[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 24, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H10951-H10970]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3666, DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND 
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 1997

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the 
House of earlier today, I call up the conference report on 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
the conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
Friday, September 20, 1996, at page H10733.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] will each be recognized for 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].


                             general leave

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and 
extend their remarks on the conference report on H.R. 3666 and that I 
may include tables, charts and other extraneous materials.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, at the very beginning of this discussion on this very 
important bill, I want my colleagues to know just how strongly I feel 
about the need to change the tons of the debate that often takes place 
on this floor.

                              {time}  1915

  Often it is shrill. Often it is dominated by extremes. All too often 
it is partisan for the sake of being partisan.
  It is my view that we should work hard to change that fact. Public 
policy is best developed in an atmosphere of bipartisanship. Working 
together, we do a much better job for the public and the people that we 
were elected to represent. Mr. Speaker, the bill that we are about to 
consider is a reflection of perhaps the best of that kind of effort to 
change our working environment.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, my ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Stokes], and I are pleased to present the 1997 VA-HUD and 
Independent Agencies Conference Report. This report treats all accounts 
fairly within the allocation provided to the subcommittee. This is a 
bipartisan bill which I have every expectation will be signed by the 
President.
  The fiscal year 1997 VA-HUD bill reaffirms our continued commitment 
to serving veterans, to protecting the environment, providing housing 
for the poorest of the poor and ensuring America's future leadership in 
space.
  In spite of the difficult challenges in putting this conference 
report together, this final product represents a balance of tough 
choices and common interests. Most importantly, it keeps the 
appropriations process on track for meeting the vital objective clearly 
stated by the Congress and the administration of balancing the budget 
by the year 2002.
  A majority of programs have been funded at either the President's 
request or the enacted levels for fiscal year 1996. We have succeeded 
in holding the line on spending by reducing the rate of growth in 
several spending programs. This bill is a demonstration that deficit 
reduction can be achieved while keeping an ever watchful eye on every 
taxpayer dollar the Government spends. In fact, this legislation is 
$3.2 billion below the President's request.
  When this conference report becomes law, the Subcommittee on VA, HUD 
and Independent Agencies will have cut nearly $20 billion in 
discretionary spending over the last 2 years. At the same time we have 
dramatically reduced the rate of growth of Government. Our work clearly 
demonstrates that Congress can move toward a balanced budget while at 
the same time delivering funding for people programs that have 
performed well.
  This bill has drawn a good deal of attention due to the fact that 
three health care riders were added to the bill in the Senate. While 
this is, in my judgment, not the proper vehicle to reform our health 
care and insurance delivery systems, the House voted overwhelmingly to 
instruct the conferees to retain the Senate provisions. House and 
Senate leadership agreed that these legislative riders should be 
included in the final version of the VA conference report and thereby 
we have responded.
  These provisions relate to mental health parity, to 48-hour hospital 
stays for mothers and newborns, and veterans benefits to children 
suffering from spina bifida as a result of their parents military 
service. Because these issues are really outside the jurisdiction of 
the committee and certainly beyond the expertise of either the 
committee or our staff, the mental health parity provision is not 
effective until January 1, 1998. The spina bifida provision is not 
effective until October 1, 1997.

[[Page H10952]]

  This bill will allow our authorizing committees time to more clearly 
evaluate these proposals before they became effective. Furthermore, the 
mental parity provisions contain small business exemptions as well as 
the Gramm amendment from the Senate side which voids the measure if 
group insurance policies increase by over more than 1 percent.
  Let me take just a minute to list some of the bill's funding 
highlights. Within the Department of Veterans Affairs, we have provided 
a total agency budget of $39.158 billion. We have increased the medical 
care account by $5 million over the President's request to a total of 
$17 billion plus, 449 million over the 1996 level.
  We have increased the medical and prosthetic research account by $5 
million over the President's request to a total of $262 million. We 
have funded a replacement hospital at Travis Air Force base at $32.1 
million. Within the Corporation for National Communities and Community 
Service, or what is known as AmeriCorps, we have frozen the spending 
level at the FY 1996 level of $400,500,000.
  This appropriation is obviously a must to get our bill signed by the 
President. Although I carried an amendment last year to zero out this 
agency, our leadership has acknowledged that it must be funded to avoid 
a Presidential veto.

  Within the Department of Housing and Urban Development, we provided a 
total agency budget of $19,450,000,000. Our bill increases housing for 
the elderly, section 202 funding, by some $50 million over the 
President's request to a total of $645 million. The bill increases 
housing for people with disabilities by $20 million over the 
President's request to a total of $194 million. It fully funds 
community development block grants at $4.6 billion.
  We have increased HOPWA funding by $25 million. Within the 
Environmental Protection Agency, we have provided a total agency budget 
of $6.712 billion. This represents an increase of $70 million over last 
year. The bill contains no environmental riders; that is, no riders, 
period.
  We have funded the Superfund program at the budget request of $1.394 
billion. Clean water grants are fully funded at $625 million. The Safe 
Drinking Water State Resolving Fund, SRF, is fully funded at $1.275 
billion.
  Within the National Aeronautics and Space Agency, we have provided a 
total agency budget of $13.704 billion. We have fully funded the 
International Space Station at a long agreed upon figure of $2.1 
billion. The Human Space Flight Account has been funded at $5.362 
billion. The Science Aeronautics and Technology Account has been funded 
at $5.763 billion. We have also provided the National Science 
Foundation with a total agency budget of $3.270 billion.
  The Federal Emergency Management Agency has been funded at 
$1,788,000,000. The Disaster Relief Account has been funded at $1.320 
billion.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me first speak one more time to the 
atmosphere in which we developed this bill. I want to personally and 
publicly thank my ranking member and my very good friend, the gentleman 
from Ohio, Mr. Lou Stokes, for the working atmosphere and spirit that 
we have shared together, both the environment in which we have worked 
but also beyond the partnership itself. Our personal friendship is a 
very, very big part of the joy that I share with my family and staff in 
working with this committee and in this body. Louis Stokes, to say the 
least, is a legislator, in my judgment, to behold.
  While working very closely together in the entire Committee on 
Appropriations, I believe the work of this subcommittee is a reflection 
of what we ought to be about in the entire committee in every one of 
our conference reports, and hopefully one day that will be the 
environment in which the entire House operates.
  I would also like to take a moment and commend our very capable 
staff. Del Davis, who has worked very closely with Mr. Stokes, was 
greatly assisted earlier in the year by Leslie Atkinson, who has 
decided to leave us at least for now, but who contributed a great deal 
to our efforts, along with our very, very professional staff headed by 
Frank Cushing, Paul Thomson, Tim Peterson, Valerie Baldwin, Doug 
Disrud, Alex Heslop, Dave LesStrang and Jeff Shockey, for their hard 
work and long hours in putting together this diverse and very complex 
package. Working together, this has been indeed a bipartisan team 
spirit at the staff level as well.
  Finally, I would like to bid farewell to two of our colleagues who 
will be leaving the House after this Congress and, therefore, will be 
leaving also the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies. The 
gentlewoman from Nevada, Mrs. Barbara Vucanovich, is a personal friend 
and dear colleague, a great member of our subcommittee. We will miss 
here greatly. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Jim Chapman, who will not 
be coming back, has been a great member of our committee and has made a 
great contribution to this effort.
  I wish to thank them both for their extreme efforts to work closely 
with our subcommittee and participate in its many hours of markup. They 
have been a great addition to our work, and we will miss them in the 
years ahead.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference agreement. At the 
beginning I want to commend my friend, the gentleman from California, 
Mr. Jerry Lewis, the chairman of the subcommittee, for his leadership 
on this measure. In marked contrast with the confrontational manner in 
which this bill was considered for fiscal year 1996, this year's 
experience has more closely reflected the mutual respect and the comity 
that has been the hallmark of this subcommittee's operations.
  I am pleased and I am gratified that we have been able to set aside 
the divisive riders and the policies that caused so much trouble last 
year and have worked together to produce a bill that deserves the 
support of this body. It has indeed been a real pleasure to work, as 
Mr. Lewis has already said, together in a bipartisan manner to produce 
a bill that both of us are extremely proud to present to this body.
  I also, Mr. Speaker, want to take a moment and express my personal 
appreciation and that of the appreciation of the staff on this side for 
the excellent working relationship and cooperation we have had from the 
staff that works for Mr. Lewis. Frank Cushing, Paul Thomson, Tim 
Peterson, Valerie Baldwin, Jeff Shockey, Dave LesStrang, Alex Heslop, 
and Doug Disrud, all of them have been cooperative, worked closely with 
me and with my staff in order to produce this bill and we are very 
appreciative of it.
  I also want to take a moment and express my appreciation to Del 
Davis, a very able and capable staffer on this side, whose work has 
been very important to me in producing this bill; also Leslie Atkinson, 
who was mentioned by the chairman, who although she is no longer with 
our staff, a great deal of work went into this bill while she was still 
here on our staff and we are appreciative of her work.
  Mr. Speaker, although we have not seen a formal statement of 
administration policy on this conference agreement, it is my 
understanding that the administration has no serious objections to the 
bill and expects to sign it. I might also add that it is important that 
we act quickly to send this bill to the President. The bill contains 
$100 million in supplemental 1996 funding for compensation and pension 
payments for veterans. If this bill is not cleared for the President 
very soon, the checks distributed later this week will not contain the 
full amount to which veterans are entitled.

