleanup in Edison, NJ. It is called the Kin-Buc 
site, one of the most hazardous sites, the most toxic sites in this 
country. If any of you went there today to see what has been done at 
that site, it is amazing how much cleanup, what has actually been done. 
It not only looks beautiful, it is working. The Superfund Program 
works. But if what the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] described 
for codisposal were to come in play and become the law, that site would 
never be cleanup up today. Because under his proposal, if there is any 
municipal waste or a substantial amount of municipal waste that goes to 
a landfill, which is what the Kin-Buc site is, then there is no longer 
any liability on the part of the polluters to clean up the site. If 
they have already spent money to spent money to clean up, which they 
have done at Kin-Buc, then they get reimbursed, which is what this is 
all about, rebates to the polluters. If on the other hand they have not 
cleanup it up yet, then the responsibility is turned over to the 
taxpayers to pay the cost of the cleanup. That means that cleanup does 
not occur.
  The bottom line here, and I think everyone has to understand this, 
you eliminate the polluter pays principle. You make these changes that 
they have to do the cleanup and you will not see progress on Superfund 
sites. You can talk here all you want about all the lawyers and about 
the various stages of cleanup and how you think the program is not 
working. The bottom line is the program is working. What you are 
proposing will make the cleanups stop. That is what the other side is 
all about.

  I have heard it said over and over again, we do not need a Superfund 
Program. Let the States do the job. The job cannot be done by the 
States. If we do not pass this amendment tonight, and we do not get 
away from this notion that we are going to pay rebates to the 
polluters, we are not going to see the Superfund Program as a viable 
program anymore. That is the bottom line.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ORTON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I would like to respond to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone]. The proposal I advanced last July which was 
spoken so highly of by the Administrator of EPA would eliminate 
retroactive liability for 250 codisposal sites across the country, the 
idea being to get small businesses out from any liability and to get 
communities out from any liability, have the trust fund pay for the 
cleanup, because I want cleanup just as much as the gentleman does and 
this is a faster way to get the cleanup.
  Mr. PALLONE. If the gentleman will yield further, I understand what 
the gentleman is about, but the gentleman's proposal is not necessary 
and is counterproductive. We can have exemptions for small businesses, 
we can have exemptions for municipalities.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] has indicated and I 
have indicated and all of us have indicated that we do not have a 
problem with that and this amendment does not preclude that. But if you 
go along with this codisposal site that basically says because 
municipal, household waste, whatever, goes into a landfill or a site 
and that means that there is no longer liability for the people, the 
generators of most of the hazardous waste, then in effect what you are 
doing is eliminating liability for the corporations in the case of Kin-
Buc, in my own district, that had to do the cleanup, and there is not 
going to be the taxpayer money to do that cleanup. It will not happen.


  amendment offered by mr. boehlert as a substitute for the amendment 
                         offered by mr. markey

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for 
the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert as a substitute for the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Markey: Page 95, after line 21, 
     insert the following:
       Sec. 422. None of the funds made available to the 
     Environmental Protection Agency under the heading ``Hazardous 
     Substance Superfund'' may be used to implement any 
     retroactive liability discount reimbursement described in the 
     amendment made by section 201 of H.R. 2500, as introduced on 
     October 18, 1995.

  Mr. BOEHLERT [during the reading]. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment be 
considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the entire 5 minutes 
because I know the chairman and the ranking member of the committee 
have been working very hard and we have all been here for a long time 
on this very subject. It is an important subject, so we should discuss 
it in detail. But all that needs to be said has been said pretty much.
  I would like to add just a couple of thoughts. The Boehlert amendment 
makes it absolutely clear once and for all that the retroactive 
liability discount is dead. Please, no more stories about paying 
polluters. It is all over. Finished. I never supported it in the first 
place, and it is behind us. It has been for 5 months. The negotiations 
have gone forward on Superfund reform without any discussion of 
retroactive liability discounts.
  Second, the Boehlert amendment preserves the right of Congress, that 
is a very precious right, to develop bipartisan Superfund legislation 
that will provide needed relief, liability relief to thousands of small 
businesses and small communities across the country. We want to get 
them out of the courts, we want to get them out of the law offices, and 
we want to get the emphasis on cleaning up toxic waste sites. I think 
the Markey amendment would actually undermine the most important 
administrative Superfund reforms being sought by the Environmental 
Protection Agency. I think we should move forward. This is a 
responsible pro-environment, pro-small business, pro-small community 
substitute amendment, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, let us just clear away, if we could, a lot of the 
statements that have been made this evening about the nature of this 
amendment. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] is not speaking 
about H.R. 2500 when he talks about anything that Carol Browner has 
said. Any personal remarks that Carol Browner may have made about the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] are deserved by him. But H.R. 
2500 was in fact a bill which Administrator Browner recommended a veto 
on. A veto.
  If the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] wants to associate 
himself with that bill, because that is what my amendment refers to, 
H.R. 2500. It refers to provisions in H.R. 2500 that allow for rebates 
to be given to polluters. If the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] 
wants to associate himself with that portion which somehow or other he 
has up on his board over here with the gold star from Carol Browner, 
that is fine. Take credit for that. But we are not debating that this

[[Page H6929]]

evening, and we are not debating liability for municipalities. We are 
not debating the whole long laundry list of issues that all of these 
Republicans keep getting up and speaking about. We are only debating 
one issue, the issue of whether or not tax dollars that we need to 
balance the budget, that we need to pay for Medicare, that we need to 
pay for Medicaid, that we need to pay for inoculations of children are 
going to be spent to give money to polluters in cases where they have 
accepted liability in curt to clean up a site for which they are 
responsible.

                              {time}  2030

  That, Mr. Chairman, is what this whole debate is about.
  Now, the Boehlert amendment deals with H.R. 2500's provision which 
allows for the payment of money for polluters. What my amendment does 
out here on the floor, that he is seeking to amend, would prohibit any 
scheme ever to pay polluters. Now, there is a big difference between 
taking the Contract With America provision and Mr. Boelhert saying, 
well, I do not support that, and taking any other provision which could 
be constructed which would accomplish the very same goal.
  That is why the Markey amendment has to pass, or else the Boehlert 
amendment has just given a very temporary 60- or 90- or 120-day 
inoculation to the Republican Party, pending Bob Dole' election as 
President, they hope, and then the bill can pass with only 51 percent 
of the vote. So we need the Markey amendment to prohibit it, to make it 
part of the law, not just H.R. 2500, this concoction of wish lists by 
the polluters of America, fulfillment of the Contract With America, but 
any scheme which is constructed.
  So I give the gentleman from New York his due, and he deserves it, 
and the Republican Party deserves credit for using the gentleman as a 
guard-all shield against their support for all of the polluter-written 
legislation that has been presented out on this floor over this past 
year and a half. But even the gentleman, in all of his sacrifice for 
the Republican Party, cannot protect them against H.R. 2500, even as 
the gentleman brings out his good report card from Carol Browner on the 
things that he does support.
  H.R. 2500 the gentleman opposes, I hope, because Carol Browner said 
that it should be vetoed, and if you did not, then fine, there is an 
area of agreement that you have with the Republican Party, but not with 
the environmentalists of our country, not with the EPA, and not with 
anyone that wants to see the sites in this country that have been 
polluted by chemical companies, by oil companies, cleaned up.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that this amendment is not allowed to in any way 
interfere with our ability to also ensure that the Markey amendment is 
included as part of this law.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr.. GILLMOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Markey 
amendment. The Markey amendment continues to support a failed program 
when there are better alternatives available. This amendment ignores 
some simple and widely accepted facts about Superfund, and 
unapologetically defends the failed status quo.
  The Markey amendment preserves the current retroactive liability 
system--a system that has proven to be successful at enriching lawyers, 
but not in cleaning up the environment.
  When Superfund was originally passed in 1980, and when it was 
reauthorized in 1986, it was a program with great hope. The hope was 
that the billions of dollars raised by the corporate taxes in this 
program would go for cleaning up some of the Nation's most dangerous 
hazardous waste sites. Regrettably, the promise was not met.
   Superfund turned out to be an all-too-typical Federal Government 
program. First, it failed in its purpose. After 16 years and a cost of 
$15 billion, only 91 sites have been cleaned up. Second, it was an all-
too-typical Government program because in the process of failing, it 
consumed billions and billions of dollars. Third, much of the money 
that was spent did not go for helping the environment. It went to 
enrich attorneys and it went for regulatory and bureaucratic costs. 
This program must be reformed and we have a vehicle pending before this 
Congress to reform it in the Commerce Committee.
  The appropriations legislation offered here to fund the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] in fiscal year 1997 places a 
priority on Superfund spending for actual cleanup, limiting the 
resources used for redundant administrative and support services. I 
could not agree more with this strategy. I offered in the Commerce 
Committee, and the committee accepted, these same provisions to the 
House reauthorization and reform of the Superfund program. I am glad 
the Appropriations Committee has decided to accept this idea in the 
report language to this bill.
  EPA says it is spending roughly about 65 percent of their Superfund 
budget on remedial actions, the rest going to administrative, research, 
and oversight activities. However, only about 40 percent goes to actual 
cleanup. So, 60 percent winds up going to other activities. 
Environmental protection, especially when it comes to Superfund, should 
not be just spending money, but in spending money wisely for 
environmental cleanup.
  A vote for the Markey amendment is a vote against reform of 
Superfund. The major problems with Superfund are its liability 
determination, retroactive liability, and a failed method of remedy 
selection. If you really care about the environment, you want the 
limited resources we have spent for dealing with real environmental 
needs, and not wasted. The money ought to go to pay the people who move 
dirt, and clean up the actual sites, and not go to the consultants and 
lawyers. A ``no'' vote on this amendment coupled with the passage of 
real reform in Superfund will be good for the environment, and 
especially it will be good for the people who live near these sites.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not use more than a minute or so. I wanted to 
point out, I am amazed. I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Boehlert] is basically getting this half right, I guess 
is the way to phrase it. But essentially what he is doing here is 
eliminating the liability or allowing rebates, if you will, for those 
who have entered into consent orders and admitted liability.
  So if a polluter said, ``Look, I did this,'' and enters into the 
consent decree, then they can still get a rebate check. For the life of 
me, I do not understand why we should allow that if someone has 
admitted guilt, so to speak, and said that they contributed to the 
mess.
  I think it is commendable that the gentleman is going halfway and 
agreeing with the rest of the Markey amendment, but I totally oppose 
the idea that just because there is a consent order outstanding that 
someone has entered into, that somehow that person should continue to 
be able to get a rebate. It goes against the grain in terms again of 
what the Superfund program is all about, and the idea is that those who 
polluted should pay.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have in my hands the two amendments 
which we are discussing. The first is the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey]. It is an excellent 
amendment. What it does is it says that there can be no money paid to a 
fellow who has polluted for cleaning up; he has to clean up after 
himself.
  This reminds me of a wonderful sign that I once saw on the wall. It 
said, ``Your mother does not live here, so you will have to clean up 
after yourself.''
  What the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] wants to do and what 
my Republican colleagues want to do is to modify that slightly. Mr. 
Markey says that if you pollute, you cannot get paid for cleaning up. 
The gentleman from New York says that. Now, the gentleman from New York 
has then established that he is half right, and for that we should 
salute him because it is quite a rarity in a Republican Congress for a 
Republican to be half right.
  Having said that, we come to the second part, however, which the 
gentleman from New York has stuck in there. I always thought the 
gentleman from New York was a very smart fellow, and I still do, but 
something happened here tonight that I cannot explain and perhaps he 
can. What he says is, but if you have made a settlement, then the 
Government is going to pay you to clean up and give you a rebate for 
cleaning up after you have made a mess and after you have been forced 
into a settlement.

[[Page H6930]]

  I do not understand why we should pay a wrongdoer who has made a mess 
and not settled, and I do not understand why a fellow who has made a 
mess and then settled should be paid. It just does not follow and it 
does not make good sense.
  Now, I have enormous respect for the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Boehlert]. He is a very wise and very good Member of this body, and I 
salute him for the good work that he has done over the years. But 
tonight he has things a little wrong. What we really need to address is 
to understand that there are two situations where a polluter could 
profit under this legislation. The first is where he has gone out and 
made a dirty mess, risked the lives of the people, contaminated the 
water, polluted the air, dirtied up a major area, threatened the life 
and well-being of the people, and under the Republican idea we will 
then pay them for cleaning that up and having put large numbers of 
people at risk. This will look very good on their balance sheets, and I 
am sure my Republican colleagues like that.
  Having said that, Mr. Chairman, it must be observed, however, that 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] would address that, and for 
that we should salute him. But it is so that he does not address the 
other equally important situation which arises under the bill. That is, 
that a polluter who has cut a deal and has agreed that he has done 
something wrong and has agreed freely that he, along with other 
polluters, will then clean up, is going to get a rebate. Now, that may 
be a splendid idea if you are a polluter, but from the standpoint of 
the taxpaying public and from the standpoint of people who have to pay 
the taxes for the cleanup, it does not make good sense, because what it 
does is it diverts moneys from an already short Superfund into the 
paying off of wrongdoes. That is wrong.
  Now, if we need to address the question of Superfund, we ought to be 
addressing it in the committee. My Republican colleagues have run the 
committee now for almost a year and a half. There is no Superfund bill. 
My good friend from New York, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Boehlert], got up and castigated the Democrats because we have not 
gotten a bill. Now, it may be that he does not know that the 
Republicans control this Congress, but believe me, and I will tell him 
now, they do. As a matter of fact, I understand the distinguished 
gentleman from New York is a subcommittee chairman on the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York for purposes of 
explaining what he is doing tonight, I will be very happy to do so 
because I notice he is standing and I do have great respect for him.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that what I am proposing 
would permit continued consent decrees to be entered into with the hope 
that some relief will be provided in the near future, because the 
Democrats and the Republicans are very actively seeking Superfund 
reform legislation this year.
  What the Markey amendment will do is provide a disincentive for 
anyone to settle and to begin to clean up, because they are going to 
hold out hope that some day in the future this will happen. I want to 
get in with Superfund cleanup so that we can have a cleaner, healthier, 
safer environment for our kids and our grandkids.
  Mr. DINGELL. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, but what the 
gentleman from New York would do is to give forgiveness and absolution 
retroactively.
  It isn't what we are going to do prospectively that my good friend 
from New York would address, it is that which has already been done. He 
is going to catch a bunch of rascals and scoundrels who polluted and go 
out and make them whole for what they have already agreed to clean up.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] as a substitute for the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  The amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was agreed 
to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.


          sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 456, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed, 
in the following order: the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht], and the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                   amendment offered by mr. gutknecht

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Gutknecht] 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.


