[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.
____________________