                              {time}  1930

  We cannot allow that to happen.
  The chairman has done an extremely able job describing the major 
features of this conference agreement. I will just highlight some of 
the aspects of the bill that I feel are extremely important and make 
this legislation worthy of the Members' support.
  First of all, the conference agreement includes the three health 
provisions added by the Senate that were the subject of my motion to 
instruct the conferees that was adopted by a vote of 392 to 17. Some 
technical changes were made, and the dates of implementation were 
extended, to allow the authorization committees to review the situation 
next year. They

[[Page H10953]]

will be able to make changes or advance the effective dates. However, 
if they do nothing, the provisions will then take effect without 
further action by the Congress.
  The result will be that offspring with spina bifida of Vietnam 
veterans exposed to Agent Orange will be eligible for treatment and 
benefits. The result will be that newborns and their mothers will be 
allowed to stay in hospitals for 48 hours after delivery. The result 
will be that mental health will be treated in the same manner as 
physical health in health insurance plans.
  The bill also includes provisions targeted to help some of the most 
needy among us. I am referring to the $2.9 billion for public housing 
operating subsidies, $2.5 billion for public housing modernization, the 
$550 million for severely distressed public housing, HOPE VII, the $290 
million for drug elimination grants, the $645 million for section 202 
elderly housing, the $194 million for section 811 disabled housing, the 
$823 million for homeless assistance grants, and the $171 million for 
the housing opportunities for persons with AIDS program, among others.
  In conjunction with the HOPWA Program, the conference agreement 
provides that, to the extent available, the department may use an 
additional $25 million in recaptured section 8 funds for HOPWA.
  The bill extends for public housing authorities the provisions 
enacted in the 1996 act which allows them the flexibility to manage 
with reduced resources. In addition, provisions have been included in 
the preservation program and the section 8 contract renewal 
demonstration program intended to provide assistance to those residents 
who may be displaced due to funding constraints and program 
restructuring.

  The conferees have agreed to the Senate's funding level for the 
Corporation for National and Community Service. That means that 
AmeriCorps will receive $400.5 million in 1997, the same amount as 
provided in 1996. Without funding for this program of the highest 
priority with the President, it is doubtful the bill would be signed 
into law.
  For the Environmental Protection Agency, the conferees recommended 
more than $6.7 billion, which represents an increase of $144 million 
above the House passed amount and $184 million above 1996. There are no 
anti-environmental riders in this legislation.
  Other features of the agreement are detailed in the report and the 
accompanying statement of the managers.
  Also, I would be pleased to respond to any questions that Members may 
have about the conference agreement.
  Overall, given the constraints within which the conferees had to 
operate, a solid and supportable product has been crafted.
  As the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] said, we worked in a 
bipartisan spirit and we have a bill that we are extremely proud of.
  Let me also, in reserving the balance of my time, take just a moment 
to join with the gentleman from California, Mr. Lewis, in extending our 
appreciation for the opportunity to work with the gentlewoman from 
Nevada, Mrs. Barbara Vucanovich, and also the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Jim Chapman. Both have been extremely valuable members of this 
subcommittee. It has been a pleasure and honor to work with them, and 
we certainly wish both of them the best when they leave the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there are some technical items that I need to get out of 
the way before we proceed with other witnesses so I will do this at 
this point in time.
  Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of all Members and those that may read 
and rely upon our Joint Explanatory Statement of the Managers, we have 
found a few small errors in that statement which should be noted as 
part of the legislative history of this legislation.
  In amendment number 9 under Construction, Major Projects, within 
title I of the Veterans Affairs, the statement of the managers noted 
the reductions of $15,100,000 for renovation activities at Perry Point 
Maryland Virginia Medical Center, and $15,500,000 for renovation 
activities at Mountain Home Tennessee VA Medical Center. These 2 items 
were printing errors and should be additions to the budget request, not 
reductions.
  In amendment No. 57 under science and technology within title III, 
Environmental Protection Agency, the amount over the budget request for 
the Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxic Research Center was 
incorrectly listed at $2,150,000. The correct amount is $1,150,000.
  Finally in amendment No. 70 under State and tribal assistance grants 
within title III of the Environmental Protection Agency, $1,150,000 was 
provided for wastewater improvement needs in 3 Pennsylvania counties. 
One of three counties, Huntingdon, was spelled incorrectly in the 
statement of managers.
  I would also note with respect to this specific matter that it was 
the intent of the conferees that $400,000 in the wastewater needs of 
Metal Township Municipality Authority in Franklin County, $400,000 is 
for wastewater needs of Mount Union in Huntingdon County, $186,000 for 
wastewater needs of Huston Township, Clearfield County, and $164,000 is 
for wastewater needs of Osceola Mills, also Clearfield County.
  With those corrections, Mr. Speaker, I would add further I have been 
asked to make a brief clarifying statement with regard to the newborns 
language contained in title 5 of the conference report. This 
clarification came at the request of the Office of Management and 
Budget, and it is my understanding it has been cleared by all sides of 
this question. The House conferees intend that the Newborns and Mothers 
Health Protection Act of 1996, title 6 of the bill making 
appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and 
Urban Development and independent agencies for fiscal year 1997 include 
the minimum 48 hour and 96 hour stay protections for mothers who are 
eligible beneficiaries under Medicaid in connection with Medicaid 
prepaid contracts.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], a very able and valuable member 
of the full Committee on Appropriations.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, before I enter into a colloquy with the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], I, too, as a 
member of the committee, want to thank the chairman, Mr. Lewis, and the 
distinguished ranking minority leader for their outstanding work on 
this bill, and I am very pleased to support it.
  Recently this Congress passed, and President Clinton signed into law, 
legislation which I championed in the House designed to address the 
potential threat to human health posed by chemicals and pesticides that 
mimic human hormones. There is considerable concern in the scientific 
community that chemicals that mimic human hormones may be disrupting 
the human endocrine system and in this way may be linked to breast 
cancer in a wide range of reproductive problems. Therefore under the 
Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 and the Safe Drinking Water Act 
amendments of 1996, Congress has ordered EPA to develop a screening 
program to determine if certain pesticides and chemicals have an effect 
on humans similar to an effect produced by estrogen or other endocrine 
disrupter effects.
  Under this legislation EPA has 2 years to develop the testing 
protocol and 3 years to begin testing. In selecting the testing 
protocol, EPA is required to develop a validated approach and to secure 
the outside review of the test program from one of two science advisory 
boards. The entire provision is intended to screen substances for 
potential further review, an action pursuant to EPA's existing 
programs.
  Much to the disappointment of many Members, nothing in the provision 
gives EPA any new regulatory authority. As a modestly sound first step, 
the estrongenic substances testing provisions were widely supported by 
Members from both sides of the aisle and were heralded by leaders of 
both parties as a responsible response to a serious women's health and 
environmental issue.
  Because of the strong bipartisan support for the estrogenic substance 
screening program, I was quite shocked to see in the joint explanatory 
statement the conferees' language which

[[Page H10954]]

could be construed to put roadblocks in the way of EPA developing the 
necessary testing protocols. Specifically, the statement calls for EPA 
to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to 
conduct a massive study on the entire issue of endocrine disrupters, 
looking at human health effects, comparative risk issues and a myriad 
of other issues.
  While all of these issues may be relevant to EPA finalizing 
regulatory action on endocrine disrupters, they are not relevant to the 
more modest goal of developing a screening test for pesticides and 
chemicals. Yet the conferees' statement seems to state that EPA cannot 
develop and implement screening tests unless and until the study is 
completed.
  So I would like to ask the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] a 
question regarding this language in the conference report. Is it fair 
to say that, while conferees did intend for EPA to ensure that a 
comprehensive study of the endocrine disruption issue is completed by 
the NAS, it did not intend to freeze the EPA's ability to develop and 
implement a screening test as mandated by the Food Quality Protection 
Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Responding to my colleague, and I very much 
appreciate the gentlewoman yielding, we intended with this language 
that EPA develop a sound scientific basis for all actions that it takes 
in this area. However, nothing in the managers' statement can or should 
be construed as changing EPA's obligation to develop a screening test 
program in a timely manner.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his views and trust that the EPA will implement the statements in 
the conference report in a manner consistent with the views we have 
expressed tonight.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Let me say to the gentlewoman I very much 
appreciate her raising the question. It is an important question, and 
we are happy to work with the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Frelinghuysen], a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
this time to me, and I rise in support of the conference agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lewis] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and the staff for their 
leadership and guidance.
  Specifically, the bill provides funding for two very important 
programs that I am very pleased to support and that I have actively 
worked on throughout the year: the Superfund program and the program 
for housing for people with disabilities.
  This conference report dedicates $1.3 billion to the Superfund 
program. All of us know how important this program is, and for the 
second time in the 104th Congress this committee has earmarked over 
$900 million, the most money ever for remediation activities. This 
money will go a long way toward cleaning up many serious toxic waste 
problems.
  Coming from a State, New Jersey, that has the most Superfund sites of 
any State in the Nation, I am very pleased that Congress has attempted 
to put money towards cleanup and less money toward litigation. I am 
hopeful next year, Mr. Speaker, we can put our differences aside and 
reauthorize the Superfund program.