                             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 45, 
noes 372, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 277]

                                AYES--45

     Baker (CA)
     Barton
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Campbell
     Chabot
     Coburn
     Cox
     Crane
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hamilton
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Klug
     Largent
     McIntosh
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Minge
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Sanford
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Smith (MI)
     Souder
     Tiahrt
     Upton

                               NOES--372

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara

[[Page H6931]]


     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Becerra
     Bevill
     Boehner
     Browder
     Christensen
     Coleman
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Gibbons
     Hall (OH)
     Hayes
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Peterson (FL)
     Roybal-Allard
     Yates

                              {time}  2100

  Messrs. LaHOOD, DELLUMS, PETERSON of Minnesota, VISCLOSKY, CHRYSLER, 
and COOLEY of Oregon, and Mrs. CHENOWETH changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Walker

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 245, 
noes 170, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 278]

                               AYES--245

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--170

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Rogers
     Rose
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Becerra
     Bevill
     Browder
     Christensen
     Coleman
     Farr
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Gibbons
     Hall (OH)
     Hayes
     Lincoln
     McDade
     McIntosh
     Mica
     Peterson (FL)
     Roybal-Allard
     Yates

                              {time}  2107

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I was inadvertently detained 
during rollcall vote No. 278. Had I been present I would have voted 
``no.''
  Mr. COOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my sincere reservations about 
the bill before us today, the fiscal year 1997 VA, HUD and independent 
agencies appropriations bill.
  This bill provides desperately needed funding to help our Nation's 
veterans deal with their health needs, assist them in housing costs, 
and allow them to meet their educational goals. These measures are not 
only worthwhile, but necessary because they live up to our Government's 
obligation to those who gave valiantly in the defense of this great 
Nation. Unfortunately, this bill does much more than meet these 
worthwhile objectives.
  The bill before us also provides funds for dozens of other bloated, 
unrelated agencies which serve as a black hole for our citizen's hard-
earned tax dollars. These agencies include the Office of Science and 
Technology, Community Development Financial Institutions, the Council 
on Environmental Quality, and the National Science Foundation.

[[Page H6932]]

  Perhaps the most difficult task for me is to justify the inclusion of 
the Environmental Protection Agency and AmeriCorps into this omnibus 
bill. I have serious concerns about these two agencies, their ability 
to spend the public's money wisely, and the choices they make in 
carrying out their mission. Unfortunately, I have to vote for them as 
part of this bill.
  Although it will be difficult, my dedication to honoring this 
country's promise to its veterans supersedes my concerns about these 
misguided agencies. However, I would like to state for the record that 
I am voting for veterans, not bureaucrats at the EPA and AmeriCorps.
  By forcing the representatives of the people to vote for this 
voluminous bill, we are denied an opportunity to more closely 
scrutinize the way the people's money is being spent, and ordered to 
vote in favor of a bill which sets our deeply held beliefs in conflict. 
In the future, I hope that we can revisit the appropriations process in 
order to create more cohesive, and carefully scrutinized, bills.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise really to discuss the remaining business, 
briefly, to give Members a sense for the time that we may have left. If 
you would like to discuss the time that we have left, I would be glad 
to try.
  Before we get to that point, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and 
I have talked a lot about this new environment between both sides on 
this appropriations bill, of which we are very appreciative. I must say 
that there is one more item that has added greatly to the work that we 
have done and facilitated the process as much as possible in this 
environment. I hope the Members will express their appreciation for a 
very, very fine job of chairing this committee during this very 
difficult process by the gentleman from Texas.
  At this point, we are aware of just five more amendments. We 
understand the sponsors will agree to a time agreement as follows: One 
amendment each for the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] and the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Weller], the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton], and the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], and each amendment will be considered for 10 
minutes equally divided, 5 minutes on each side for each amendment, and 
we could take less than that, by the way.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me suggest, I know that Mr. Stokes and 
everyone else on this side of the aisle would like to be cooperative in 
working this out. I want to see the gentleman's request approved.
  I think there is an impediment to that right now. If the gentleman 
could withhold that for a few moments and if we could get a unanimous 
consent for the next amendment only, while it is worked out, I think we 
might save a lot of time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
debate on the Weller amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 
10 minutes, the time to be equally divided and controlled.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller] and a Member 
opposed, each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.Weller].

                              {time}  2115


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Weller

  Mr. WELLER. 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. Weller:
       Sec.   . FHA Mortgage Insurance Premiums.--Section 
     203(c)(2)(A) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1709(c)(2)(A)) is amended by inserting after the first 
     sentence the following new sentence: ``In the case of 
     mortgage for which the mortgagor is a first time homebuyer 
     who completes a program of counseling with respect to the 
     responsibilities and financial management involved in 
     homeownership that is approved by the Secretary, the premium 
     payment under this subparagraph shall not exceed 2.0 percent 
     of the amount of the original insured principal obligation of 
     the mortgage.''.

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved by the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller] for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Before I begin discussing my amendment I do want to take a moment and 
commend the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Lewis] and also the ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Stokes], for their leadership and their management of this particular 
bill. I think they have gone out of their way, Mr. Chairman, to work 
towards bipartisanship.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment that helps working families by 
working towards expanding homeownership opportunities for first-time 
home buyers by working to lower the up-front costs for FHA loans. This 
amendment, which has bipartisan support, I would like to point out, Mr. 
Chairman, would lower the FHA mortgage insurance premium for first-time 
home buyers to get ownership counseling. Currently the maximum rate is 
2\1/4\ percent of the loan value. This amendment would reduce that to 2 
percent, saving the average FHA homeowner about $200 a year and $200 
towards their up front closing costs, and of course counseling, working 
with these aspiring homeowners, would help reduce the default rate.
  Some in Washington would call $200 probably chump change, saying that 
is not very much, but for real working families back in Illinois and 
throughout this country who are struggling to make ends meet, $200 is a 
lot of money each year.
  This amendment is needed to promote home ownership, helping American 
families pursue the American dream because we all recognize that 
strengthening home ownership strengthens families, and when someone 
owns a home in a community, that strengthens their communities.
  This amendment is needed like many undisturbed that we see a decline 
in home ownership, particularly among the young. Statistics show that 
home ownership rates among heads of households under 35 years of age is 
three-fourths of what it was in 1979. In fact, in 1979, 45 percent of 
heads of households under 35 were homeowners. Today, in 1995, this past 
year, 39 percent of heads of households under 35 were homeowners. We 
have seen a 9-percent drop.
  Over the past 6 months as interest rates have gone up, we have seen 
about a 1\1/2\ percent rate increase on home mortgage rates. That 
averages out to about a $1,000 a year increase in home ownership costs 
for the average family and the average home loan. Unfortunately, we did 
not reach a balanced budget agreement this year which would have 
brought down interest rates, but we are still working on that, and this 
effort will help reduce those costs.
  As I pointed out, interest rates, mortgage rates have gone up 1 to 
1\1/2\ percent, driving up the average cost a thousand dollars a year, 
or about $85 a month for the average home mortgage.
  This amendment restores opportunity, my colleagues. Let us help 
aspiring potential home buyers afford a new home. Let us help reduce 
their costs and give them a $200 break on their closing costs as well 
as a $200 break in their annual costs of FHA insurance. As we know, 
increased home ownership strengthens communities.
  I do want to point out this amendment has bipartisan support, is 
basically identical to what the President endorsed a few weeks ago in 
his initiatives. I ask for bipartisan support. Let us help working 
families afford a home. Let us strengthen communities, strengthen home 
ownership. Let us make home ownership more affordable.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for bipartisan support and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am reserving my point of order.
  I would point out that this obviously goes beyond the scope of 
appropriating and into policy areas, much of which the committee, the 
principal committee on which I serve and many others in this body, has 
not dealt with.
  Mr. Chairman, under that reservation I would just point out that this 
change, a good change, and I might say

[[Page H6933]]

that Mr. Weller has been an ally in support of the FHA program, and I 
and other Members have noted that and appreciate it, and this does 
follow, as he had mentioned, a policy administration action by 
President Clinton 3 weeks ago to in fact reduce the up-front costs in 
terms of FHA.
  So normally important that program to affordable housing in this 
country, and although this is out of scope, I understand that there has 
been agreement. I do not want to stand in the way of the agreement; I 
want to be part of the home ownership, increasing national home 
ownership opportunities.
  Last week Secretary Cisneros visited my district and outlined just 
such a program and other programs that have achieved that. In fact, the 
Clinton administration has had great success since initiating this, 
with 1.4 million families since 1995 achieving or obtaining home 
ownership because of the positive interest rates and other factors in 
the economy.
  So I join the gentleman and want to commend him, but I would hope 
that the committee of jurisdiction would deal with the comprehensive 
FHA formula. We sent a bill over there 2 years ago that substantially 
raised the average loan, raised the ceilings, did a variety of things 
that would have accorded opportunity for home ownership, and the 
problem with these sort of bits and pieces of amendments that are 
coming to the floor today, I know good in their own vein, they simply 
frustrate the overall modernization of the FHA program, which I might 
say is healthy, is vital, is serving people in this country and is 
something that they need.
  So if my colleagues care about home ownership in this country, we 
ought to be supporting a strong revitalized FHA program. It is healthy. 
It deserves that support.
  With that said, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair grants the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Vento], in order to make his statement, the 5 minutes in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The gentleman may reserve the balance of that time if he so wishes.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of the time.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller] has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Illinois for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not need a whole minute to say this. We just need 
to reiterate this one key point: $200 is a lot of money to hard-working 
families in the United States of America, and for people to have the 
opportunity to buy a home for the first time this amendment would 
empower those people.
  That is why I am proud to stand with my good friend from Illinois and 
Members on both sides of the aisle in support of the Weller amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just point out to my colleagues that the 
history of this began in the early 1980's with an up-front premium 
payment to FHA. Now, they in fact took the entire premium and pulled it 
into the mortgage, thereby creating a negative net worth in terms of 
the loan-to-value ratio. That in essence, I think, added to some of the 
problems with FHA, although FHA was never in the red. It was always in 
the black. Studies came out with projections that cast a shadow on the 
FHA single family, the M-1 fund.
  Mr. Chairman, in the early 1980's, I think in the name of making 
symbolic deficit reduction, the policy was changed to collect an up-
front premium on FHA. We changed that policy, on a bipartisan basis, 
myself and the Member, the Governor now of Pennsylvania, Tom Ridge, in 
a conference committee led by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] 
and others, and I think that it is noteworthy that we can now reduce 
further the up-front premium. I hope that some day we can eliminate it 
completely, reducing that as a necessary cash and liability problem, 
and convert this back to what it was on a pay-as-you-go basis in terms 
of the insurance premiums for FHA.
  And as I voiced earlier, the fervent desire to modernize this program 
so it can begin to serve families across this country; in my State, 
because of the value of homes, it serves about 40 to 50 percent of the 
market. In most of our States and jurisdictions it does not because 
home costs are higher, and so the average middle-income American that 
is desirous of a home loan is not able to achieve the benefits of FHA 
with this low down payment and the insured nature that it carries.
  It has been a marvelously successful program. It has in fact been the 
most successful program in the history of this Nation in terms of 
providing home ownership.
  Again, I commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller] for his 
pursuit not just of this amendment this evening but his general support 
for FHA.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief just in stating my 
support for the amendment. Indeed the President has, as indicated, 
indicated that he would do this administratively. I believe it is good 
to put it in statutory language. I support the amendment by the 
gentleman.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing let me just be very brief. Let us get to the 
bottom line here.
  Today it is a real struggle for many families to be able to afford a 
home. We are seeing that as taxes are too high, interest rates are too 
high and working families' incomes are being squeezed. Many cash-
strapped young working families are struggling, trying to obtain a home 
and pursue the American dream.
  Last year, thanks to FHA, we saw 850,000 families had the opportunity 
to purchase a home thanks to FHA, and 250,000 of them would not have 
had the opportunity to own a home unless we had the FHA single-family 
100 percent loan guarantee program. It is an important mission, and if 
we want to help young families, young working families, young cash-
strapped working families afford the American dream, we need to help 
them out. At this time when interest rates are going up, let us give 
them a break, help reduce their closing costs by $200.
  I ask bipartisan support for his amendment. I appreciate the 
bipartisan support we have received.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    amendments offered by Mr. Orton

  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments, and I ask unanimous 
consent that they be considered en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Utah?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Orton:
       Page 95, after line 21, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 422. (a) Authority To Use Amounts Borrowed From Family 
     Members for Downpayments on FHA-insured Loans.--Section 
     203(b)(9) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(b)(9)) 
     is amended by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That for purposes of this 
     paragraph, the Secretary shall consider as cash or its 
     equivalent any amounts borrowed from a family member (as such 
     term is defined in section 201), subject only to the 
     requirements that, in any case in which the repayment of such 
     borrowed amounts is secured by a lien against the property, 
     such lien shall be subordinate to the mortgage and the sum of 
     the principal obligation of the mortgage and the obligation 
     secured by such lien may not exceed 100 percent of the 
     appraised value of the property plus any initial service 
     charges, appraisal, inspection, and other fees in connection 
     with the mortgage''.
       (b) Definition of Family Member.--Section 201 of the 
     National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1707) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsections:
       ``(e) The term `family member' means, with respect to a 
     mortgagor under such section, a child, parent, or grandparent 
     of the mortgagor (or the mortgagor's spouse). In determining 
     whether any of the relationships referred to in the preceding 
     sentence exist, a legally adopted son or daughter of an 
     individual (and a child who is a member of an individual's 
     household, if placed with such individual by an authorized 
     placement agency for legal adoption by such individual), and 
     a foster child of an individual, shall

[[Page H6934]]

     be treated as a child of such individual by blood.
       ``(f) The term `child' means, with respect to a mortgagor 
     under such section, a son, stepson, daughter, or stepdaughter 
     of such mortgagor.''.
       Page 95, after line 21, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 422. Sections 401 and 402 of the bill, H.R. 1708, 
     104th Congress, as introduced in the House of Representatives 
     on May 24, 1995, are hereby enacted into law.