                              {time}  1945

  Finally, I would like to comment on the increases for both the 
disabled and senior housing programs. Realizing the importance of both 
of these programs, this agreement increases the funding above the 
President's request by $20 million for the disabled housing and $50 
million for senior housing.
  In addition to these increases, the conference report recognizes the 
importance of providing housing for people with disabilities. The 
committee has, for the first time, earmarked $50 million for tenant-
based rental assistance, to ensure that there is decent, safe, and 
affordable housing in the community for low-income people with 
disabilities.
  I specifically thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Lewis] for his 
leadership and help on these earmarks.
  Access to housing, Mr. Speaker, in the community, is a cornerstone to 
independence, integration, and productivity for people with 
disabilities, the three hallmarks of the philosophy of the disability 
community. This bill strongly supports these principles, and I believe 
these extra dollars will empower the community in their goals of living 
with dignity and independence.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Evans], a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of good things in this bill. One of the 
most important things is the fact that we compensate and provide health 
care benefits for children of Agent Orange-exposed Vietnam veterans.
  I believe that these children are as much veterans of the war as any 
other person that served or who was wounded during time of war. Through 
no choice of their own, they lost their health in service to our 
country. Because of this, they face a lifetime of extensive medical 
care. The provision in this conference bill fulfills the duty we owe to 
them and any other citizen that has sacrificed their health in defense 
of our Nation. We urge our colleagues to support the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, the VA-HUD bill is one of the most important bills we 
consider in ensuring our Nation's commitment to our veterans. This 
year, it takes on even greater significance, since for the first time 
it provides compensation and health care to the children of agent 
orange-exposed Vietnam veterans who suffer from spina bifida.
  Earlier this year, the National Academy of Science's Institute of 
Medicine found that there is limited/suggestive evidence of an 
association between agent orange exposure to vets and the occurrence of 
Spina Bifida in their children. The report confirmed what Vietnam vets 
knew all along--that agent orange has and will continue to exact a high 
price on themselves and their families.
  I believe these children deserve the same treatment as if they had 
been wounded or served during time of war. Through no choice of their 
own, they lost their health in the service of our Nation. Because of 
this, they face a lifetime of extensive medical care. The provision in 
the conference report fulfills a duty we have to them and any other 
citizen who has sacrificed in the defense of our nation.
  There are many to thank for their hard work on this matter: Senator 
Daschle for his leadership on this and so many other issues concerning 
the tragedy of agent orange; The administration, especially VA 
Secretary Jesse Brown for proposing and closely coordinating the 
legislation; the Vietnam Veterans of America, the American Legion and 
the Veterans of Foreign War for their strong advocacy; and the 
disabilities community, such as the Spina Bifida Association of 
America, the National Association of Veteran Family Service 
Organizations and the American Association of University Affiliated 
Programs for Persons with Developmental Disabilities for their 
grassroots efforts. In particular, I would like to thank the ranking 
minority member, Mr. Stokes for his hard work and diligence. Without 
his perseverance, we may have never achieved success.
  I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] for purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee 
and the ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] for their 
hard work in the conference report, and the wonderful things they have 
done in the context of this conference report for northern California 
veterans; specifically, the 440,000 veterans from all branches of the 
service who live in northern California, and who have been relying on 
the bipartisan promises made by the last two presidential 
administrations, the Bush administration and now the Clinton 
administration, that we will build a Veterans' Administration Medical 
Center at Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield, in Solano County, in my 
congressional district, to replace the one, that is the operative word, 
replace the one, closed in Martinez, CA, in the aftermath of the 1989 
earthquake.

[[Page H10955]]

  So it is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman has been 
able to, in the context of this conference report, preserve the funding 
that was included in the House version of this appropriations bill, and 
I believe that is $32.1 million. That is in addition to the $25 million 
approved in last year's bill, which is at least preliminarily earmarked 
for an outpatient clinic.
  It is my understanding, I would say to the chairman of the 
subcommittee, that this $57.1 million could in fact go towards the 
construction of the replacement of the hospital at Travis Air Force 
Base. I ask the gentleman to confirm my understanding, and also the 
accompanying report language included in the report.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, let me first congratulate the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs]. I cannot think of a Member of 
the House who has been more diligent than he regarding this very 
important matter to his district for replacement of that VA hospital 
that was destroyed by an earthquake many years ago.
  The gentleman is correct, we did appropriate $25 million in last 
year's bill that at least initially was designed for a clinic approach. 
This bill does provide $32.1 million in replacement monies for the 
hospital that was destroyed.
  Indeed, we have asked that the appropriate committees review all of 
that to help us figure out how we best deliver services to people of 
the gentleman's vast region. The hospital replacement is the highest 
priority. Presuming it is logical, those funds could be merged, and 
certainly construction can go forward as soon as they respond.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify that the report 
language directs the VA to make a report to Congress prior to the 
release of any construction funds, either from the 1996 or this next 
fiscal year, the 1997 bill, and that, as the gentleman just put it, the 
VA is directed to study the various service delivery options in the 
northern California catchment area.
  But it is my understanding that the VA has long been on record as 
strongly supporting a replacement hospital as the most efficient and 
effective method of providing long-term acute care to northern 
California veterans.
  So it is my expectation, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, 
the VA would report to Congress in a timely manner to facilitate quick 
release of funds for replacement of hospital construction. The veterans 
of northern California, and I include myself in this group, because I 
am a proud military veteran, have waited 6 years for this day.
  I believe, Mr. Speaker, it would be an affront to the men and women 
who have served their country beautifully to further delay the 
replacement of the hospital.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Let me say that the Veterans' Administration 
has given high priority to the replacement of the hospital, largely at 
the gentleman's urging. There is little question they will respond 
expeditiously and will go forward on it.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Lewis], Republican chairman, and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], because they have 
participated in a very historic piece of legislation; historic because 
this is the first time, to my knowledge, in the Congress of the United 
States that there has been recognition of equality for mental illness 
as well as various physical illnesses; because, by the passage of this 
legislation, there will be protection for the first time, providing 
equality for lifetime and annual limits on health insurance policies.
  That means if there is a lifetime cap of $1 million for various 
diseases, physical problems, they would be called, there cannot be a 
lower cap for mental-related disorders.
  Twenty percent of Americans are affected sometime every year by 
mental disorders or addictive disorders. Only 20 percent of the 20 
percent receive treatment. This is going to begin to open the doors for 
large numbers of people, including, hopefully, even more than the 
42,000 West Virginians presently receiving some sort of mental 
disorder-related treatment.
   Mr. Speaker, it is good also because this shows what Republicans and 
Democrats can do when they work together in health care.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 
seconds to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin] for purposes of a 
colloquy.
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman, my 
good friend, the gentleman from California, Mr. Lewis, for entering 
into this colloquy.
   Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, I wrote him on June 6 to 
urge him to include funding in the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies 
appropriation bill for the Institute of Environmental and Industrial 
Sciences in San Marcos, Texas. This impressive institute is at the 
forefront of some of the most sophisticated basic and applied research 
that will help the petrochemical and other heavy industries comply with 
our complex environmental laws, regulations, and standards.
  The Senate Appropriations Committee included language in its 
committee report which recognized this important institute and urged 
the EPA to consider funding the petrochemical industry environmental 
technology project that would be initiated by the institute in fiscal 
year 1997.
  The conference agreement did not add any additional language 
regarding the institute, but it did include language supporting the 
project and other projects that were in one or the other committee 
reports. I would ask the chairman of the subcommittee, is that correct?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. We 
worked very closely with the gentleman and the Senate in developing the 
language.
  The language at the beginning of the statement of the managers makes 
it very clear that any program or language or allocation contained in 
one or the other report and which is not overturned in the conference 
is deemed to be approved by the conference committee. The conference 
committee supports the gentleman's project. The conferees also fully 
expect the Environmental Protection Agency to comply with the language 
and give it high priority for funding.
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
California, for that assurance. Can he give me his personal commitment 
to work with me to stay in close contact with the EPA, to make sure 
that the agency makes every possible effort to identify the funding 
required to support the institute's efforts in fiscal year 1997? I am 
informed that due to budget constraints, the fiscal year 1997 
requirement for the institute has been cut to $2,300,000.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I can assure the gentleman from 
Texas that I will work with him to encourage the agency's cooperation 
in finding the resources to fund the important initiative next year.
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for his 
assurances, for his support, and for his friendship for many years.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to work with my 
friend, the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I have the highest respect for the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] 
managing this bill, but I have concerns about the process that has 
taken place over the course of this bill leaving this Chamber and going 
to the other, and coming back with $690 million that we did not 
approve, including $15 million that this House voted overwhelmingly, by 
60 votes, to save for the taxpayer on studying monkeys, Russian monkeys 
in space.
  We just had Shannon Lucid come back down from space after 180 days. 
Now we want to spend $15 million studying the effects of gravitation on

[[Page H10956]]

monkeys. Mr. Speaker, I have a big problem with that. I am sorry that 
got stuck back into this bill.
  I am also worried about shuttle safety, Mr. Speaker. When we 
recovered one of the rockets that helped the shuttle get up on this 
last venture, we found a wrench in the rocket booster. I hope that we 
will continue to work in a bipartisan way to ensure that we have 
shuttle safety in the future and not have all this money go toward the 
Space Station with mixed-up priorities.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, again, I commend the bipartisanship the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Stokes] tried to put together in this bill.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report. 
Approximately 5,000 veterans per month enter the State of Florida. The 
veterans population continues to increase in a number of States like 
mine, and many of these States have seasonal increases in the number of 
veterans seeking care. This causes long waiting periods and puts a 
strain on the facility and also on the personnel.
  Why should residents that live in these regions be subject to such 
delays before receiving treatment? As I understand it, the addition of 
the McCain amendment will ensure that all veterans will have similar 
access to health care, regardless of the region of the United States in 
which such veterans reside.
  This amendment, like my bill, H.R. 549, requires the Secretary of the 
Department of Veterans' Affairs to develop a plan for allocation of 
health resources so these overburdened facilities are no longer being 
asked to provide more veterans with health care without providing the 
necessary funding. This goes along the lines of the bill that I have 
proposed, the Veterans Bill of Rights, which I have proposed since the 
101st Congress.
  As a veteran myself, I am glad we have finally put the McCain 
amendment into this conference report, and I particularly think it will 
benefit my home State, which has not been funded in terms of benefits 
for its exploding veterans population over the years. Veterans and 
their families have paid a price. Now it is our duty to keep faith with 
these heroes. So I commend both the minority chairman and the majority 
chairman and subcommittee chairman for putting this in place in this 
bill.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], the ranking member of the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
  (Mr. GONZALEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
report.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. Hoyer], a member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, and I am very, 
very pleased that the Goddard Space Flight Center Mission to Planet 
Earth has essentially been made whole. I know that resulted from the 
work of all the members of the subcommittee, and I appreciate that 
effort. I know that my colleague in the Senate, Senator Mikulski, has 
been a strong ally of ours.
  I happen to represent Goddard Space Flight Center and the Mission to 
Planet Earth effort that they carry on there. It is a critically 
important scientific endeavor for this Nation and, indeed, for this 
globe.

                              {time}  2000

  It will end up saving this country great sums of money, give much 
better information as to whether and the development of storm centers, 
give people much better warning and will give agriculture and business 
much better warning.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation and 
appreciation to both the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from 
California for their support of this particular piece of this important 
bill.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson], a member of the 
committee.
  (Mr. HOBSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the chairman and ranking 
member, and I urge support of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the conference report 
on the 1997 appropriations bill for the VA, HUD, and independent 
agencies. I would first like to commend my chairman, Jerry Lewis, and 
his excellent staff for their hard and tireless work on this 
legislation. I believe that we have produced an excellent bill which 
will provide for our veterans, help to meet our Nation's housing needs, 
protect the environment, and maintain our investment in space and 
science.
  Specifically, the conference report appropriates $84.8 billion in new 
budget authority which is an increase of $2.4 billion over 1996 levels. 
More than half of the total spending under the bill supports military 
veterans by providing health, housing, education, and compensatory 
benefits. We increased funding for the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development by $323 million and for the Environmental Protection Agency 
by $184 million over 1996 levels.
  Also, I am pleased that of $1.3 billion appropriated for the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, funds will be available to provide 
disaster relief for those areas hardest hit by Hurricane Fran. The 
conference report also provides $13.7 billion for NASA and $3.3 billion 
for the National Science Foundation.
  The conference report also includes priorities which are important 
for citizens of the State of Ohio. For example, in Chillicothe, OH, the 
VA Medical Center has been trying to expand their ambulatory care 
facility for several years. In fact, the Veterans Integrated Service 
Network ranked the Chillicothe project as the highest priority in the 
network last year and the design work on the project was recently 
completed. However, because of a shortage of funds within the network, 
no dollars were available for Chillicothe last year. I am pleased that 
this conference report recommends $2.9 million in minor construction 
funding for Chillicothe's ambulatory care facility.
  The conference report also provides $206 million for FEMA's emergency 
management and planning assistance, which will fund priority emergency 
management programs in the States. In my home State, officials from the 
Ohio Emergency Management Agency have told me how important this 
funding is to supporting local response and recovery programs, 
preparedness training and exercises, and mitigation programs. I am glad 
this conference report supports these critical programs for the states.
  I am also pleased that the conference report directs FEMA to look 
into a new emergency response system developed in my congressional 
district by MTL in Beavercreek, OH. There is a critical need to replace 
and upgrade emergency response vehicles and equipment, and the 
conference report specifically requires FEMA to come up with a priority 
list for upgrading its emergency equipment by the end of the year, 
including the MIDAS system built in my district.
  To help address the shortage of affordable housing for persons with 
disabilities in Ohio and across the country, the conference report 
includes a $50 million set aside for section 8 tenant-based assistance 
for persons with disabilities. This appropriation is in line with the 
authorization provided in the Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act 
of 1995 and will provide much needed relief to persons with 
disabilities.
  Additionally, the conference report includes language encouraging 
more cooperative efforts between NASA and other Federal agencies such 
as the Department of Defense. I believe such cooperative programs will 
result in budget savings and the elimination of duplicative programs. 
For example, in Ohio, NASA Lewis and Wright-Patterson Air Force base 
have entered into several cooperative aeronautics research agreements 
which allow knowledge and expertise to be shared between the two 
organizations.
  Finally, I want to raise an issue that was not included in the 
conference report but is of importance of Ohio and hopefully will 
receive further consideration next year. The Wallace-Kettering 
Neuroscience Institute at Kettering Medical Center is a high technology 
neuroscience center which offers innovative programs dealing with brain 
diseases and injuries. The institute would like to expand its 
facilities to better serve patients in Ohio and the region. I look 
forward to discussing Kettering's neuroscience expansion with my 
colleagues.
  In closing, I would like to again commend Chairman Lewis, his staff, 
my colleagues on the subcommittee and our Senate counterparts. We have 
produced a good bill and have

[[Page H10957]]