  Mr. ORTON [during the reading]. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendments be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Utah?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendments.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I will explain my amendments. They are 
really very simple. There are three parts. The reason I am offering 
them at this point is, following the Weller amendment, which has just 
been adopted, which in fact does legislate on this appropriation bill, 
I acknowledge that mine does also, but I believe that it is important 
to do this, to make changes, to modernize and improve and update the 
FHA program.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, in light of the unanimous 
consent agreement that had been attempted to be reached, that all time 
on these amendments that I am offering be limited to 10 minutes, 
divided between the two sides.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] ask for 5 
minutes each, including the time that the gentleman has consumed?
  Mr. ORTON. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. And any amendments thereto?
  Mr. ORTON. Yes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Utah?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, my amendment does three things to 
modernize and improve FHA. First, it simplifies the downpayment 
requirement of FHA. It is a very complex two-part downpayment 
requirement. This simplifies it to a simple one-part calculation. It 
retains essentially the same downpayment requirements, but does so in a 
more simple manner. It will save costs and save time.
  The second part would also change the provisions of issuing the 
mortgage insurance certificates. Right now, qualified lenders who make 
FHA loans have the right to authorize the loan. They make the 
determination who is eligible for the loan. But the actual FHA 
insurance certificate is issued by HUD.
  My second portion of the amendment changes that and allows the 
paperwork to be issued by the authorizing lender. This will save time, 
costly delays, it will save administrative costs to the FHA.
  My third part of the amendment would be to change the downpayment 
requirements. Right now there is a prohibition for downpayments made, 
including a loan from a parent. My amendment would allow parental loans 
to be included by the purchaser of the home. Right now, parental loans 
are prohibited. You cannot acquire a home under an FHA guaranteed loan 
if you have borrowed a parental loan for part of the downpayment.
  I believe we should not be telling parents they cannot loan money to 
children. This would not in fact weaken the safety and soundness of 
those loans. You can borrow money now from a third party. Why can you 
not borrow money from a parent? It is more likely that the parent would 
step in and help if that loan became troubled, anyway.
  HUD supports all three of these amendments. They are supported on a 
bipartisan basis. All three reduce costs, administrative bureaucracy, 
reduce time. These amendments all were included in the housing bill 
which was passed by this House in 1994 but stalled because it was not 
adopted by the other body.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge adoption of my en bloc amendment.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BENSTEN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to speak to the second 
amendment the gentleman is offering. I offered a similar amendment to 
the USA Housing Act that we did, which does allow for these 
contributions for downpayment assistance for people who want to 
purchase public housing units. This is what State and local housing 
agencies are doing around the country. It makes eminent sense. I 
commend the gentleman for offering his amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman. We have worked on 
these amendments for 2 years. Unfortunately, this year we have not had 
any hearings on FHA, but these are good amendments. They ought to be 
incorporated. I still am concerned about the modernization of the 
broader FHA program. It is desperately needed. But the gentleman has 
worked hard on these amendments, they are a simplification, and they 
actually facilitate home ownership. I commend him.
  Mr. ORTON. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his statement. I, 
too, share the gentleman's concern. We do need to have an FHA 
modernization bill enacted through the committee and brought to this 
full floor of the House. I would encourage our committee to do so. 
Until that is done, I believe that the Weller amendment and the Orton 
amendment are good modernization. They improve the FHA, they expand 
home ownership, and I would urge adoption of the amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] insist on his 
point of order?
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek recognition in opposition to the 
amendment?
  The question is on the amendments offered by the gentleman from Utah 
[Mr. Orton].
  The amendments were agreed to.


                    amendment offered by mr. roemer

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 40.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 40 offered by Mr. Roemer: 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 
     to carry out, or pay the salaries of personnel who carry out, 
     the Bion 11 and Bion 12 projects.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Indiana 
will yield, we have agreed upon a time limitation of 10 minutes for 
each of these items. I just want to make sure that is all right with 
the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. I have not been privy to that time limitation, Mr. 
Chairman. I have been patiently waiting for the last 5 hours to offer 
the amendment, and sat through a very interesting and intriguing 
Superfund debate and FHA debate. I have a number of cosponsors who may 
want to speak, so I would object.
  I may not use more than 10 or 11 minutes on my side.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROEMER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman will recall when the ranking 
member of the full Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], was on the floor a little while ago, he made 
reference to the fact that we would not at this time be able to enter 
into a time agreement, indicating that, obviously, some work was going 
toward that end, but at the current time we just cannot agree.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey] and I have had the discussion and the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Stokes] and I have an understanding. I would suggest, short of 
that, that probably at this hour it would be deleterious to go too much 
longer.
  Mr. ROEMER. I will try to limit debate as much as I can, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment in the spirit of bipartisanship 
on

[[Page H6935]]

behalf of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske], the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Minge], and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann]. 
This is a bipartisan amendment to try to save the administration some 
money.
  Many of our constituents across the country, in California, are just 
getting home from a hard day's work and may be watching C-SPAN right 
now. People on the second shift in Indiana, working in the afternoon in 
a factory, might be just tuning in to C-SPAN right now. I encourage 
them to turn their TV up and listen to this debate.
  My amendment, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Ganske], this bipartisan amendment simply says that NASA can no longer 
spend $15 million to send to Russia to send to Russia to send monkeys 
up into space.
  Many people sitting in their living rooms might be turning their 
volume up right now and saying, we do what? We send hard-earned 
taxpayers' dollars from NASA to Russia, when they should be using 
rubles to send monkeys up into space?
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think we should be doing that as we work 
toward a balanced budget, as we make tough spending cuts here in 
America. This Bion program, as it is called, sends monkeys up into 
space of 14 days at a time. One mission is due to go up in August 1996. 
Another is due to go up in July 1998. We send these monkeys up in space 
for 14 days. We have had human beings up in space for 439 days now, but 
we want to study the gravitational effects, or the Russians want to 
study the gravitational effects, of 14 days lost in space on monkeys.
  Back in the 1960's, Mr. Chairman, with Alan Shepherd going into space 
in May of 1961, and we did not know too much, we did not have Mir, we 
did not have shuttles, we did not have the ability to study this, maybe 
doing some joint ventures with the Russians in the cold war and maybe 
studying monkeys in space made some scientific sense. In 1996, when we 
have sent up 162 people into space, for us to be now spending $15 
million on monkeys going from the former Soviet Union into space, I 
would think the American people would be outraged by that.
  Mr. Chairman, I hear from NASA that they are looking at a study. They 
want to study this and see if this is the appropriate thing to do. It 
is one mistake to make the $15 million go to NASA and then go to the 
Russians to put monkeys in space. We do not need to further complicate 
this and have a study done to see whether or not this is the right 
thing to do. Let us, as Members of Congress, end this program now. We 
cannot afford $15 million for monkeys to be sent up into space from 
Russia. We have joint ventures with the Russians, with Chernobyl, with 
the Space Station that I disagree with, with dismantling nuclear 
weapons, and $15 million to send monkeys up into space does not make 
any common sense.
  Mr. Chairman, let us stop the monkey business at NASA. Let us get 
this 400-pound gorilla off the taxpayers' backs, and let us do the 
right thing. Let the Russians spend their rubles on a barrel of 
monkeys, and let us move forward and balance the budget for hardworking 
taxpayers.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske].
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Roemer-Ganske 
amendment. Let us be clear about one thing, Bion 11 and 12 are really 
not about science, they are about subsidizing the Russian space 
program. NASA plans to spend $35 million to launch two Russian-owned 
rhesus monkeys on a Russian spacecraft. Does NASA really expect to 
learn something new about the effects of extended weightlessness on 
humans by studying monkeys for 2 weeks? Twenty-three years ago this 
type of research may have made sense. Since then, humans have stayed in 
space more than a year, as my colleague has mentioned. Even members of 
the science community have expressed doubts about this project. Earlier 
this year, the President's science adviser wrote to the NASA 
administrator.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] has 
expired.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. The President's science adviser wrote 
to the NASA administrator and said, ``I sympathize with your concern 
that the era of primate research is now behind us and that it may be 
time to retire those animals.''
  Mr. Chairman, as we struggle to balance the budget and set 
priorities, we owe it to the American people not to continue spending 
money on unnecessary research like this project. Let us stop this 
wasteful handout to the Russian space industry and save $15.5 million. 
Think of those poor little monkeys. Think of those little monkeys with 
the probes drilled into their heads, floating around weightless up 
there. Just say no to this monkey business.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GANSKE. I yield to the gentleman from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Roemer-
Ganske amendment. As one of the two veterinarians in the House of 
Representatives, many of us who went through either veterinary school 
or medical school learned a lot about using animals for medical 
research. There are animals used in medical research all the time. Dr. 
Ganske and myself are strong supporters of using animals for medical 
research when it is indicated, and only when it is indicated, and 
obviously to do it in a humane way when we do that.
  I think one of the reasons for the animal rights movement over the 
years is simply because people do unnecessary experiments. That is 
exactly the purpose of the Roemer-Ganske amendment, is to eliminate an 
unnecessary, cruel animal experiment when it is not going to benefit 
mankind in the future. That is the reason we need the Roemer-Ganske 
amendment. I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to first start 
out by indicating the very high regard I have for the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer]. He has been more diligent, I think, than any 
Member that I know of in seeking to find and to curtail unnecessary or 
undesirable expenditures, and I have very high respect for him for 
that. He has also brought into question those programs which, in his 
eyes, deserve to be reviewed as perhaps being of lesser priority than 
other programs. This, too, is a very important exercise for any Member 
of Congress. He does this in a way which exemplifies the very best in 
congressional conduct. He is a true gentleman, and I respect him for 
that.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I cannot agree with all of the decisions 
that he comes to with regard to the goals which he is seeking. For 
example, he announced that in this amendment, he was seeking to save 
money for the American taxpayers. His amendment saves no money 
whatsoever for the American taxpayers. It does prohibit $15 million 
from being spent on the Bion 11 and 12 projects, but that merely means 
that NASA can use that same amount of money for whatever else it wishes 
to.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his kind words. I 
hold the former chairman of the committee in even higher esteem than he 
knows.

                              {time}  2145

  But in clarifying what the gentleman has just outlined, what my 
amendment does is that it says that NASA cannot send $15 million to 
Russia to send up monkeys into space, but they might be able to keep it 
within the NASA account to spend on shuttle safety or on science 
projects. That is the intention of my amendment, to keep it in NASA, 
but not to send it to the former Soviet Union.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the 
gentleman's statement that it would save money is, in effect, not 
exactly apt.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
my statement would be that the American taxpayers work very hard for 
the money they send here, and they probably would like to see it spent 
on shuttle safety or on science like the Galileo

[[Page H6936]]

program, but not on Russian monkeys going up into space.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, I 
will accept the gentleman's restatement of the value of his amendment, 
namely that it will allow the money to be spent on higher projects. I 
disagree very strongly with that also.
  On the other hand, we have had two gentlemen here who speak to the 
problem of the treatment of the animals. I would like to indicate that 
I have spent most of my legislative life, the last 35 years, in trying 
to project the treatment of animals. I am the author of the Humane 
Treatment of Laboratory Animals Act, which is currently on the books. 
With Senator Dole, I offered the Humane Slaughter Act quite a few years 
ago. In the State legislature of California I offered similar 
legislation with regard to the treatment of animals, and I have tried 
to remain extremely sensitive to all of those groups who are concerned 
about the safety, treatment, and care of animals. I have devoted quite 
a bit of effort to that.
  So whether we want to approach this from the standpoint of how the 
animals are treated or the value of the science, I am willing to 
address it in either of these directions. But going back to the matter 
of the value of the research, this is probably the longest standing 
research program in NASA's agenda. It goes back to 1973. It is a 
program in which the Russians are partners and the French are partners, 
and they are both deeply concerned about the question of biological 
reactions in space.
  It involves more than monkeys, incidentally. It involves other forms 
of animals and includes plant life, for example, because we still do 
not understand the reaction of living organisms to the environment of 
space. Despite the fact that we have sent 152 people into space, we 
cannot treat humans as animals. They are instrumented, and the 
instrumentation is for their own safety and protection. They are 
monitored for pulse, respiration, heartbeat, all of these things in 
order that observers on the ground can determine if there is any 
problem with their condition in space.
  We have sent some of our finest doctors into space to study the 
astronauts, but you cannot use them as laboratory animals, you cannot 
instrument them to determine a large number of reactions that you can 
observe in instrumented animals.
  In addition to that, the astronauts themselves cannot be subject to 
anesthesia or other treatment; in fact, they are given drugs that 
inhibit some of the effects of space in order that they may perform 
their other missions.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Brown was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, we cannot say that the fact 
that we have had human beings in space is a substitute for animal 
research. That is just not the situation.
  Now, I would point out that amongst all of the areas of research in 
space, that which every person thinks is the most important is the 
research on human beings and on those materials which might be of 
benefit to human beings which can only be achieved in space.
  Mr. Chairman, we are not going to achieve the value of this 
biological research unless we are able to use experimental animals. I 
have observed the treatment of experimental animals in every kind of 
condition. As a part of the legislation that I enacted, there is a 
requirement that there be a veterinarian, for example, in every 
research establishment which uses animals. I have visited these and 
consulted with the veterinarians who monitor this research. I have seen 
dogs, I have seen monkeys which have been incised and sensors put into 
their stomachs and into their lungs and in other places to observe the 
conditions that exist for the benefit of human beings. Most of this is 
done at research hospitals frequently associated with our veterans 
health program. It is there that we are learning some excellent things 
about the reaction of human beings to a number of conditions based upon 
the results we get with animals.
  Mr. Chairman, we are getting exactly the same kind of research in 
space. We are treating the animals exactly the same. They are under the 
supervision of skilled veterinarians. They are subject to review by 
science peer review panels to determine if all of the protocols are 
being met.
  There is no program in the last 25 years that has been more 
thoroughly explored, been more thoroughly monitored and checked and 
peer reviewed to determine both the conditions of the animals and the 
results of the research.
  On the basis of all of these things, there is a practically unanimous 
agreement that we cannot stop this international health research 
program without doing great damage to the goals that we seek to achieve 
in space.
  For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I earnestly solicit opposition to 
this amendment, which, despite my high regard for its author, has 
absolutely no redeeming features.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to indicate that I have joined with the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] in sponsoring this amendment. Over 
the last many years we have seen former Senator Proxmire talk about the 
Golden Fleece Award. I think that we have a responsibility in Congress 
to make sure that funds are spent in the most frugal and responsible of 
fashions. If we are trying to balance the budget, we must have the 
confidence of the American people that we have made the tough decisions 
here in Congress in that regard.
  For that reason, I urge the support of this amendment so that we no 
longer have Federal programs which are held in ridicule in the popular 
media, and we spend a tremendous amount of time trying to rationalize 
and justify programs but, instead, cut back to the very essence of what 
the space program is about.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MINGE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
his help in cosponsoring this amendment.
  What the gentleman from California outlined to us, I do not disagree 
too much with what he said. But within NASA there are probably only 100 
higher priorities than this sending monkeys into space for the 
Russians. There are only probably one million higher priorities within 
our own budget with $15 million, and certainly there are three or four 
higher priorities for joint United States-Russian cooperation from the 
Nunn-Lugar language to dismantle nuclear weapons, from the research we 
are doing on Chernobyl, from the different and important things that we 
do in energy cooperation.
  I think that this is one of the lowest priorities that we can 
possibly have in expenditures of taxpayers' money. I would encourage my 
colleagues to vote to get the monkey off of NASA's back and get the 
400-pound gorilla off the taxpayers' backs.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I listened to my colleague who 
presents this amendment with great care. I know that one of his very 
serious priorities is that of addressing the question of NASA's work in 
space. I must express my appreciation to him this year for not 
presenting his amendment to eliminate the space station, which has been 
kind of a consistent pattern. Monkeys in space is probably a better 
subject, but I would urge my colleagues to focus just for a moment upon 
the very fine words of my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Brown], the former chairman of the Committee on Science.
  We all know that with the time that men have spent in space up to 
this point, there are a number of serious difficulties and questions we 
have relative to their potential impact upon the health of those men 
and women who will spend lots of time in space in the future.
  That is what the space station is about. It is a significant piece of 
our commitment to NASA's work; it is a very important part of our 
leadership in the future.
  The fact that we are involved in this kind of work with Russia and 
other of our allies relates very much to that partnership that itself 
interrelates to

[[Page H6937]]

space station. So one more time, I appreciate the gentleman not 
presenting an amendment that would eliminate space station. But the 
more we can undermine our effectiveness in dealing with human space 
flight, the better, I would suppose.
  In this case we are talking about first a very short-term experiment 
that did send monkeys into space with measuring devices. After 
gathering that data along with a lot of other data, we have a process 
whereby there is a panel of experts who will review all of that data 
and suggest where we can go with the next step to make certain that we 
are taking every precaution that saves human lives as they participate 
in our work in space.
  It is simple to laugh at something like this, especially if you do 
not care about the program. It is easy to joke about Russia, I suppose, 
if you do not care about those international partnerships. But indeed 
this is not a laughing matter. We are talking about one of America's 
very, very future programs dealing with our future horizon. We should 
lay the foundation to make certain that we are doing everything to 
protect those men and women who will participate on behalf of American 
interests. I believe in the most sincere and strongest terms that I 
would urge Members to reject this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 456, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                   amendment offered by mr. kingston

  Mr. KINGSTON, 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. Kingston: 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 any officer or employee of the Environmental 
     Protection agency to organize, plan, or disseminate 
     information regarding any activity if it is made known to 
     such officer or employee that such activity is not directly 
     related to governmental functions that such officer or 
     employee is authorized or directed to perform.