received every indication that it will be signed by the President.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me rise to heap praise on both Jerry 
Lewis and Lou Stokes for the great job they, their committee and their 
staffs do on this vital piece of legislation and to submit for the 
Record a letter from Jess Brown asking us, as Secretary of the Veterans 
Affairs, to process this legislation and get it to the President so 
that they can implement much of the legislation by October 1.
  Let me also thank you for $13 million for a new veterans cemetery in 
my home State of New York, in Saratoga. But most of all let me thank 
you for the Solomon-Bradley language included in the VA appropriation 
bill which requires insurers to permit a minimum hospital stay of 48 
hours. Shorter stays will be permitted as long as the health provider 
in consultation with the mother decide that it is best. I am pleased to 
say it leaves these important decisions in the hands of the doctors.
  Ladies and gentlemen, I just have to point out a serious problem when 
this legislation was adopted. It was really driven home to me when I 
heard from a gentleman from northern New York in my district. His 19-
year-old daughter is a victim of the terrible practice of drive-through 
deliveries. She delivered a baby on April 6 and was released from the 
hospital less than 24 hours later. Several days later her right lung 
exploded and she had 3 strokes. Tragically she is still in the hospital 
and will never again have a normal life, but more tragic than that, she 
will never be able to take care of that new, young, infant child of 
hers. I am just so happy that Jerry Lewis, Lou Stokes, and the rest saw 
fit to keep this language in the bill. It is vital, it is so important, 
and I thank you from the bottom of my heart.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the VA-HUD 
appropriations bill for 1997. This bill provides increased funding to 
clean up the environment and insures health care coverage for mental 
health and for 48-hour hospital stays after a woman has given birth.
  This is critical legislation. This speaks to the needs of working 
families today. These are the issues that people are truly concerned 
about in their lives. I went to the local hospitals, I talked to the 
nurses and the women who give birth, and how if they are there only 24 
hours you cannot detect jaundice, you cannot detect other illnesses 
that they might come down with, or that a baby can. This means so much 
to women's health.
  I want to commend Chairman Lewis and the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 
Stokes, the ranking member, for this opportunity.
  I also am particularly gratified by the spirit of the legislation 
that I introduced in a prior Congress on mental health parity that has 
been incorporated into this bill, ending the practice of discrimination 
against those who suffer from mental illness and their families. This 
legislation makes a difference in people's lives. That is why we are 
here to serve.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Hinchey].
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference 
agreement, but in doing so I just want to take a moment to draw the 
body's attention to a growing problem within the Veterans 
Administration. Funding for Veterans Administration health care 
programs is not keeping pace with the need. The VA is faced with some 
very difficult problems. As a result, they have been triaging veterans 
in New York and New England and across the northern part of the country 
to send what little funds they have for veterans health care to the 
South.
  New York veterans hospitals are suffering as a result of this. Budget 
cuts are forcing reductions in personnel and reductions in the quality 
of health care. New York State has 1.5 million veterans, the fourth 
largest veteran population in the country. We are going to have to 
address this issue in the future, and I hope to be able to work with 
the committee in developing a budget next year which will adequately 
address the health care needs of our veterans, particularly those in 
New York, New England and elsewhere across the northern part of the 
country.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  Mr. BENTSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3666, the fiscal year 1997 VA-
HUD Appropriations Conference Report. This bill funds vital programs 
and activities of the Department of Veterans' Affairs [VA], the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD], and independent 
agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
[NASA], Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], National Science 
Foundation [NSF], and Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA].
  I am especially pleased that the conference agreement provides the 
full $2.1 billion requested for continued development of the 
International Space Station. While I would have preferred that NASA's 
overall budget be funded at the requested level of $13.8 billion, the 
bill's appropriation of $13.7 billion for NASA nevertheless represents 
an increase of $100 million over the House passed version. The Space 
Shuttle program is fully funded at $2.3 billion, as are U.S. 
cooperative activities with Russia at $138 million. Additionally, the 
conferees restored more than $220 million that the House cut in the 
Mission to Planet Earth program to study our environment.
  This bill demonstrates Congress' continued strong support for the 
Space Station. This year, there was only one vote on the Space Station, 
and continued funding was approved by the overwhelmingly margin of 287 
to 127. This follows votes of 299 to 126 and 287 to 132 last year. 
Clearly, there continues to be very strong, bipartisan support for the 
Space Station even as we make the very difficult decisions needed to 
balance the federal budget.
  While I support the conference report, I am extremely disappointed 
that the Conference Committee decided to exclude my amendment 
prohibiting the EPA from implementing its rule allowing the importation 
of polychlorinated biphenyls [PCB's] for incineration. On June 26, 
1996, I successfully offered an amendment on the floor of the House 
prohibiting the EPA from allowing the importation of PCB's for 
incineration in the United States. PCB's are a dangerous class of 
chemicals that can cause serious health problems, including cancer, 
reproductive damage, and birth defects. Earlier this year, the EPA 
issued a ruling allowing the importation of PCB's, reversing a ban in 
place since 1980. I strongly opposed this ruling because I believe 
importing PCB's is unnecessary and threatens our health and safety.
  Although the Conference Committee did not accept my amendment in its 
Report, I will continue to work with the EPA to expand the Community 
Right-to-Know law and the Toxic Release Inventory to cover the 
importation of PCB's for incineration. My constituents and citizens 
around the United State that live with PCB incinerators in their 
neighborhoods have a right to know what kind and what levels of toxic 
emissions are in their air and water. If these efforts are not 
successful, I will ask the House and Senate to revisit this issue in 
the next Congress.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Stokes] very much for his hard work in working with the chairman of the 
committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support and note some of the important aspects 
of this legislation and to note in particular the overall increase of 3 
percent in funding beyond the appropriated fiscal year 1996. I 
particularly want to note and say that I am pleased that the conference 
report funds the NASA space station. Although it appropriates $100 
million less than requested for NASA overall, considering the current 
tumultuous budget and political climate, I

[[Page H10958]]

consider this a victory for those who believe NASA, science and 
technology are important to our Nation and its future.
  I would hope that we would move forward for additional research 
dollars and certainly continue support, particularly as we have noted 
the important work of Shannon Lucid, now returning to Earth with a 
world of history and information in her 6-month stay in space.
  I am also gratified the conference report provides funding to 
AmeriCorps national service program at the current level. The 
conference report also provides significantly more funding for FEMA 
disaster relief, 18 percent more than the House bill; housing for 
persons with AIDS, 15 percent more than the House bill; and VA 
readjustment benefits, 12 percent more than the House bill.
  We were also able to restore, or put in State safe drinking water 
revolving funds that were lost when Congress missed the August 1 
deadline to enact the Safe Drinking Water Act and provide water 
improvement grants for United States/Mexico border wastewater projects.
  I support the provisions of the conference report which would require 
that health insurance companies allow new mothers and their babies to 
spend a minimum stay of 48 hours in the hospital after delivery. This 
policy will insure that the mother and child receive the care that they 
need. I have supported this legislation over the past couple of months.
  I also applaud the health provisions that require insurance companies 
to provide annual and lifetime limits on coverage for mental illness 
equal to those for physical illness.
  If there is anything more that was raised by my constituents, it was 
the concern for balance.
  May I also add that I support the provision for the spina bifida 
dollars that were provided for those children of parents who were 
exposed to Agent Orange.
  Let me comment now in particular about the money spent for subsidized 
housing. This appropriations bill provides $1 billion for a new 
subsidized housing development account which provides for the elderly 
and also for those in disabled housing.
  Let me also note that $550 million was installed for public housing. 
I also want to thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and the hard 
work of the committee that added that even though these moneys are for 
demolition, that we must also be concerned with the need for public 
housing for the homeless and those who need low-income housing, so that 
the HUD will be required to assess the homeless populations before 
these demolitions will be allowed and to be assured that we will 
provide housing for the homeless and housing for people who need it. I 
hope that we will support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3666 the VA-HUD Appropriations 
Act of 1997's conference report. I would like to commend and thank the 
House and Senate conferees who worked hard to address the concerns 
expressed by me and other Members. The bill provides an overall 
increase of 3 percent in funding beyond the amount appropriated for 
fiscal year 1996.
  Mr. Speaker, it would be an understatement for me to say that I am 
pleased that this conference report funds the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration near the President's request. Although it 
appropriates $100 million less than requested for NASA overall, 
considering the current tumultuous budget and political environment, I 
consider this a victory for those who believe NASA, science and 
technology are important to our nation and its future.
  This conference report provides funding to AmeriCorps national 
service program at the current level. The conference report also 
provides significantly more funding for FEMA disaster relief--18 
percent more than the House bill--housing for persons with AIDS--15 
percent more than the House bill--and VA readjustment benefits--12 
percent more thank the House bill.
  This measure also restores funding for State safe drinking water 
revolving funds that were lost when Congress missed the August 1st 
deadline to enact the Safe Drinking Water Act and provides water 
improvement grants for United States/Mexico border waste water 
projects.
  I strongly support the provisions of the conference report which 
would require that health insurance companies allow new mothers and 
their babies to spend a minimum stay of 48 hours in the hospital after 
delivery. This policy will insure that mother and child receive the 
care that they may need.
  I also applaud the health provisions that will require insurance 
companies to provide annual and lifetime limits on coverage for mental 
illnesses equal to those for physical illnesses. This conference also 
requires the VA to provide benefits to children with spina bifida whose 
parents were exposed to agent orange during the Vietnam War.
  This conference report provides $19.5 billion in fiscal year 1997 for 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] which is 2 
percent less than the amount provided in the House bill.
  The agreement provides a total of $196 million in FY 1997, which 
includes $25 million from certain recaptured Section 8 funds, for 
Housing Opportunities for Person with AIDS program. This is a 15 
percent increase over fiscal year 1996 and the level requested by the 
President.
  The conference report also provides $1 billion for a new Subsidized 
Housing Development acccount, which would provide $645 million for the 
Section 202 Elderly Housing program, and $194 million for the section 
811 Disabled Housing program.
  Like the House bill, the conference report appropriates $550 million 
for public housing authorities to demolish obsolete public housing 
projects and relocate tenants under the severely distressed public 
housing program which is 15 percent more than fiscal year 1996. 
However, it is important to realize that with the rush to demolition we 
must be cautious as to not eliminate sorely related housing for the 
poor.
  Therefore, in connection with Public Housing, I am pleased that the 
conferees included report language that I proposed that encourages HUD 
and Public Housing Authorities to consider the shortages of affordable 
housing for low-income families, the size of the waiting list for pubic 
housing, as well as the size of the local homeless populations when 
assessing public housing demolition or dispossession applications.
  It is my hope that this addition to the conference version of H.R. 
3666 will help to balance to need for affordable housing for our 
nation's working poor with the reality of supply.
  With the passage of this legislation this body should not consider 
its work done. We can still work to address areas of concern that 
improve the quality of life for all Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], the ranking member of the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support for H.R. 3666, the 
conference report making appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for VA, 
HUD and independent agencies, although I continue to be deeply troubled 
by the severe budgetary limitations on domestic discretionary spending 
particularly for the most vulnerable and working families, funding for 
housing and community development programs in H.R. 3666 do not face any 
deeper cuts than they faced last year, nor does funding for the 
environment, veterans and NASA. And the extreme position of the House 
was overridden with respect to the AmeriCorps.
  Thankfully, the circumstances surrounding consideration of this 
conference report today are vastly different from those last year. 
There are no noxious legislative riders. Instead, the conferees 
included authorizing provisions, both non-germane and germane, that I 
strongly support. The mental health parity provisions, the spina bifida 
provisions, and the 48 hour hospital stay for new mothers are important 
and humane health policy reforms.
  The public housing and section 8 policy reform provisions are the 
very provisions that the authorizing committees are unable to bring to 
the House floor. We are hopelessly deadlocked on a very important 
public housing reform bill because the House majority refuses to 
compromise on many of its extreme provisions. This appropriations 
conference report includes the provisions on which we all agree.
  I also want to commend the conferees for coming to an agreement on 
the very complicated issue of section 8 portfolio restructuring. After 
consulting widely with the majority and the minority on the authorizing 
committees and with the housing industry, the conferees have included a 
demonstration program that balances all the disparate interests of the 
tenants, owners, communities, and the Federal Government. I am 
confident that this demonstration program for 1997 will serve as the 
basis for a permanent program

[[Page H10959]]

which will preserve as much affordable housing as possible, reduce the 
costs to the Federal Government, reasonably protect the financial 
investments of the owners, and protect the tenants from unnecessary 
displacement.
  That having been said there remain two glaring deficiencies in this 
conference report. For the second year in a row there is absolutely no 
new money for incremental section 8 housing assistance even in the face 
of continued evidence that greater numbers of very low income families 
and the working poor are finding it ever more difficult to find 
affordable housing. The report also fails to provide sufficient funding 
for the preservation program and makes it more difficult for projects, 
particularly in high cost areas, to qualify for federal assistance for 
preservation.
  On balance, however, this conference report is about as good as we 
can get under our severe and unnecessary budget constraints and I urge 
my colleagues to support H.R. 3666.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio], a member of the full committee.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis], the chairman, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Stokes], for the outstanding work they have done on this bill which I 
of course support.
  I heard earlier a brief colloquy between my colleague Mr. Riggs from 
California and Mr. Lewis about the degree to which we were freeing up 
funds for the Travis Hospital in Fairfield, CA, the veterans facility. 
My reading of the report indicates to me that we have essentially moved 
1 year and 3 months out into the future the decision date.

                              {time}  2015

  Unless Congress is to take action in the interim, perhaps through a 
supplemental next year or through some other vehicle, maybe the 
authorizing committee would move, we in effect have put on hold the 
ultimate decision about going to construction, in hopes that some 
future resolution of this issue could be helpful to us in clarifying 
the intent of Congress and the administration.
  I would like to ask my friend from California, is it his 
understanding that if no action is taken by any legislative body, by 
the Congress in general, that ultimately 1 year and 3 months from now 
the funding will be made available for this hospital, is that correct?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, as I responded earlier to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] who has been so diligent in 
working on this matter, the VA holds this as a very high priority. I 
frankly expect to see them expedite the process. They will probably be 
asking to use all the money available, maybe as much as $50 million. We 
intend to be responsive.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, if the VA 
says they are for this, the Congress would have to act to confirm that 
in some supplemental appropriations bill, would they not, in order to 
put the imprimatur if Congress on the decision?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. The Veterans Administration has a lot of 
money in the pipeline regarding this whole process.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. There is $57 million.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. As the gentleman knows, we appropriated $25 
million the previous Congress. There is authorization for that. They 
can do planning, use that for planning. I do not think they will be 
late at all. I would be very surprised if they would be delayed at all. 
On the other hand, I will be happy to work with the gentleman to make 
sure the VA is responsive.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. My concern is not so much with the 
Department of Veterans Affairs as it is with the Congress. Do we have 
to take action within the next year and 3 months in order to bring 
about the immediate appropriation of that fund, and if we do not, at 
the end of that year and 3 months, would it automatically be spent out, 
in effect, if no action is taken by the Congress?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. It is my judgment that they will be able to 
go forward with no action by the Congress within the next year, but I 
have every indication from the committee that they do intend to act. 
Frankly, I think we are on a fast track.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Does the gentleman mean the authorizing 
committees?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. The authorizing committees. I have talked to 
the members in the House, and they seem to be enthusiastic about moving 
quickly and making the decisions.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. The gentleman is hopeful they are positive 
and optimistic about moving forward on this, and not negative, is that 
his impression?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I would expect if they cannot move an 
authorization bill, they will probably let us do it somewhere else.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to first recognize the many 
excellent provisions of this legislation dealing with a whole range of 
subjects, from the needs of our veterans, to health care concerns for 
mothers who are hospitalized and wish to have an adequate period of 
time to care for their young and recover from the delivery, but I would 
also like to express my bitter disappointment that there are special 
pork barrel projects that have been added back into this bill in 
conference that we had struck from this bill on the House floor.
  There is one in particular I would like to call to the attention of 
the Members of this body. We had deleted a $13 million earmark for the 
Museum of Natural History in New York, which was dubbed ``Jurassic 
Pork.'' It now comes back with $8 million. The Senate had no such 
provision in its bill.
  What has happened? We have made the decision on the House side, the 
Senate has not addressed the issue at all, and the appropriation 
reappears. This is persuasive evidence of the need for the line item 
veto.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I think this is the type of a bill 
that any Member of the House would be proud to associate his or her 
name with. It is the type of bill that, after working all year, the 
many hours spent on hearings, the hours spent in conference, we can 
come back to the House and be able to say to our colleagues that this 
is a good bill.
  It is a good bill because it is a bipartisan bill. It is one that on 
both sides of the aisle we have worked together to try and produce a 
bill that all of us in the House can feel proud of and all of us can 
come to the floor and vote for.
  Once again, I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis], for the pleasure of working with him to produce 
this excellent bill. I look forward to voting for it and I look forward 
to our continued, close working relationship together, to produce the 
kinds of legislation we produced today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to compliment the members of the 
subcommittee for the work they have done.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member rises, as vice chairman of the relevant 
authorizing subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Housing and Community 
Opportunity, to support the conference report and to express his thanks 
to the conferees who worked diligently in bringing this conference 
report before us today.
  This Member is particularly pleased that the conferees approved the 
$3 million in funding for the Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program at 
HUD. This very modest sum will guarantee the private financing of 
nearly $37 million in housing loans for Indian families. Mr. Speaker, 
there is a severe lack of decent, affordable housing in Indian country, 
due in large part to the lack of private financing in Indian country. 
This program provides a substantial means of bringing much needed 
private financing to Indian country. The very limited Federal funding 
for this new housing initiative is money well spent; therefore, this 
Member commends the conferees for including it in this measure.