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am going to go very quickly. What this 
amendment does is it limits EPA employees and funds going to EPA for 
business purposes only, EPA purposes. It has come to my attention that 
EPA is involved with a lot of activities that are not related to 
protecting the environment, a lot of extracurricular activities. Some 
are social in nature, many are political in nature.
  What I am trying to do with my amendment is limit EPA to its mission 
statement, and that is cleaning the environment and not getting 
involved in all other causes and problems of the world.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Kingston] for this amendment. It is an amendment that 
should pass overwhelmingly because EPA is off track.
  Now, I am a Republican, I have children and I support the mission of 
EPA. That mission is to clean up our environment, to clean up our land 
and our water, to clean up our air. But somehow that mission has gone 
astray. Let me give a couple of good examples.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. Chairman, I want to point out how EPA spends some of its money. 
Let me cite what EPA did to me, for example, with some of these funds. 
They sent an invitation around the Hill and they sent invitations to my 
office inviting us to attend an event. The only problem is that they 
sent it to me with the names of my two past opponents as staff 
assistants.
  So EPA was keeping a list of political opponents, sending an 
invitation to me with the name of two people, one who was going to run 
against me, did not file, and another one who filed and ran against me. 
Is this the right use of taxpayer money?
  Let me give another example. Here is EPA Watch, which watches over 
EPA and reports on their activities. EPA signed a contract with PTA--
and I am a past card-carrying member of PTA, I have children, I have 
belonged to the association--but they signed a grant, and basically the 
purpose of the grant was to get PTA to organize lobby against any of 
the proposals that we made for changes in the operations of EPA. Is 
that the right thing to do with the money?
  Listen to this. This is what EPA Watch says:

       Congressional sources close to the illegal lobbying issue 
     expressed amazement that EPA, after all the scrutiny it has 
     undergone, would dare to fund a newsletter with such an 
     obvious political mission.

  I am for cleaning up the environment. I am for clean air, for clean 
water. I want my children to inherit a better land. But what are they 
doing with taxpayers' hard-earned money? We just heard an amendment 
about sending monkeys into space.
  I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this is monkey business in EPA that 
should stop, that in fact we should pass the Kingston amendment, that 
we should bring some sense, some purpose, some direction. If the office 
of compliance can spend their money on going after things of this sort 
and not requiring compliance with cleaning up the environment and the 
air, there is something wrong in the system.
  I support the effort of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston]. 
Other efforts have been made to try to get that agency which is off 
course, on course. It is our responsibility to direct that agency in 
the way it expands our taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. I support that 
agency, I will do anything I can to help our environment but this 
agency has to have direction.
  Finally, there are almost 18,000 people in EPA. Twelve years ago 
there were about 6,000. There are 6,000 now in Washington, DC. These 
people have to find something to do. Eighteen thousand people on the 
payroll and they are not in your States. They are in regional offices 
and they are right here, 6,000 of them, within 50 miles of where I am 
speaking.
  They need direction. This Congress' responsibility is to give them 
direction. They should not be doing the things they are doing. They 
should be cleaning up the environment. I support the Kingston amendment 
and urge its adoption.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Kingston was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about is use of 
Government telephones, copying machines, fax machines, E-mail, internal 
mail distribution systems, electronic bulletins and so forth, all 
funded with taxpayer dollars and yet being used not for their intended 
purposes of cleaning up the environment.
  I am very concerned about this. At a time when EPA is saying they do 
not have enough money to clean up toxic waste and so forth, they should 
not be engaged in extracurricular activity such as political activities 
and social agendas.
  But realizing that the scope of EPA's involvement in nonenvironmental 
activities is so extensive, I do not know that my amendment adequately 
addresses it. It is a very big problem, Mr. Chairman. I think that this 
Congress should revisit it and do it extensively, but at this time I 
think that I am going to withdraw my amendment and maybe take another 
route at another date.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against the amendment 
offered by Mr. Kingston.
  I am afraid that some of us are allowing the politics of division and 
intolerance to blind us from common sense.
  What happened here was very simple. An E-mail went over the computers 
of the EPA merely informing workers that it was Gay Pride Month.
  This effort attempts to strike out at this trivia with an amendment 
that is overbroad and heavy handed.

[[Page H6938]]

  Let's think about what it could stop EPA staffers from doing. They 
can no longer join together on blood drives, charitable events, going-
away parties for employees, Black History Month, Earth Day, staff 
sports clubs, and so much more.
  Do we really want to do this?
  There are benefits in employees bonding together on community events. 
And as long as it does not get in the way of work--disseminate 
information about such events in a noncostly way. This is valuable, 
just as there is value in communities gathering together to express 
pride in themselves.
  We have so many things to do in this House. This is a waste of our 
time. Vote against the Kingston amendment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Georgia?
  There was no objection.


             amendment offered by ms. jackson-lee of texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas: Page 95, 
     after line 21, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 422. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to provide assistance under section 8 of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 when it is made known to the 
     Federal official having authority to obligate or expend such 
     funds that--
       (1) the assistance will be used for tenant-based assistance 
     in connection with the revitalization of severely distressed 
     public housing; and
       (2) the public housing agency to which such funds are to be 
     provided--
       (A) has a waiting list for public housing of not less than 
     6,000 families;
       (B) has a jurisdiction for which the Secretary of Housing 
     and Urban Development has determined (pursuant to section 
     203(e)(2)(A) of the Housing and Community Development 
     Amendments of 1978 or otherwise) that there is not an 
     adequate supply of habitable, affordable housing for low-
     income families using tenant-based assistance; and
       (C) does not include, under its plan for revitalization of 
     severely distressed public housing, replacement of a 
     substantial portion of the public housing dwelling units 
     demolished with new units.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me first emphasize and 
make it perfectly clear that the amendment that I offer is not a return 
to one-for-one replacement. My amendment is simply giving hope to the 
homeless and the housing underserved in this country.
  We recognize that our country has a very diverse housing stock. Miami 
differs from New York, Houston differs from Detroit, Los Angeles 
differs from Atlanta. The need of our citizens who are in need of 
public housing differ, as well.
  This amendment simply provides opportunity for our local housing 
authorities to include amongst the resolution to their housing problems 
replacement of those units that they would demolish with new units. It 
does not preclude the use of Section 8 certificates. It simply adds to 
the usage of replacing units by new units. It particularly applies to 
those communities with a shortage of decent and affordable housing for 
low-income families and a waiting list of at least 6,000 families for 
public housing.
  Let me share briefly the story of Houston, TX, a city of 1.6 million 
citizens in a country of some 3 million citizens, with a public housing 
stock in Houston of only 3,125 units. Presently there are 12,000 
individuals and families on the waiting list for public housing. The 
list was closed in 1994. If the list were still open, that number would 
have doubled by now.
  This amendment is a fair and reasonable response to saying to our 
localities with waiting lists that they must include in their policy 
the opportunity for the replacement of housing units.
  I am not against section 8 vouchers. I think they have been 
effective. But in our community and many others, the waiting list for 
section 8 vouchers is enormous, as well. Section 8 vouchers now in 
Houston are 15,335.
  But the real question becomes the flexibility of individuals to live 
in harmony and where they would like to live. I think we are all well 
aware of a situation that occurred in Pennsylvania recently. That had 
to do with an African-American woman named Bridget Ward who was forced 
to leave her home in a predominately white neighborhood becasue the 
neighborhood residents were opposed to any individuals living in their 
neighborhood who received section 8 assistance.
  It does not mean we pull back from section 8 assistance. It simply 
means that there is some validity to replacing some of those demolished 
units in our communities with new units.
  I would ask my colleagues in their revie of this amendment to be 
assured that it has the flexibility to provide HUD with all of the 
flexibility that they need. That is, of course, to determine, one, that 
there is a waiting list of 6,000 or more; that there is no habitable 
housing in that particular area; and to be able to suggest that if that 
is the cae, then we should have replacment hosing as well as the 
utilization of Section 8.
  That is different now because in most of the communities that I have 
heard from, there is a belief that there should be no replacement 
housing, and there is a chilling effect on new units. Many communities 
that are not the urban centers of our Northwestern States, some of the 
Midwestern communities, some of the Southern cities are still in need 
of building public housing.
  I would hope my colleagues would join me in viewing this as a 
reasonable response to balancing section 8 certificates with the 
building of replacement units for public housing units.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BENTSEN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say, there are a couple of important points 
that she made. This does not bring back one-for-one replacement. It 
does bring back substantial replacement. This is similar to what HUD is 
doing in the city of Houston, as it relates to Allen Park Village which 
was torn down, which has been a problem in Houston, but HUD has agreed 
to come back and build 500 units. It is also commensurate with what we 
have done in the USA Housing Act with severely distressed housing. I 
think this amendment is important to the city of Houston and other 
cities that have like situations. I commend my colleague from Houston 
for offering the amendment.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I just want to make a few favorable comments on the Jackson-Lee 
amendment from her long experience in working with residents of public 
housing and with municipalities. I think that the general concept is 
good on both sides. I think the housing bill which is before this 
committee, is a good bill, but I think my colleague,Sheila Jackson-Lee, 
has hit on a need here, particularly in smaller southern 
municipalities, that this certainly is overlooking.
  Her amendment brings into consideration the fact that we have an 
incoming flux of new citizens coming into some of the southern cities 
and many of them are of various ethnicities, and certainly in terms of 
financial stability, many of them are below the poverty level.
  So, I think what Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee sees, that this will take a 
certain trend and there will not be any replacement of these homes. I 
can understand exactly what he is talking about when I go through my 
city. I see a lot of them boarded up and many of them are really too 
good to be destroyed. It seems to me that private entrepreneurs are 
taking advantage of these places that the Government has spent so much 
money for all of these years. They are replaceable and they are good 
for revitalization. I think my colleague is saying, let us take the 
policy so that it can include some other people, because we have a 
differentiated type of population. It is not standard. People still 
need public housing.
  We understand that this flies in the face of a policy that was 
passed, which I did not agree with from the beginning, that we should 
cut out all of the public housing.
  I think that the committee should look at this. The amendment is not 
a harsh amendment, as I see it. It does not ask for a lot, except that 
we keep

[[Page H6939]]

that little window open so that we could replace some of these.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
gentlewoman's explanation. Might I say in a statement partly made by 
HUD, it indicated that HUD agrees that in tight housing markets with 
long public housing waiting lists, it generally makes sense to replace 
severely distressed public housing with a mix of tenant-based 
assistance and hard units.
  Might I say that HUD seems to think that that practice goes on today. 
But I think the gentlewoman's example of in some communities there is a 
chilling effect because they believe that there is no one-for-one 
replacement and, therefore, are not inclined to provide some of the 
hard units.
  This amendment again is not a return to one-for-one. It simply says 
to our communities that we can balance section 8, a very useful tool, 
section 8, with the utilization of the replacement of some units. It 
does not give you one-for-one, it simply says some units, so that this 
can be balanced.
  I think the gentlewoman's explanation on that is extremely important, 
so that it is not presented to our colleagues that we are returning to 
one-for-one. Not at all. We are simply saying that you can balance that 
utilization.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. If I may reclaim my time, first of all it is so 
important that we understand in housing, one size does not fit all. No 
matter what the housing policy is, you will find that there is 
certainly a difference in housing needs in certain areas of this 
country. Of course I know how the HUD people feel. This has really 
become a real, real bad situation for them and they cannot handle it. 
So rather than meet all of the needs like the Jackson-Lee amendment 
would do, they just say, ``Well, we'll step back from all of this 
replacement of public housing, it's been an eyesore, we've been sued, 
everything has been done to us.''

                              {time}  2215

  So this is an easy way out. I think the amendment of the gentlewoman 
from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] sort of touches the heart of this matter; 
that is, it is all right to stick within the housing policy, but please 
leave some room for these people who do not fit that particular mold.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for introducing this amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise very reluctantly to suggest to the gentlewoman 
that while I oppose this amendment, I do so with great sensitivity to 
not only the problem that she is concerned about but the difficulty we 
have relative to some of our most important housing programs that need 
to be taken care of by way of the authorizing process.
  There is little question that we have difficulty with public housing 
across the country that has been long neglected, where buildings are 
boarded up, and on the other hand we have a shortage of housing 
availability for people who have stopped becoming part of lists because 
the list are too long, as you have suggested.
  I am very empathetic to that problem, but I am afraid your amendment, 
as I can best interpret it, might very well find ourselves moving back 
in the direction of the one-to-one replacement policy position that we 
just moved aside or tried to set aside or get rid of. One-to-one 
replacement in the past simply said that if we were to eliminate or 
tear down a dilapidated public housing unit that we had to replace it 
with another unit. What really happened, because there was no funding 
available, is that led to a scourge across the country with public 
housing having a blight placed upon it as people looked at boarded-up 
facilities and wondered what are these people doing? So we are 
attempting to move in a direction that makes some sense. My colleague, 
at the same time, is faced with a very real shortage problem in her 
community, as I am in my community. It is a problem that we have to 
deal with. It is a problem that potentially could lead to a lot of 
expenditure, and frankly, I think it has higher priority than some of 
our other expenditures.
  But within this bill at this point in time, frankly we are not in a 
position to effectively implement that which my colleague is suggesting 
because of its policy implications. It needs to go before the policy 
committee, and while I know that the gentlewoman is going to withdraw 
her amendment, and I appreciate that, it is important for the 
gentlewoman to know that at this point in time, we need to work 
together with the policy and authorizing committee people as well.
  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 the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say I, too, am concerned about the concerns 
expressed here by the gentlewoman from Texas. I know how concerned she 
is about her community and how she is concerned about trying to meet a 
specific problem relative to housing in her community. The gentlewoman 
discussed this matter with me several times as she has discussed it 
with the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and it is a matter in 
which I am sympathetic towards her concerns.
  I have assured her that the gentleman from California and I, working 
together, perhaps in conference, can try and remedy the problem that 
she is attempting to address here. I would urge the gentlewoman, if she 
can withdraw her amendment, that the chairman and I would continue to 
try and work this problem out for the gentlewoman.
  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 thank the esteemed ranking 
member from Ohio for his words of concern. Recognizing, of course, that 
all of us come from communities that may be favorably impacted by 
recognizing the need of responding to waiting lists 6,000 and above, 
which is one element of this amendment, and as well recognizing that we 
should not have a singular policy that eliminates replacement offer 
puts replacement under section 8 or section 8 over replacement. I would 
hope and would appreciate then if we could have, one, a continued 
dialogue, but that we could work through conference to solve a problem 
that is not necessarily only relevant to my community or my State.
  I find that throughout the country there are small communities, 
middle-sized cities that are losing housing units because there is a 
chilling effect because they believe there is a sole policy that says 
do not replace any of your public housing units. That is very, very bad 
for our families that are on the waiting lists, so much so that they 
are no longer even allowed to get on waiting lists because they are 
closed.
  So I would ask the chairman for his commitment to work on this issue 
that is extremely important, I think, nationwide, and I want to thank 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] for his leadership as well and his 
desire to work with me on this very important issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Lewis was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman and I 
discussed this earlier, and she has been very, very sensitive about the 
time problem we have this evening. Absolutely I commit that we will 
continue this dialogue. It is very important that the gentlewoman and I 
and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], and the authorizers work 
together, for this ought to have a different priority in terms of 
funding that eventually works its way through appropriations bills and 
it has in the past. I very much appreciate the gentlewoman's bringing 
this to our attention.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very 
much, and I also thank the gentleman for his offer to visit my 
community to see the circumstances that I am speaking of.
  Mr. Chairman, in light of our discussion, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw the amendment.

[[Page H6940]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I know of no other amendments to the bill.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have one additional amendment which I 
will be more than willing to accept the time limitation of 5 minutes on 
either side, and that would complete the business. I would very much 
appreciate the gentleman's consideration.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], even though I have been told by others 
that we were going to absolutely have to rise on this bill that we 
spent 2 days on if we did not finish by 10:30 p.m., I am nonetheless 
highly inclined to accede to the gentleman's request if we can keep 
this to 10 minutes, 5 minutes on each side.


                    amendment offered by mr. markey

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Markey: Page 95, after line 21, 
     insert:
       Sec. 422. None of the funds made available to the 
     Environmental Protection Agency under the heading ``HAZARDOUS 
     SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND'' may be used to provide any 
     reimbursement (except pursuant to section 122(b) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980) of response costs incurred by any 
     person when it is made known to the official having the 
     authority to obligate such funds that such person has agreed 
     to pay such costs under a judicially approved consent decree 
     entered into before the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. MARKEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read, and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this 
amendment be limited to 10 minutes equally divided between the majority 
and minority.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes and a Member opposed will be recognized for 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, what we have before us right now is the original Markey 
amendment on the Superfund rebate program to polluters, and what we 
have done is we have just taken the part of the amendment that the 
Members were deprived of being given the opportunity to vote upon 
earlier and taken that part of the bill and brought it out here to the 
floor so that we can make sure that in instances where companies that 
had accepted before courts the legal responsibility to clean up 
hazardous waste sites within communities, that they not be given 
rebates by the Federal taxpayer for the purposes of cleaning up those 
sites.
  It is a very simple concept: The polluter pays. The polluter who has 
gone before a court, who has been adjudicated or accepted voluntarily 
the responsibility of cleaning up the site should not be given 
taxpayers' dollars to do so. It is a simple concept.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] so that he may also speak to the merits 
of this issue.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a simple up or down vote. The issue is 
whether or not Members want the polluter to pay or to pay the polluter. 
What the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], is saying is that 
in this case, particularly where there has been a consent order already 
entered into and the party who is the polluter has agreed that they are 
liable, there is no reason why they should be given a rebate from the 
Government and paid to pollute.
  It is a simple up or down vote and I would certainly urge a ``yes'' 
vote.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
For all of those who are listening, this is going to be a very simple 
up-or-down vote. This just flat out will prohibit the ability for any 
polluter to receive Federal funds if they have accepted the legal 
responsibility to cleanup the site. Otherwise, we are going to take the 
monies which we should be using to clean up orphan sites, to help out 
municipalities and we will be expending monies upon the work which the 
polluters themselves should be doing.
  Mr. Chairman, I again urge all Members very strongly who want to take 
1 of the 10 most important environmental votes that will be cast in 
this Congress to vote ``aye'' on the Markey amendment and to make sure 
that the Superfund Program is not turned on its head and a very large 
percentage of the money just being handed over to polluters that should 
be used for the sites that need the help in communities with the 
neighborhood nightmares that otherwise would not be cleaned up at all.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment, and I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] from the committee of original 
jurisdiction.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me be very brief. This Markey amendment basically 
sets the whole process on its head. Why would anybody want to enter 
into a consent decree if they could not get reimbursed for their cost? 
That does not really make a whole lot of sense in this process, and I 
would say to my friend from Massachusetts, if you really want to slow 
down this process even more than it already is, I would suggest that 
the Members vote for the Markey amendment.
  This is very clear in its attempt to bring small businesses under 
this incredible yoke of the Superfund liability program.
  Let me read from the inspector general of the EPA in his semiannual 
report to the Congress, findings on the Superfund program. He says, 
``In general, lengthy remedial investigation feasibility study and 
enforcement negotiations delayed actual cleanup of sites.'' Actually 
delayed the cleanup of sites.
  So I suggest to Members that the Markey amendment is the wrong way to 
go, and let me also point out that this is going to be an NFIB key 
vote. The National Federation of Independent Businesses that represents 
over 600,000 small businesses in all of our districts is opposed to the 
Markey amendment, will make this a key vote. I want to make that very 
clear to the Members.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I would add we have already debated this 
issue and we passed by a voice vote my substitute amendment. Keep in 
mind, the Markey amendment is antienvironment because it would slow and 
in some instances actually halt cleanup. We do not want to do that.
  It is antismall business, and we certainly do not want to be 
antismall business. Even the administration agrees that we should 
provide exemption for small business.

                              {time}  2230

  And it would be antilocal government. The level of government that is 
most financially strapped.
  Why would anyone in their right mind voluntarily enter into a consent 
decree to clean up while we are deliberating endlessly on Superfund 
reform? They would hold out. We would have no cleanup. It does not make 
sense from an environmental standpoint, it does not make sense from a 
business standpoint, it does not make sense from local government 
standpoint. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.

[[Page H6941]]

                             recorded vote

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the 
period of time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, 
will be taken on the additional amendment in this series.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 142, 
noes 274, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 279]

                               AYES--142

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roukema
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Zimmer

                               NOES--274

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Becerra
     Bevill
     Browder
     Christensen
     Coleman
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Goodling
     Hall (OH)
     Hayes
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Peterson (FL)
     Roybal-Allard
     Yates

                              {time}  2249

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Gephardt for, with Mr. Goodling against.

  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota and Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD and Mr. TEJEDA changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    amendment offered by mr. roemer

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] 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.


                             RECORDED VOTE

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 244, 
noes 171, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 280]

                               AYES--244

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Bonior
     Bono
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Evans
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Moran
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Pelosi
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant

[[Page H6942]]


     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--171

     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TX)
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     de la Garza
     DeLay
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilliard
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     King
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Martinez
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal
     Nussle
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Packard
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Torres
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     White
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Becerra
     Bevill
     Brewster
     Browder
     Christensen
     Coleman
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Hall (OH)
     Hayes
     Kasich
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Peterson (FL)
     Roybal-Allard
     Yates

                              {time}  2300

  Messrs. HILLIARD, TEJEDA, and WELDON of Florida changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. ROYCE, DAVIS, BONO, DELLUMS, SCARBOROUGH, and BACHUS, Mrs. 
JOHNSON of Connecticut, and Messrs. WICKER, ENGEL, MILLER of 
California, TIAHRT, and McINNIS changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the final lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Departments of Veterans 
     Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent 
     Agency Appropriations Act, 1997''.

  Mr. HINCKEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment today to voice my 
support for Nita Lowey's amendment on the watershed protection program. 
The Watershed Protection Program is one of the best examples we have of 
what we should all want government to do. It is a cooperative program, 
not a coercive one. It is a cost-effective program, not a grandiose 
one. It is a consensus program, not an adversarial one. Everyone 
benefits.
  Everyone agrees that New York City needs a clean water supply that it 
can depend on. Upstaters like myself know that the relations between 
the city and the areas that provide its water haven's always been good. 
My district includes the places that were condemned and flooded over 80 
years ago to provide water for New York City, and there is still quite 
a bit of resentment about it--as you would expect. This plan represents 
what we in New York have learned about working together, and we think 
it can serve as a model for the rest of the country, a model that could 
be helpful in resolving some of the most contentious issues of our day.
  What does everyone get? New York City gets clean water--and saves the 
cost of an $8 billion filtration plant. The watershed areas get help in 
developing their economies, and help in improving the quality of their 
own drinking water. Farmers are learning new and more efficient 
management techniques. All parties benefit from a cleaner environment.
  Although the plan can save money over time, it isn't free. That is 
why we like a commitment of Federal for demonstration projects and 
monitoring. We have an agreement that everyone will work together--but 
we still have to see how well the plan works in practice. Without 
modest support now, the plan could fall apart, and it could mean higher 
costs for everyone--including the Federal Government--at a later date.
  The Federal Government protects or owns key watersheds for many 
cities around the country. Our constituents pay for your protection. 
We're not asking the Federal Government to do that for us--just to 
provide some modest, matched assistance. And we think this plan can 
offer the entire country something valuable in return.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, although I respect the 
gentleman from Indiana as a colleague and fellow Science Committee 
member, I realize and accept the fact that he does not believe the 
space station alpha to be a worthy endeavor. In pursuing this 
conviction, the Congressman has offered on many occasions, amendments 
to cancel the space station program. I respect the gentleman for 
adhering to his principles, and offering his amendments, but this 
particular one, which would cut $75 million from the program is worse 
than cancellation.
  The $75 million is but a fraction of the total moneys appropriated 
for the space station this year, however I know that every penny has 
been planned and accounted for. the first element launch is quickly 
approaching and every day and every dollars becomes more and more 
important as November 1997 approaches. I have been told that a cut of 
this magnitude would cause significant disruptions to this complex and 
pioneering effort.
  NASA has promised, and we expect the program to come in one time and 
on budget which is, I believe, a reasonable request. However, I do not 
believe that is fair to hold them to these expectations when we 
continually attack their attempts to reach this goal by cutting a 
little bit here, and a little bit there. By doing this, we will only 
increase the potential for problems and the resulting condemnation of 
the agency by this body.
  While cutting a couple of million here or there doesn't seem harmful 
to us, as we sit here far removed from the people and programs we 
effect, it can wreck havoc with an extensively planned and financially 
slim program.
  I do not know what the Member from Indiana wanted to accomplish wit 
his amendment, but I believe it to be an ill-considered and unwise 
action. This Nation is on the verge of creating a permanent human 
preserve in space and it would do no good to handicap these efforts, 
just when every last penny is needed to assure success. I urge a vote 
against this amendment.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 
3666, the Veterans' Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and 
independent agencies appropriations bill. Let me first commend the work 
of Chairman Jerry Lewis, Congressman Louis Stokes, and my colleagues on 
the Veterans' Affairs/Housing and Urban Development Appropriations 
Subcommittee. They have certainly crafted a reasonable and sturdy bill 
under difficult circumstances and the product which they bring to the 
floor deserves the blessing of the House. I am especially happy that 
Messrs. Lewis and Stokes have increased from last year's levels the 
funding for many of my top priorities such as the programs for our 
veterans, housing, and environmental protection. Also, I am pleased 
that there is an adequate level of funding for NASA's human space 
flight program in which our space station is being developed. Mr. 
Speaker, I am a firm believer that the people down here on planet Earth 
will reap the benefits of the many scientific breakthroughs that the 
space station is sure to provide.
  Still, Mr. Chairman, this does not mean there is no room for 
improvement. While I realize that nothing is perfect, we should 
nevertheless strive to produce the best appropriations bill possible 
for the American people. Accordingly, I do intend to support those 
amendments which I feel will enhance the bill into a more embraceable 
legislative product.
  First, I intend to support the amendment offered by my colleague from 
New York, Congressman Rick Lazio. Mr. Chairman, as duly elected members 
of the House of Representative, we must never forget the importance of 
ensuring secure housing for the more vulnerable of our society such as 
our elderly and our disabled. The Lazio amendment addresses these 
concerns by adding $100 million for elderly housing assistance--thus 
increasing it to $695 million--and adding $40 million for disabled 
housing assistance--increasing that funding to $214 million. Mr. 
Speaker, the moneys provided by the Lazio amendment will help us to 
successfully continue the mission of providing needed housing to our 
Nation's seniors and handicapped.
  I also will be supporting the amendment offered by my Connecticut 
colleague, Chris Shays. This amendment will increase the funds for the 
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS program [HOPWA] by $15 
million, increasing that funding for this program to $186 million. Mr. 
Speaker, since 1995, the