  Mr. Speaker, this Member is also pleased that the conferees allocate 
$645 million for

[[Page H10960]]

section 202 elderly housing and $194 million for section 811 disabled 
housing in the newly established development of additional new 
subsidized housing account.
  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to thank the 
conferees for including three reforms to the Federal Housing 
Administration's single family mortgage insurance program. These 
reforms will reduce regulatory red tape by allowing lenders who are 
authorized to underwrite loans under this program to also issue the 
mortgage insurance certificate, allow parents to lend money to their 
children for downpayment rather than being required to give the money 
as an outright gift, and reduce the up-front mortgage insurance 
premium.
  Finally, this Member is eager to see the effectiveness of the 
demonstration program authorized in Hawaii and Alaska under the 
conference report which streamlines the downpayment calculation. Should 
this program prove effective, as this Member is confident it will, 
Congress should expand it to the rest of the Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member again thanks the conferees and urges his 
colleagues to vote aye on the conference report.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Speaker, in responding to my colleague's closing remarks, I would 
say one more time, it was a great pleasure to work throughout this year 
with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] as well as our colleagues on 
the subcommittee to produce this conference report, but especially our 
friendship makes it all the better. I look forward to working with the 
gentleman in the years ahead.
  I am also happy to announce that earlier this evening this conference 
report was deemed passed upon receipt from the House by the other body, 
thus assuring a swift movement of the bill to the President. We are 
highly confident it will receive his signature within the next several 
days.
  Mr. Speaker, as I have said, I am very proud of the work of this 
subcommittee, not only as reflected in the conference report before us, 
but throughout the 104th Congress. When we total up that effort, 
including the rescission bill of 1995, the appropriations product of 
last session and the bill before us tonight, this subcommittee has 
reduced spending a grand total of some $18 billion. That is almost $20 
billion in reduced levels of spending that significantly impact the 
rate of growth of Government.
  That, Mr. Speaker, gives us reason to be proud, for we have proven 
that the pathway to a balanced budget does not, I repeat, does not, 
mean the undermining of important people programs along the road.
  As we have reduced spending wish-lists some $20 billion, we have 
still very adequately funded programs for America's veterans; we have 
begun to make sense out of the Federal housing programs, while funding 
housing for aged and disabled above the President's request; we have 
supported efforts in space, giving priority to scientific research; and 
been very generous with the Environmental Protection Agency.
  At the same time, we have made by far the largest commitment to a 
balanced budget by reducing discretionary spending throughout the last 
year and a half.
  This committee has reduced spending more than any other committee in 
the House. I congratulate my committee member, and I urge my colleagues 
to vote for this conference report as we continue together down the 
roadway to a balanced budget by the year 2002.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
conference report on H.R. 3666, the VA-HUD-independent agencies 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997.
  The conference report under consideration today is proof positive 
that Congress can deliver for the American people if it works from the 
sensible center. Subcommittee Chairman Jerry Lewis and ranking member 
Lewis Stokes should be commended for drafting a bill that is free of 
controversial riders and draconian spending cuts. Rather, this 
conference report moves us toward a balanced budget while continuing to 
invest in many key veterans, housing, space, and environmental 
programs.
  As the representative of the aerospace center of the universe, I am 
especially pleased that the conferees provided $100 million more for 
NASA than the original House-passed measure. Investments in NASA and 
our Nation's space program are investments in our future. The recent 
discovery of possible ancient Martian life and Astronaut Shannon 
Lucid's record-setting stay in space have put NASA on the front pages 
of newspapers across the world. Such news reminds the public of the 
great challenges space exploration continues to pose to our nation. We 
in Congress must do our part by keeping NASA robust.
  Today's legislation fully funds several key NASA programs critical to 
our space program and to my South Bay district. The Mission to Planet 
Earth, a target of many for extreme budget cuts, will help us 
understand global climate change issues from space. The international 
space station will serve as our stepping stone to future space 
exploration. The advanced x-ray astrophysics facility telescope [AXAF] 
will soon be our Nation's next great observatory. The tracking and data 
relay satellites [TDRS] will provide NASA with crucial communication 
links to its astronauts, spacecraft and instruments. And, the X-33 
Reusable Launch Vehicle Program will help us develop cheap and reliable 
access to space.
  Mr. Speaker, a robust NASA will pay immediate dividends by keeping 
our aerospace industrial base vibrant. By turning our children on to 
science, space, and technology, investments in NASA will pay off in the 
future as we nurture the next generation of rocket scientists. I urge 
my colleagues to support this conference report and to stand up for our 
Nation's space program.
  Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in regard to the VA-HUD 
appropriations bill and language in the conference report which may be 
construed to affect EPA's new Estrogenic Substances Screening Program.
  As one of the principal authors of the Estrogenic Substances 
Screening Program in the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 and the 
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, I would like to convey the 
bipartisan understanding we had in the Health and Environment 
Subcommittee of how this provision will be implemented by the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  The Estrogenic Substances Screening Program enhances the 
Environmental Protection Agency's authority to fully develop 
information on the endocrine disrupting effects of certain substances. 
The program will be an important tool to protect the public against 
endocrine disrupting substances.
  The principal goal of the screening program is to determine which 
substances have endocrine effects. The screening program will determine 
whether certain substances have an effect in humans similar to an 
effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen--that is--whether 
certain substances are endocrine disruptors.
  The screening program must be developed not later than 2 years after 
enactment or August 2, 1998. The program must be implemented by August 
2, 1999. These dates are nondiscretionary.
  The conference report of the VA-HUD appropriations bill contains 
language which could be read to delay this program until the National 
Academy of Sciences conducts yet another massive study to perform 
comprehensive and redundant research. Obviously, this report language 
has no authority to delay a statutory deadline.
  However, it is worth noting that the Commerce Committee had 
contemplated the release of a new National Academy of Sciences' report 
on this issue which is due out early next year. The Commerce Committee 
agreed to a 2-year timeline for development of the program so that this 
NAS study could be considered if it is released on schedule. It is my 
expectation that EPA will fully consider this report as well as any 
other relevant information in developing and implementing the screening 
program.
  Consideration of available scientific information is crucial given 
the important policy decisions which will be made on the basis of the 
screening program's test results. As the House Commerce Committee 
report states, ``The bill mandates EPA action `as is necessary to 
ensure the protection of public health' if the screening program finds 
a substance to have an endocrine effect on humans.''--Food Quality 
Protection Act of 1996, House Commerce Committee Report [Rept. 104-669 
part 2 at p. 55].
  In sum, the bipartisan agreement, enacted into law, is clear. The EPA 
has explicit statutory deadlines to meet. While conferees to the VA-HUD 
appropriations bill understandably wish to ensure a comprehensive study 
of the endocrine disruption issue is conducted, the conference report 
language does not and should not be construed to delay EPA's 
implementation of this important program.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the fiscal year 1997 
VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations conference report, and 
to thank my friend and colleague, Chairman Jerry Lewis, for all his 
good work on this bill. Under the leadership of Chairman Lewis and the 
members who serve on the Committee on Appropriations, we have been able 
to save the taxpayers over $6 billion while providing better service to 
all Americans.

[[Page H10961]]

  This bill saves the taxpayer money while matching or exceeding the 
President's budget request on several issues important to the citizens 
of this Nation. For example, this conference report increases medical 
care for our veterans by $449 million over the fiscal year 1996 level. 
Housing for the elderly has been increased by $70 million above the 
President's request. In addition, this conference report protects the 
environment by providing $140 million more than the fiscal year 1996 
bill for the Environmental Protection Agency and by fully funding the 
Superfund program. Finally, this bill keeps America looking forward by 
providing full funding for the space shuttle program and the 
international space station.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to talk about a program 
that has the potential of saving the taxpayer a great deal of money. As 
we are all aware, natural disasters have cost taxpayers well over $50 
billion during the last 6 years. As the costs of responding to these 
disasters has increased, many insurance companies have determined that 
they can no longer afford to extend insurance to certain homeowners. 
Although hurricanes have caused severe damages this year, we are 
fortunate to have avoided the major devastation that a hurricane or 
earthquake can cause when it hits a major metropolitan area.
  Language contained in the House report and approved by the conference 
committee urges the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] to 
consider technology being developed at the Institute for Simulation and 
Technology [IST] at the University of Central Florida. IST recently 
completed a demonstration project of an emergency management simulation 
used to drive realistic and interactive hurricane response exercises at 
the county level. Mr. Speaker, this technology could easily be adapted 
to simulate a broader range of disaster types and allow the interaction 
of multiple levels of government agencies and private relief 
organizations.
  One of the lessons I learned from my involvement with H.R. 1856, the 
Natural Disaster Partnership Protection Act, is that once a mutual 
disaster occurs improved disaster planning and a timely response saves 
the taxpayer a great deal of money. This occurs because a well planned 
and coordinated post-disaster response will minimize additional losses 
and prevent resources from being squandered. For example, in the case 
of a hurricane, the rains following the storm usually cause significant 
additional damage to properties already ravaged by the winds. The 
technology being developed at IST will help to ensure that in the 
future FEMA will have the ability to coordinate even more efficient 
responses to natural disasters.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to tell you and my fellow colleagues about 
an exciting new project being developed by Florida Hospital. A new city 
known as Celebration is being established on the outskirts of Orlando, 
and Florida Hospital, a nonprofit hospital, has undertaken the 
development and management of a model community health care system 
called celebration health. Several corporations, including General 
Electric and Johnson & Johnson, have designated Celebration Health to 
showcase their most advanced technologies, attracting interest from 
national and international visitors.
  The programs and facilities being developed by Celebration Health are 
designed to promote wellness by active personal management of health 
care, as well as to provide state-of-the-art treatment of patients 
through improved systems that allow them to have more involvement in 
their treatment. Celebration Health's objective is to demonstrate how 
to provide communities with the best affordable health care service, 
and in so doing make the town of Celebration the healthiest community 
in America.
  In addition to these programs, there are plans to include a center 
for health innovations which will serve as a living laboratory for 
testing and evaluating the best methods for providing community based 
health care services. This center will provide the opportunity for 
health care providers to perform demonstrations and tests of new 
medical techologies, treatments and procedures, while documenting 
measurable outcomes. At the outset, the center for health innovations 
plans to concentrate on the areas of health information technology, 
medical problems associated with the elderly, heart disease, and 
cancer.