[[Page H6943]]

number of reported AIDS cases has risen by one-third and the number of 
States and metropolitan areas qualifying for HOPWA grants has increased 
by 23 percent. However, for the last 3 years, funding for HOPWA has 
remained at a flat level. Mr. Speaker, the Shays amendment provides the 
modest, but much-needed increase in HOPWA funding. Passage of this 
amendment will help the HOPWA program provide increased assistance to 
the 34 States which now receive HOPWA funds, of which Connecticut is 
one, and ensure that more people with HIV or AIDS have security when it 
comes to housing.
  Mr. Chairman, I also rise in strong support the Stump-Montgomery-
Solomon amendment to increase the Veterans Administration's medical 
care amount by $40 million from its current level of $17 billion and to 
increase the Veterans Administration's benefit administration general 
operating expenses by $17 million from its current level of $824 
million. Mr. Speaker, this amendment, which is supported by our 
Nation's leading veterans service organizations, will help us maintain 
our duty to provide adequate medical care for our vets while allowing 
the Veteran's Administration to process more veterans claims.
  Mr. Chairman, I once again voice my support for this piece of 
legislation and encourage my colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to encourage my 
colleagues to support this important appropriations bill this evening. 
Not only does this bill fund important housing and veterans programs, 
it funds the critical scientific research and development efforts of 
our Nation.
  Among those efforts funded are those of the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration [NASA], the world's premier space agency. My 
district is home to one of NASA's key centers, the Kennedy Space Center 
[KSC], the launch site for all U.S. human space flights. KSC and other 
NASA centers are unique national assets, but their future is threatened 
by continued efforts to reduce and eliminate funding for critical human 
space flight programs, most notably the space station program.
  Despite having expressed strong, bipartisan support for the 
International Space Station only a few weeks ago, the House is once 
again being asked to vote on funding for the Space Station.
  These perpetually unsuccessful efforts to cripple the space station 
only create uncertainty for NASA and our international partners and 
unnecessarily tie up the House.
  You will hear many of the same arguments from opponents that you 
heard last month. But nothing has changed since then. The program is 
still on schedule and within budget. The scientific value of the space 
station has not diminished since last month. The Space Station still 
represents the forward-looking, future vision of our country.
  Don't be fooled by these so-called savings. In fact, any reduction in 
funding now would cause cost growth equivalent to double the so-called 
``savings'' due to schedule delays in the production of space station 
components.
  We should keep our commitment to NASA and the American people by 
fully funding the space station.
  You should also recognize that any attempts to reduce or transfer 
funding for the space station are only thinly-veiled efforts to fatally 
cripple the program. These cuts would devastate a program that has 
succeeded in staying on schedule and within budget. In fact, over 
100,000 pounds of hardware have been produced so far, and we are only 
17 months away from the first launch to begin construction.
  It's time once and for all to show our support for the program and 
let NASA and our international partners do their jobs. I urge you to 
support the space station and to strongly oppose any efforts to 
terminate or reduce funding for this important program.
  Further, I want to point out that that there are several amendments 
to the bill tonight that would result in ``across-the-board'' cuts in 
the VA/HUD funding measure. While some of these cuts may fund 
worthwhile programs, these cuts also severely impact critical programs 
like the space shuttle and space station. I strongly urge my colleagues 
to suppose any such cuts so we can avoid weakening our Nation's human 
space flight effort.
  NASA has already done a significant amount of voluntary downsizing, 
and it can truly serve as a model for other parts of the Federal 
Government as we reduce the size and scope of government. However, NASA 
can take no further cuts in this year's budget. It is imperative that 
NASA receive the funding level proposed by the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Our children and grandchildren will thank you for supporting NASA and 
supporting their future.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, today is an important day for veterans 
living in northeastern Pennsylvania. In this appropriations bill, 
Congress will finally commit the resources needed to modernize the 
Wilkes-Barre, PA VA Medical Center. Included is a $42.7 million plan to 
renovate and substantially upgrade the facility.
  I greatly appreciate the strong leadership of both VA Secretary Jesse 
Brown in securing funds for the project in President Clinton's budget 
request and VA-HUD Subcommittee Chairman Jerry Lewis for including the 
request in this bill. I also must thank ranking member Louis Stokes for 
his tireless efforts on behalf of veterans and his gracious help on 
this and other projects important to the citizens of my region. Of 
course, Congressman Joe McDade deserves much praise for his hard work 
in support of this project, as does Congressman Tim Holden and 
Congressman Paul McHale.
  Mr. Chairman, in my May testimony before the subcommittee in support 
of this project, and many times since coming to Congress more than 11 
years ago, I have tried to explain to the membership of this body how 
desperate the situation is at this 50-year old medical center. Space 
shortages are severe, equipment and facilities are outdated, and 
employee morale is sinking rapidly. Simple put, we must upgrade this 
facility immediately.
  The medical center is wholly insufficient to meet the current and 
future needs of my region's veteran population. Over 99 percent of all 
patient rooms are not equipped with either private or semiprivate 
bathrooms, including rooms for female veterans. Ambulatory care has 
only 44 percent of needed space. Medical and surgical intensive care 
units have only 54 percent of needed space, and patient privacy is 
nonexistent in the hospital's 16-bed wards. Serious environmental 
deficiencies, such as very poor ventilation, have increased the risk of 
spreading infection among patients and workers.
  I could go on and on about the past and current problems arising from 
the bad condition of the medical center, but what we must decide today 
is how we intend to address the future of veterans' medical care in the 
region. Should we permit the continued, rapid deterioration of the 
medical center and, in effect, give up hope on providing quality 
medical services to these veterans or fulfilling our obligation to the 
taxpayers to provide such services in an effective, cost-efficient 
manner? I believe we must fulfill our obligations to the brave men and 
women who risked their lives and health so that we could remain free. 
Fortunately, the President and the members of the appropriations 
committee made the right choice in support of full funding for the 
project. This long overdue project will enable the Wilkes-Barre VA 
Medical Center to provide the quality medical services veterans deserve 
and taxpayers expect. I would strongly urge the full House, as well as 
the other body, to concur.
  Without a doubt, this funding will help transform the medical center 
into a first-class medical care facility. Under the plan, two new bed 
towers will create much-needed space to correct patient privacy 
problems, as well as serious ventilation, heating, and air conditioning 
deficiencies. An ambulatory care addition will enable the expansion of 
numerous medical units, and help prepare the medical center for the 
greater focus of the VA on outpatient medical care overall.
  Some Members of this Congress believe that we should no longer make 
substantial investments in VA medical facilities. I disagree. We made a 
commitment long ago to care for needy veterans and meet their special 
medical needs through a separate health system. I believe we must 
continue to do so in the future, as well. To meet this commitment, VA 
facilities must be appropriately maintained. While new hospitals have 
been built and old facilities renovated over the years, the Wilkes-
Barre VA Medical Center has been virtually forgotten. As the third 
largest VA facility in the fifth largest State in the Nation, and after 
nearly five decades of service, this medical center is long overdue for 
major repairs and modernization.
  Mr. Chairman, the 250,000 veterans spread across 19 counties in 
northeastern and central Pennsylvania, as well as the medical center's 
dedicated employees, need and deserve this important project. I 
therefore urge swift approval of this appropriation by the House.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank the chairman, ranking 
member, and other members of the Subcommittee on VA-HUD-Independent 
Agencies for their recognition of the continuing importance of the 
Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project. In particular, 
my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Knollenberg, deserves credit for 
proposing and steering an important provision of this legislation which 
will provide $20 million in fiscal year 1997 for the Rouge Project.
  This project was begun in 1990 following the completion of the Rouge 
River Remedial Action Plan [RAP] in 1989 which found that the most 
densely populated and urbanized river in Michigan was contributing 
significantly to the quality of the fresh surface water of the Great 
Lakes--which contains 20 percent of the world's fresh surface water. A 
report of the General Accounting Office [GAO] 2 years prior to 
completion of the RAP found that the cost

[[Page H6944]]

of restoring the Rouge watershed would be massive. In fact, the most 
recent cost estimates show that the clean up will cost nearly $1.4 
billion by 2002.
  That is why I joined a group of my colleagues from the metropolitan 
Detroit area to see if we could muster the resources to meet a 
tremendous challenge: comprehensive watershed-wide clean up, while 
developing a technological, managerial, and financial model that could 
be replicated nationwide as other communities come to grips with the 
costs and other problems associated with cleaning our waters and 
keeping them clean. As it so happens, southeast Michigan had many local 
and regional resources in place to implement such a model, but were in 
need of Federal partnership. Congress accepted that challenge, and with 
passage of this measure tonight, the Federal Government will have 
contributed almost 25 percent of the cost. The remainder is being paid 
by ratepayers in each watershed community in seven congressional 
districts, in combination with clean water revolving loans administered 
by the State of Michigan. It is important to note that, despite this 
help, our citizens are still being asked to pay higher water bills, and 
our cities are being asked to stretch resources which already are 
stretched to their limits.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to report to my colleagues tonight that, 
although such a massive undertaking is never easy, the citizens and 
community leaders of metropolitan Detroit, on a bipartisan basis, are 
working together to solve a common problem using innovate approaches to 
save a precious resource. With the first phase of the project due to be 
completed soon, project administrator Wayne County is already 
transferring the knowledge it has gained to other communities across 
the nation. Again, I would like to commend my colleague from Bloomfield 
Hills for his leadership this year, so that the state that led in the 
industrialization of America can lead in the clean up of its natural 
resources.
  Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support of one of 
our Nation's greatest success stories for our youth, the AmeriCorps 
program, and to express my opposition to amendments offered today which 
would eliminate or drastically reduce funding for the Corporation for 
National and Community Service.
  The mission of AmeriCorps is sensible: provide educational 
opportunities for young people who serve their community in ways that 
make a real difference in the lives of others.
  In my district, AmeriCorps members have partnered with professionals 
and nonprofit agencies to help immunize children, revitalize and clean 
up inner city neighborhoods, install smoke alarms in the homes of the 
elderly, and weatherize homes in low income areas. On Earth Day this 
year, I assisted AmeriCorps members with planting a community garden in 
a vacant lot once strewn with debris. The lot now is a source of 
neighborhood pride.
  AmeriCorps members continually champion the cause of community 
service by their collective and individual efforts. In my community, 
members have worked with community police officers to initiate 
neighborhoods watch programs and shut down drug houses. The energy of 
these young people has inspired many families to get more involved to 
preserve and protect their neighborhood. As a result, Kansas City is 
cleaner, safer and more livable in places because AmeriCorps has made 
its mark.
  As we work to balance the Federal budget, I believe we must set smart 
priorities. Certainly providing opportunities which afford young people 
access to job training and education ought to be among our national 
goals.
  I urge my colleagues to support the modest level of funding for the 
Corporation for National and Community Service included in this 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to many of the 
provisions in the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations Act for 
Fiscal Year 1997--H.R. 3666. While this bill is a major improvement 
over last year's VA-HUD appropriations debacle, H.R. 3666 still lacks 
adequate Federal provisions to address the housing emergency in this 
country, especially within the inner cities. The passage of various 
amendments that will be offered by many of my Democratic colleagues 
today may make this legislation more palatable. However, the basic 
right of our most vulnerable citizens to sleep comfortably at night 
must not be compromised.
  H.R. 3666 would continue a devastating trend which began in 1995--not 
funding any new section 8 incremental vouchers. These vouchers could be 
used to house additional families--many of whom are homeless--who are 
in dire need of housing assistance. Currently, over 70 percent of the 
families who quality for low-income housing assistance are not 
receiving it. These 20 million families are simply forced to deal with 
substandard housing conditions with serious building code violations 
such as dangerous electrical wiring and inadequate plumbing; exorbitant 
rent; and even homelessness. These families, who could qualify for 
housing assistance, are simply placed on waiting lists. H.R. 3666 would 
not enable HUD to provide for these families.
  This bill completely ignores the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development's [HUD] recently released ``Worst Case Rental Housing 
Needs'' report. The report disclosed that the number of households with 
unmet worst-case housing needs reached an all-time high of 5.3 million 
in 1993. Of this number, more than 1 million were households headed by 
an elderly person, and more than 1 million were working-poor families, 
including many with children. In my State of New York, there were more 
than 350,000 households with worst-case unmet housing needs. More than 
144,400 of these households were families with children. Ironically, 
Congress responds to this crisis by ending its 20-year record of 
funding annual increases in the number of renter households assisted 
through HUD programs.
  Furthermore, H.R. 3666 would slash elderly and disabled housing by 29 
percent--a $319 million cut. H.R. 3666 would appropriate only $769 
million in a new account to fund the section 202 Elderly Housing and 
section 811 Disabled Housing programs. There is no justification for 
decreasing housing opportunities for senior citizens and persons with 
disabilities. We must recorder our priorities and halt the rollbacks of 
crucial Federal protections.
  H.R. 3666 would continue the assault on the successful Americorp 
program by cutting the program's funding by $36 million--compared to 
fiscal year 1996. And there are a host of amendments that will be 
offered to terminate the program. After four independent evaluations 
have validated the benefits of Americorp, and after thousands of 
volunteers have attested to its success, Republicans have refused to 
accept Americorp as a cost-efficient, public-private, community 
investment that deserves our support.
  Finally, H.R. 3666 would underfund another highly regarded program--
youthbuild. The youthbuild program educates and trains our youth, 
renovates our housing, and improves our community by giving young 
adults the opportunity to construct and rehabilitate housing for 
homeless or low-income people while simultaneously developing their own 
academic and vocational skills. Since fiscal year 1995, this program 
has had to sustain a 50 percent cut. H.R. 3666 would continue this 
unwise trend and freeze funding at the fiscal year 1995 level.
  No, this year's VA-HUD appropriations bill does not contain those 
ridiculous legislative environmental riders. However, H.R. 3666 would 
apply a freeze philosophy and fund most programs at or near their 
fiscal year 1996 appropriation level. At a time when the number of 
households with worst-case unmet housing needs has reached an all-time 
high of 5.3 million, at a time when more than 7 million children and 
adults are homeless, and at a time when a baby is born into poverty in 
this country every 32 seconds, additional Federal resources are 
necessary--not a freeze. Unsurprisingly, this freeze philosophy was not 
applied to the National Defense Authorization Act--H.R. 3230--which 
authorized $12 billion more than the administration requested and $2.4 
billion more than fiscal year 1996 funding to defense programs. The 
Federal Government can and must do much better in ensuring that its 
people, even those who are the least fortunate and least economically 
stable, have safe, decent and affordable housing.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to first thank 
Chairman Jerry Lewis for his yeoman's work on this issue of childhood 
cancer in Toms River, NJ. As I testified before his appropriations 
subcommittee on May 8, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 
Registry [ATSDR] is currently working to assist New Jersey in its 
search for answers to a disturbing, potential cancer cluster among 
young children.
  I rise in strong support of the amendment to H.R. 3666 offered by 
Chairman Lewis of California. Childhood cancer is a tragedy that is of 
national concern, and with the funding provided in this amendment, 
ATSDR will be given the resources to examine any possible environmental 
link between toxic substances and childhood cancer.
  As some of you know, the Toms River area has two superfund sites--
Ciba Geigy and Reich Farm--that many residents fear could be 
responsible for abnormally high cancer rates in the area.
  In August of 1995, the New Jersey Department of Health, responding to 
anecdotal evidence of increased incidence of cancers among young 
children, analyzed data in the New Jersey State Cancer Registry and 
came up with alarming results: a five fold increase in cancer rates for 
brain and central nervous system cancers among children under age 5.
  Something is causing these cancers, Mr. Speaker, and with the funds 
provided in this amendment, the anxious parents of these kids may at 
last begin to get some answers. And I would note to my colleagues that 
if ATSDR does find an environmental link, it will have

[[Page H6945]]

implications far beyond the State of New Jersey.
  Mr. Speaker, I have repeatedly indicated to my colleagues that 
ATSDR's work on environmental health is vitally important, especially 
because no other agency has environmental health as its chief mission. 
ATSDR provides critical work in filling the serious data gaps in 
scientific understanding about the human health effects of hazardous 
substances released from Superfund sites. It also assists States 
through cooperative agreements, in conducting Public Health 
Consultations.
  With this amendment, ATSDR will have the resources needed to include 
New Jersey in a seven State national study of brain cancer incidence 
near national priorities list [NPL] sites. It provides Federal 
resources through comparative geographic data analysis, providing 
medical and scientific expertise and education, as well as 
environmental and biomedical monitoring to examine potential exposure 
pathways.
  Cancer is always tragic, Mr. Speaker, but it is especially 
heartbreaking when it strikes down innocent children. And that is why 
it is important to keep a careful count of each of the little victims 
of cancer, so that researchers can have complete and accurate 
information to work with. As part of its public health response plan, 
which this amendment will fund, ATSDR will conduct interviews with area 
families to make sure people do not fall through the cracks.
  In conclusion, with this amendment, the Republican Congress is 
sending a clear and powerful message to the American people, as well as 
to the residents of Ocean County: we care about environmental health. 
We are committed to finding answers; why are so many of our precious 
children coming down with cancer? But most importantly, we are willing 
to back up our commitment with Federal dollars.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my disappointment 
that language dealing with the Section 8 Housing Program in sections 
204 and 205 of H.R. 3666, the Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban 
Development and Independent Agencies appropriations bill, was removed 
from the bill. We have been working to reform this program since 1993 
when my local newspaper in Bakersfield, CA, described the rents 
subsidized by the Section 8 Program. According to the article, some 
building owners were receiving rents $200 and $300 above comparable 
market rents for similar size units in the area. While I understand 
that there may be some additional costs associated with managing 
section 8 units, I do not believe that an additional $200 or $300 per 
month is justified.
  I believe he Department of Housing and Urban Development must be 
given the authority to simply reduce rents to those projects which are 
blatantly out of line with rents paid for comparable units in the area. 
In taking such a step, I understand that other factors beyond a simple 
comparison of other area rents must be taken into account. That is why 
I have introduced legislation to provide the HUD Secretary this 
authority and why I am disappointed, therefore, that the section 8 
language, which would have allowed HUD to bring in a third party 
arbitrator upon the expiration of section 8 contracts to negotiate new 
rents based upon comparable market rents was deleted from the VA/HUD 
appropriations bill. The intent of my legislation is not to bankrupt 
these projects or violate a contract, nor throw anyone out of their 
apartments. The intent is to eliminate the windfall that a few project 
owners may be unjustly receiving at taxpayer expense.
  I hope that the Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee of the 
Banking and Financial Services Committee moves quickly this summer to 
bring legislation to the floor that addresses this issue.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to raise my 
strong opposition to Mr. Hostettler's amendment to eliminate 
AmeriCorps.
  This amendment to H.R. 3666 will eliminate the entire program and 
thus deny the opportunity for many deserving young people to attend 
college. The program is simple, but it has had a significant impact on 
the lives of people living in my Houston, TX, district.
  In the city of Houston, David Lopez, an AmeriCorps volunteer, has 
worked to provide the inner city kids of working parents with 
supervised activity and play. This keeps them from being left to their 
own devices or worse to the design of street predators who would lead 
these young lives in the wrong direction.
  For a year of volunteer service with Communities In Schools, David 
has earned a $4,725 scholarship toward college.
  AmeriCorps is the one and only chance for many of its participants to 
obtain a college education. It has been under attack from the early 
days of the 104th Congress for being inefficient. The truth is that 
among the numerous independent studies this year, including the one by 
the conservative Chicago School economists, the studies confirmed that 
investments in national service programs are sound, yielding from $1.54 
to $3.90 for every $1 invested. In fact, a 1995 GAO report concluded 
that AmeriCorps almost tripled the amount of $31 million that Congress 
directed them to raise by raising some $91 million.
  AmeriCorps has played a vital role in communities all over America. 
The 23,641 students taught, and the 49,632 youth helped through 
violence prevention programs is a testament to the critical role this 
program plays in the lives of people in need.
  I strongly oppose any effort to end this program.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my support for 
the legislation before us today. H.R. 3666 provides $84.3 billion for 
veterans and housing programs, the Environmental Protection Agency, 
NASA, and the National Science Foundation. While this bill falls well 
short of the administration's request, overall funding is $1.8 billion 
higher than last year's level.
  I am particularly pleased to note that the committee has decided to 
include funding for the replacement hospital at Travis Air Force Base 
in Fairfield, CA. Building a new, state-of-the-art facility at Travis 
will provide much-needed medical care for over 430,000 veterans in 
northern California. These veterans need a new full service veterans 
hospital.
  I would like to recognize the steadfast support of Operation VA, and 
in particular, Carolyn Rennert and George Pettygrove, who have been 
unwavering in their support for the construction of this hospital. The 
entire Travis community, including many hard working veterans and 
citizens throughout Solano County deserve praise for their efforts. I 
would also like to thank the chairman of the VA-HUD Subcommittee, Jerry 
Lewis, for his support for the hospital. His commitment to the hospital 
is a significant step in ensuring that the hospital at Travis becomes a 
reality.
  I am also pleased that the bill includes funding for the Sacramento 
River Toxic Pollutant Control Program [SRTPCP] within the EPA's 
Environmental Programs and Management Account. This is a cooperative 
program conducted by the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District 
and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.
  The Sacramento River is the largest and most important river in 
California. It supplies water for agricultural, municipal and 
industrial uses as well as providing important recreational benefits. 
Unfortunately, this key environmental and economic asset is threatened 
by pollutant loadings that jeopardize these beneficial uses. The river 
exceeds State and EPA-recommended water quality criteria developed in 
the early 1990's for a number of toxic pollutants, particularly metals 
such as copper, mercury and lead.
  The SRTPCP, which is in its third year, was created to bring the 
Sacramento River into compliance with water quality standards. The 
program is based on watershed management concepts including the 
development of site-specific water quality standards and technically 
feasible, cost-effective programs to achieve water quality standards 
throughout the river and its tributaries.
  Regrettably, I do have one concern and that is that this proposal 
fails to adequately protect the environment. It simply goes too far and 
will hurt the ability of communities to protect their residents from 
toxic exposure. I support the Durbin amendment to restore the 
community's right-to-know what chemicals are being emitted from local 
industries.
  It is important to encourage growth and development and that can best 
be achieved if companies work to earn the trust of the community and 
the two work closely together. Along those lines, I also urge my House 
and Senate counterparts to do the same and work out a reasonable 
solution to this issue.
  I urge my colleagues to support the fiscal year 1997 VA-HUD 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my very serious concerns 
about the funding levels for Superfund, section 8 housing vouchers, and 
space sciences in this bill. Once again, the appropriations priorities 
of this majority are shortchanging America's communities by 
underfunding efforts to clean up our environment, provide safe housing 
for our seniors and poor children, and make our neighborhoods better 
places to live.
  I am particularly concerned by the cuts to Mission to Planet Earth, a 
critical NASA program which has great potential for helping predict 
weather and climate. The ability to better predict natural disasters 
will save both money and lives. Moreover, our capability to forecast up 
to a year in advance will yield tremendous benefits for agricultural 
and natural resources productivity.
  The subcommittee's mark includes $1.149 billion for Mission to Planet 
Earth. Regrettably, this is a reduction of $220 million from the 
President's budget request. If the allocation for this appropriations 
measure was not so constrained, I would offer an amendment to add that 
$220 million to the bill before us. NASA, through internal efforts, has 
already greatly reduced the Mission to Planet Earth budget.

[[Page H6946]]

Further reductions could cause serious delays in the weather 
measurements and the Earth observing system. Cuts could also affect 
NASA's agreements with the United Kingdom, Japan, Brazil, and France--
all partners in the EOS system.
  Goddard Space Flight Center is NASA's lead center for these efforts 
and has an extraordinary reputation for Earth science studies. I have 
had the chance to visit with the scientists working on this program and 
I can tell you that their work is outstanding. Our understanding of the 
Earth as an integrated system is far from complete. Mission to Planet 
Earth and EOS will produce both practical benefits and long-term 
understanding of the environment.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly believe that it is in the best interests of 
our country and, indeed, of mankind, to fully fund Mission to Planet 
Earth and I urge the committee to work to accomplish that objective as 
this bill moves through the legislative process.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong concern that 
the bill before us eliminates the U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs. As 
many members of this body know, the Office of Consumer Affairs is the 
only entity on the Federal level which serves as an advocate for 
consumers on virtually any issue. I believe we should be devoting 
significantly more, rather than fewer, resources to protecting the 
interests of American consumers.
  The Office of Consumer Affairs traces its origin to the President's 
Committee on Consumer Interest established by President John Kennedy in 
1962. President Johnson transformed the committee into the Office of 
Consumer Service in 1968. President Richard Nixon was responsible for 
establishing the Office of Consumer Affairs within the White House and 
redefined its mission to include information distribution and consumer 
education. In fact, Elizabeth Dole was Deputy Director of the Office 
during the Nixon years and played an important role in developing 
voluntary agreements between manufacturers and consumers. President 
Nixon was also responsible for transferring the Office to the 
Department of Health and Human Services and expanding its mission again 
to include consumer advocacy throughout the Federal Government. 
Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush all continued the Office and 
utilized it to ensure consumers' interests were protected at the 
national level.
  As I mentioned above, the Office acts as a consumer advocate. Other 
entities in the Federal Government address consumer issues by 
regulating products or services. The Office's mission is to serve as a 
central point of contact--a one-stop-shop--where consumers can obtain a 
wide range of information and assistance in addressing their problems 
with Government agencies as well as the private sector. The Office 
distributes information through a variety of sources, the most popular 
of which is the Consumer's Resource Handbook. Every member of this body 
is familiar with these valuable publications which are arguably the 
most thorough source of consumer-related information issued in America. 
The handbook provides tips on how to get the most for one's money, 
prevent fraud and protect personal privacy. In addition, it contains 
more than 100 pages listing national consumer groups, State and local 
consumer affairs offices, better business bureaus, corporate consumer 
centers and a wide range of other helpful information. As the result of 
aggressive distribution efforts, headquartered in Pueblo, CO, more than 
1 million copies are currently in circulation.
  The Office of Consumer Affairs responds quickly, and efficiently, to 
consumer complaints through the toll-free National Consumer HELPLINE. I 
want to stress to my colleagues that the HELPLINE is staffed by a 
portion of the Office's 13 trained, professional employees and is not 
contracted out to another office or to private operators. The HELPLINE 
can quickly direct consumers to appropriate government agencies helping 
them negotiate an often complicated system of shared and overlapping 
jurisdiction. Staff also refer callers to consumer affairs offices in 
the private sector. Between June, 1995, when the HELPLINE commenced 
operation, and the end of February, 1996, more than 80,000 people--
about 10,000 per month--have been served. It is important to note the 
Office has assisted this volume of callers while operating the HELPLINE 
only 4 hours daily. I believe the number of calls would increase 
significantly if the Office had sufficient resources to operate the 
HELPLINE during normal business hours.

  In addition, through the HELPLINE, letters and other sources the 
Office performs its central function as an advocate--helping consumers 
solve their problems. Office staff research consumers' problems and 
then work with manufacturers and Government agencies to develop 
voluntary solutions. The Office has a unique problem-solving role 
because it is nonregulatory. It can contact a private company and work 
to achieve a compromise relating to how a particular product is sold or 
produced or how a service is delivered. Most regulatory agencies can 
not take similar action without being confronted with conflict of 
interest charges or allegations they are being ``soft'' on entities 
under their jurisdiction. In a February, 1996 letter to President 
Clinton, several major U.S. corporations and trade organizations, 
including MasterCard, MCI, Ford, and the American Gas Association, were 
among 41 groups urging the President's continued support for the 
Office. The Office of Consumer Affairs is the only Federal agency which 
can bring consumers and businesses together in an nonadversarial 
setting and produce agreements which benefit all parties.
  Mr. Chairman, American consumers need a voice at the Federal level 
more than ever before. Rapid and complex changes in our economy, 
widespread reorganization of Federal programs, and a blizzard of new 
products and services associated with the information revolution are 
generating questions and concerns from a growing number of Americans. 
At the same time, States, which traditionally have offered the first 
line of defense for consumers, are reducing, and in some case 
eliminating, consumer affairs departments and units at an alarming 
rate.
  A March, 1996 investigation by Money Magazine provides startling 
information about just how severe some of the reductions at the State 
level have been. As part of its investigation, Money surveyed 45 State 
attorneys general and 51 other State, county and city consumer affairs 
offices requesting information about historic and present budgets, 
contacts, number of cases investigated, and the amount of money 
returned to consumers as a result of such investigations. Based on the 
information provided, Money concluded that 44 of the 96 entities 
surveyed--nearly 50 percent of the total--``have seen their funding or 
staff levels slashed or eliminated during the past decade.''
  The magazine determined consumer protection efforts have been 
improved in only 9 States. At the same time, 41 States and the District 
of Columbia have curtailed consumer protection efforts or merely held 
the line on service in spite of increasing demand. Alabama, Alaska, 
California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, 
Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, South Carolina, 
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin were all rated by the 
magazine as ``losing ground'' in the battle to protect consumers' 
interests. For example, the Alabama attorney general's consumer affairs 
staff has been cut by 70 percent since the early 1980's while 
Maryland's has been pared by 28 percent since 1990. In Massachusetts, 
the executive office of consumer affairs was slated for closure and in 
New Jersey, Rhode Island, and South Carolina certain State-administered 
consumer advocacy organizations have been terminated. As the States 
continue to reduce consumer affairs units and curtail investigations, 
preserving a consumer advocate at the national level becomes even more 
important.
  I recognize the Appropriations Committee has provided a minimal 
increase to the Consumer Information Center and transferred some of the 
Office's functions to the Center. The Center distributes the Consumer's 
Resource handbook, other consumer-related information and publications 
from various Government agencies. While the committee report makes 
vague references about transferring functions, the bill is silent on 
this issue. However, it is very important to note that the Center will 
not be taking over the Office's advocacy role. It will not operate the 
HELPLINE, it will not address consumer complaints and it will not 
represent consumers' interests in policy discussions within the Federal 
Government. The Center is, and I believe will remain, a warehousing and 
distribution entity and will not be transformed into a consumer 
advocate under the provisions of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the Office of Consumer Affairs is a great value for the 
American people. In an article published in the Christian Science 
Monitor in January, 1996, two former Directors of the Office stated it 
provides services to the 97 million households in this country for 
about two cents per household. I challenge any member to find another 
program which offers similar service to the American people for less. I 
firmly believe the taxpayers are willing to spend less than $2 million 
dollars annually to ensure they have a consumer advocate at the Federal 
level. The American people are not blindly demanding spending cuts. 
They want this Congress to make cuts and policy changes which make 
sense. I believe the vast majority of Americans would agree that 
eliminating the Office of Consumer Affairs fails this important test.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in favor of this 
bipartisan amendment which would provide the funds needed to keep the 
HOPWA Program at pace with the growth of the need and the problem.
  HOPWA needs the little bit of extra money that this amendment 
provides, because the number of communities served by it have expanded.
  Why do we need a separate housing program for people with AIDS? 
That's what I hear

[[Page H6947]]

some people ask about this program. The reason is because the needs are 
so unique. So often, people with AIDS find themselves on the fringes of 
our communities: Isolated; frightened; stigmatized. Broken financially 
from the costs of drugs and doctors. Sometimes, homeless. The worst 
thing that someone needs in the latter stages of AIDS is to worry about 
where they will live and where they will die. Worry hastens death.
  HOPWA is the caring and decent thing, but if that is not enough * * * 
consider the financial aspects of the issue. Without the hospices 
provided by HOPWA, a person with AIDS is likely to end up in a 
hospital, where Medicaid will be huge. Support this amendment because 
it's cost effective. Support this amendment because it's right.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hostettler 
amendment to eliminate the AmeriCorps Program.
  AmeriCorps has provided an opportunity for more than 40,000 young 
people to earn their way through college by giving something back to 
their communities and our Nation. AmeriCorps members perform many vital 
functions, including tutoring children, helping seniors, housing the 
homeless, feeding the hungry, preventing crime, and protecting the 
environment.
  This past Sunday, I attended the City Year Rhode Island Graduation, 
in which 55 individuals were honored for their year of service in 
Providence and Central Falls, RI. City Year participants make a 
difference in the lives of Rhode Islanders by tutoring children and 
cleaning up communities. Next year, City Year Rhode Island, which 
receives a majority of its funding from the Corporation for National 
Service, expects to provide service opportunities to additional 
participants who will serve throughout the State.
  AmeriCorps is making a positive impact in our communities and in the 
lives of the participants. One recent City Year Rhode Island 
participant was a high school dropout working in jobs which gave her 
little chance of advancement. Her involvement in City Year provided an 
opportunity to assist others in need, which in turn renewed her belief 
in the value of hard work and inspired her to return to and finish high 
school. She is now attending Brown University where she is studying 
medicine, turning a nearly destroyed dream of becoming a doctor into a 
reality.
  Today the critics of AmeriCorps will attempt to disparage AmeriCorps 
with claims of financial mismanagement and wasteful spending. In recent 
months, however, the Corporation for National Service has addressed 
these and other concerns by reducing costs, increasing private-sector 
support, improving financial management, and eliminating grants to 
other Federal agencies, in order to harness the full potential of 
national service. Furthermore, four independent studies have concluded 
that AmeriCorps is a cost-effective investment that yields more in 
benefits than the program costs.
  As the Providence Journal-Bulletin recently noted, we should be 
increasing funding for this worthy program, not eliminating it. 
AmeriCorps enjoys widespread support among participants, governors, and 
businessmen and women in Rhode island, and across the Nation. I urge my 
colleagues to reject the Hostettler amendment and other anti-AmeriCorps 
amendments offered today.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hostettler 
amendment to eliminate AmeriCorps funding.
  AmeriCorps has been a very valuable resource for our great Nation. 
AmeriCorps is achieving results; AmeriCorps is cost effective; 
AmeriCorps has earned private-sector support; and AmeriCorps is cutting 
costs.
  An evaluation of AmeriCorps programs by Aguirre International--headed 
by President Ford's Commission of Education found that just one-tenth 
of the AmeriCorps members: taught 23,641 students; tutored 23,867 
individuals; mentored 14,878 youths; 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 packets of information about drug 
abuse, street safety, health care, and other issues; ran violence 
prevention after-school programs for 49,632 youth; performed energy 
audits for more than 18 million square feet of buildings; and leveraged 
669,369 hours of service by unstipended volunteers--each AmeriCorps 
member manages about 16 volunteers and generates 246 volunteer hours.
  AmeriCorps is cost effective for our Nation. Numerous independent 
studies this year, including one by conservative Chicago School 
economists sponsored by three private foundations to test their 
investment in AmeriCorps, confirmed that investments in national 
service programs are sound, yielding from $1.54 to $3.90 for every 
dollar invested.
  In fact, the 1995 GAO Report concluded that AmeriCorps almost tripled 
the amount it was required to raise from non-corporation sources in its 
first year: Congress directed AmeriCorps programs to raise $31 million; 
they raised $91 million. Of this total, $41 million--more than the 
amount required of all sources--came from the private sector alone. 
Such 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.
  The program is below budget. In fact AmeriCorps grantees have already 
reduced costs by 7 percent in real terms. The Corporation has already 
reduced its administrative budget by 12 percent in real terms. The 
Corporation has recently announced that it will lower its average 
budgeted cost per AmeriCorps member in its grants programs by $1,000 
each year in program year 1999-2,000. And, the GAO reported the 
Corporation is spending less per AmeriCorps member than it had 
budgeted.
  The Corporation has also announced that it will no longer make 
AmeriCorps program grants to other Federal agencies.
  Additionally, Representative Hostettler is focusing on just 2 of the 
over 1,200 AmeriCorps sites and 450 AmeriCorps programs over the last 2 
years. In fact, in both these cases, the Corporation and the Governor's 
commissions found the problems and eliminated funding to the programs 
to eliminate the waste of taxpayer dollars. These are the exception 
that prove the rules work.
  Recently, I visited two sites of an AmeriCorps program in Montgomery 
County, MD, called the Community Year. I saw first hand, at Karasik 
Child Care Center and Holy Cross Adult Day Care Center, that young 
adults are making a significant difference in the lives of people in 
need in Montgomery County through AmeriCorps.
  Esther Kaleko-Kravitz is the director of Community Year, and Wendy 
Moen is the corpsmember development specialist. Under the auspices of 
these two able individuals, young adults provide direct services to the 
elderly, refugees, and the disabled population in the community, from 
preschool to adulthood. This national service experience promotes 
personal and professional growth among the corpsmembers and is a win-
win situation for everyone.
  All over America, there is a new spirit of community service. Meeting 
and talking with young people in my district, I see an idealism and an 
eagerness to help others.
  The time has come to provide American students with a program which 
channels their energy and challenges them to discover the untapped 
resources within themselves.
  We must encourage this spirit of service in our country by opposing 
this amendment. AmeriCorps members help to form a world where 
compassion and a willingness to help others will strengthen America and 
indeed make a difference.
  Moreover Governors Weld, Wilson, Engler, Merrill, and Almond, 
religious groups like the Catholic Network of Volunteer service, the 
Episcopal Church, and Agudath Israel of America, volunteer sector 
leaders like Habitat for Humanity, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, the Red 
Cross, and the YMCA, support AmeriCorps strongly. I urge my colleagues 
to oppose the Hostettler amendment.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, which 
would provide a $15 million increase for local HIV/AIDS housing 
assistance grants under the HOPWA Program. These funds will help 
thousands of people to live longer and stay healthier, while sparing 
States and localities the far greater costs associated with the 
hospital and emergency room care to which these individuals would 
otherwise be forced to turn.
  Two years ago, I joined with Members on both sides of the aisle in an 
effort to prevent the HOPWA Program from being eliminated altogether. 
Fortunately, the program survived that crisis. But the Congress took 
away $15 million as part of the 1995 rescissions package, and the 
program has been level funded ever since--even though the number of 
reported AIDS cases has risen by one-third and the number of States and 
metropolitan areas qualifying for a piece of the pie has increased by 
23 percent.
  It is time to put that $15 million back. Without it, 34 States and 
cities in every region of the country will actually lose money this 
year as they struggle to bear the enormous and growing burden of this 
epidemic. Thousands of people will be forced to choose between paying 
their medical bills and paying the rent. Many will wind up in 
hospitals, at a cost 10 to 20 times that of housing and services in a 
HOPWA-funded residential facility. The rest could find themselves 
huddled in homeless shelters and sleeping on grates. Many could 
literally die in the streets this winter.
  No civilized society can allow that to happen. I commend the 
gentleman for offering the amendment and urge its adoption.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment which 
would increase by $15 million the Housing Opportunities for People with 
AIDS Program [HOPWA].

[[Page H6948]]

  At a time when both homelessness and the spread of AIDS have reached 
crisis proportion, funding for the HOPWA Program is crucial to the 
basic existence of many Americans.
  AIDS is now the leading killer of Americans between the ages of 25 
and 44. The growth of the number of people infected with AIDS has been 
dramatic, and it is often the case that people with AIDS need housing 
assistance. In fact, at any given time, one-third to one-half of all 
Americans with AIDS are either homeless or in imminent danger of losing 
their homes. We have a responsibility, not only to respond to this very 
devastating public health crisis, but also to provide basic housing 
assistance to those who are suffering from AIDS.
  The HOPWA Program is the only Federal housing program that 
specifically provides cities and States hardest hit by the AIDS 
epidemic with the resources to address the housing crisis facing people 
living with AIDS in communities throughout the Nation.
  The HOPWA Program provides community-based, cost-effective housing 
for thousands of people living with AIDS and their families. This 
amendment would save funds that would, in the absence of the housing 
and services provided in a HOPWA-funded residential facility, result in 
higher expenditures for hospital or emergency room costs. For example, 
an acute-care bed for an AIDS patient costs on average $1,085 a day, 
whereas the housing and services provided in a HOPWA-funded residential 
facility costs between one-tenth and one-twentieth of that amount. In 
fact, it is estimated that HOPWA dollars reduce the use of emergency 
health care services by an estimated $47,000 per person per year.
  Without this valuable program thousands of people suffering from AIDS 
would risk homelessness, and quite possibly, premature death due to 
exposure, poor nutrition, stress, and lack of medical care.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is socially, morally, and fiscally 
responsible. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments, under the rule the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Combest, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill, (H.R. 3666), 
making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and 
Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, 
boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 456, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                motion to recommit offered by mr. stokes

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. STOKES. In its present form I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Stokes moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3666 to the 
     Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the 
     bill back to the House forthwith with amendments as follows:
       On page 61, line 14, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $350,000,000)''
       and,
       On page 61, line 15, strike ``September 1, 1997'' and 
     insert ``September 30, 1997''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] is 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, earlier in general debate I made reference 
to the fact that it was my intention to vote for this bill. I said at 
that time that the bill was not a perfect bill, but because of the fact 
that the chairman and I had truly worked in a real bipartisan manner to 
bring to the floor a bill on which he and I both agreed, there were 
certain parts of the bill that still needed improvement, we were both 
committed to working on that bill together both here and in conference, 
and that based upon that I had intended to vote for the bill.
  Let me just remind the Members of what happened on this floor today 
that has changed that from my position.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier today we had $122.4 million in additional cuts 
by amendments offered on the floor, and this is a bill that already in 
the area of HUD had been cut $2.3 billion in the bill as reported.
  AmeriCorps; there was an amendment by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Hostettler] which the House defeated where he proposed to take all of 
the money out of AmeriCorps. The House defeated that amendment by a 
vote of 240 to 183. Fifty Republicans voted with us to defeat that 
bill. Later on during the day the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] 
had an amendment which again proposed to take all of the money out of 
AmeriCorps. That amendment was accepted without a vote by the chairman 
of the subcommittee and was accepted for reasons. I understood the 
reasons, but it took all the money back out of AmeriCorps again.
  Mr. Speaker, we had provided $367 million in this bill, which was 
already below the President's request. I think by eliminating 
AmeriCorps from this bill what we are doing is inviting a veto of this 
bill. This is a pet of the President, and I think we can assure our 
colleagues it is going to be vetoed.
  Additionally, today amendments took out $54 million in additional 
cuts to NASA. NASA had already been cut $1.1 billion in the bill as 
reported.
  My motion to recommit puts the money, AmeriCorps money, back in, does 
not take it from any of the accounts. This is money that is lying there 
and is available. We put the money back in. It is deficit neutral. It 
is within the targets. It delays the money until September 30, 1997, so 
there is no immediate obligation.
  I would urge all of the Members on both sides of the aisle, in the 
true bipartisan manner in which the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lewis] and I have worked on this bill, to support this motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lewis] seek recognition on the motion to recommit?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I do, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, as all my colleagues know, as a result of these last 
couple of days this is a very important, a very interesting, a very 
complex bill. To say the least, it is a difficult bill with many a 
compromise, an attempt to balance and measure and weigh carefully that 
which makes good sense for all those who care about the subject areas 
of this legislation.
  In the discussion that we had earlier regarding the AmeriCorps 
program, we did essentially come to an agreement within the House that 
involved an amendment that raided the Hostettler amendment. We left a 
minimum basic level for AmeriCorps in the bill as a result of that 
amendment, and indeed it was our understanding that we would work with 
that as we move towards the conference, and it relates to a lot of the 
rest of the bill.
  Later an amendment came to us that was not one that we had talked 
about before or had any in-depth discussion, but it was an amendment 
heartfelt but also that put this program against veterans' programs, 
and my colleagues know we discussed what we do with those programs.
  So we kind of reversed ourselves there, and this motion to recommit 
is essentially to take us back to the position that we were in earlier 
in terms of our general understanding about this and a lot of another 
items.
  So, with that, I know some Members have reservations, but we are in 
the process of measuring this program carefully, and at this point in 
time I would strongly urge my colleagues to respond to my ranking 
member, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] who has cooperated in 
depth in this program, and I urge my colleagues to support the motion 
to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page H6949]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, if no Member has spoken against the 
motion to recommit, is there time available to speak against the 
motion?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Five minutes in opposition to the motion was 
in order, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] used the 5 
minutes. There is no more time remaining.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 205, 
noes 212, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No 281]

                               AYES--205

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     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
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--212

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

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Becerra
     Bevill
     Browder
     Christensen
     Coleman
     Conyers
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Hall (OH)
     Hayes
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Peterson (FL)
     Roybal-Allard
     Yates

                              {time}  2326

  Mr. CLINGER and Mr. HOUGHTON changed their vote from ``aye`` to 
``no.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the years and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 269, 
nays 147, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 282]

                               YEAS--269

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield

[[Page H6950]]


     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--147

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barton
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Reed
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Bachus
     Becerra
     Bevill
     Browder
     Christensen
     Coleman
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Hall (OH)
     Hayes
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Peterson (FL)
     Roybal-Allard
     Yates

                              {time}  2342

  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________