  Of particular note is the access to information that will be 
available to patients and health care providers. For example, homes 
will have state-of-the-art capabilities that will permit residents 
access to on-line information developed by Celebration Health. With the 
development of a comprehensive computer information network, patients 
and professionals can access clinical data, personal medical records, 
diagnostic and treatment processes that will provide quick and 
efficient use of resources from home, hospital, outpatient clinic or 
home health agency.
  Overall, Celebration Health will include an outpatient clinic, a 
health activities center, primary care facilities, medical support 
services and will be linked to area medical centers. Celebration Health 
will be a showcase for model health care delivery, operating from a 
technically advanced health care facility and providing state of the 
art medical care.
  I urge the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] to 
follow the recommendation of the Appropriations Committee in the 
conference report to H.R. 3666, the fiscal year 1997 VA, HUD, and 
independent agencies appropriations bill. Specifically, the committee 
urged HUD to support activities sponsored or administered by non-profit 
community-based entities. Celebration Health fits this requirement and 
I would be happy to assist the Department in supporting this important 
endeavor.
  My colleagues, again I would like to commend Chairman Lewis and the 
members on the Committee on Appropriations for their hard work on the 
VA, HUD, and independent agencies conference report. Their hard work on 
cutting spending while protecting the American people from unfair cuts 
is evident in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this bill and 
urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Lewis for 
his hard work on this bill and the close cooperation he has afforded me 
and my committee, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 
during the 104th Congress. This conference report is good for our 
country. H.R. 3666, the VA, HUD, and independent agencies 
appropriations bill uses a commonsense approach to strengthen programs 
which protect our environment, support our veterans, and which help 
build environmental infrastructure for rural America.
  In particular, I would like to clarify the intent of one provision 
related to my congressional district in Pennsylvania. On page 74 of the 
printed conference report 104-812, which accompanies H.R. 3666, the 
conference report directs EPA to make grants for $1,150,000 for waste 
water improvement needs in Franklin, Huntingdon, and Clearfield 
Counties, PA.
  The following list should serve as a guide to the intent of this 
provision: $400,000 for wastewater needs of Metal Township in Franklin 
County, PA. $400,000 for wastewater needs of Mt. Union, PA in 
Huntingdon County, $186,000 for wastewater needs of Huston Township, PA 
in Clearfield County and $164,000 for Osceola Mills, PA in Clearfield 
County. This list equals the amount included in the report wastewater 
needs in these three countries and should stand to clarify any 
misunderstanding that might result from this provision. I thank 
Chairman Lewis for this opportunity to clarify the intent of this 
provision and appreciate his hard work on this bill.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the mental health 
provisions in this conference report.
  Earlier this year, I offered an amendment to the health insurance 
reform bill which would have assured that patients with mental illness 
could not be discriminated against. It is long past time that this 
House be given the opportunity to vote on this important issue.
  Mental illnesses are just as serious of a medical condition as heart 
disease or cancer, yet insurers have for years not offered complete 
coverages for the treatment of mental illness.
  Nearly one out of four of all adults suffer from some type of severe 
mental illness in the United States each year, yet 95 percent of the 
major insurance companies in America have limited coverage of 
psychiatric care.
  Of the adults in America suffering from mental health problems, less 
than half are receiving care for their mental illnesses.
  It is time to eliminate discrimination against mental illness and I 
applaud this conference report for taking an important first step 
toward doing that.
  I would urge my colleagues to support this conference report and the 
important mental health parity provisions it contains.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise with mixed feelings about this 
conference report.
  I am concerned about both the integrity of our legislative process 
and the narrowness of our mental health care debate. Earlier this year, 
I supported the House-passed version of the fiscal year 1997 VA/HUD 
appropriations measure. Since then the Senate has incorporated into 
this funding package three new health care mandates--in fact, it may be 
more appropriate to now refer to the bill before us as the VA/HUD/HHS 
appropriation bill. These three new public health provisions are not 
small and technical in nature, but rather significant changes that will 
affect the delivery of health care for hundreds of thousands of 
Americans.
  To my knowledge, none of these new health care provisions have been 
reported out by any of the House committees of jurisdiction, nor 
reached the floor for a vote. I trust this leap frogging of our 
established legislative process, with the significant public policy 
implications it entails, is not a practice this body should encourage.
  My second concern is that by passing the fiscal year 1997 VA/HUD 
conference report,

[[Page H10962]]

this Congress will take an important, but incomplete step toward a more 
equitable relationship between mental and medical health benefits.
  Like the initial Senate-passed mental health parity provision in the 
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the provision 
before us again ignores all substance abuse--alcohol and drug--
treatment services, which are clearly badly needed to help combat our 
Nation's No. 1 public health care problem. Silence and inaction are not 
golden.
  I speak from first-hand personal experience about the benefits that 
alcohol treatment can bring to millions of Americans and their 
families. Today, alcohol and other drug addictions affect 10 percent of 
American adults and 3 percent of our youth. Untreated addictions last 
year alone cost our country nearly $167 billion.
  For alcoholism alone, the public is paying $86 billion a year in 
direct and indirect costs attributed to the disease. Untreated 
alcoholics incur health care costs at least double that of 
nonalcoholics. Yet, most of our Nation's medical schools do not even 
require future health care professionals to study the disease of 
alcoholism.
  When will Congress stop ignoring the disease of alcoholism?
  As a recovering alcoholic, I know many Members of Congress need to be 
educated on this rampant public health problem. Only then will we be in 
a position to change our Nation's response to this costly, fatal 
disease.
  To help begin our national education on alcoholism, I have introduced 
H.R. 3600, legislation to establish the Harold Hughes Commission on 
Alcoholism.
  By establishing this 13-member volunteer commission for 2 years, this 
Congress can set into motion a commission with the task of studying 
methods to better coordinate existing Government programs responsive to 
alcohol abuse, increase public and private sector cooperation, step up 
the education of health care professionals on the disease of 
alcoholism, heighten research on alcoholism, and evaluate the cost 
effectiveness of treatment methods and services.

  In the remaining days of this Congress, I strongly urge my colleagues 
to help begin our national awakening and education on the disease of 
alcoholism with the enactment of H.R. 3600.
  I also challenge the 105th Congress to continue the important 
national dialogue begun this year to respond to our Nation's escalating 
alcohol and drug problem. We must review the importance of providing 
the same kind of parity we have before us today on substance abuse 
benefits. By working in a pragmatic, bipartisan fashion on parity and 
other important alcohol issues and drug concerns, we can achieve the 
balance between affordable health care insurance coverage, treatment 
and equity.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased that the House 
conferees followed the Democratic motion to instruct the conferees to 
retain the Senate provisions regarding mental health insurance coverage 
and coverage for appropriate hospital stays for mothers and newborn 
infants. it is a single moment of enlightenment in this otherwise 
dismal Congress--a moment when we can say honestly we have put the 
needs of average American people ahead of the concerns of big insurance 
companies.
  Equitable treatment of individuals with mental illness has been a 
long time coming, and these provisions--though they are not all that 
anyone could have wanted--are a major step in the right direction in 
two important ways. First, we are opening a door to understanding 
mental illness. Mental illness is not shameful, but treatable. It is 
not something to be concealed, but something to be helped. And second, 
it tells insurers that they must be fair about the coverage they 
provide to their clients, treating all conditions equitably and 
providing appropriate coverage so that patients can be treated and can 
be restored to health, from a physical or a mental cause.
  The conference report also includes provisions that place in the 
hands of new mothers and their doctors the power to decide what kind of 
care these women need when they give birth to babies. Several months 
ago, I introduced the MOMS bill, which required health insurance 
coverage for at least 48 hours of hospital stay, or 96 hours for a 
Caesarean section, for new mothers and their babies. I am pleased that 
these requirements of my bill are included in the legislation before 
us.
  However, my legislation also recognized that some doctors and new 
mothers may choose a shorter hospital stay. Thus, my bill provided that 
a shorter hospital stay could be accompanied by covered services 
providing care and support for the mother and the baby after they leave 
the hospital. But, again, that after care would be on the terms and 
conditions decided by the doctor and the mother together. The MOMS bill 
did not bring the heavy hand of Federal regulation on this decision.
  Unfortunately, in negotiating this conference report, the Senate 
provisions relating to insurance coverage for after-hospital care of 
new mothers and babies were dropped. I understand the Senate provisions 
were considered too much Government interference. I regret that the 
conferees did not look at my legislation for guidance about this 
decision, because I think they would have found a happy solution.
  While this provision is not perfect, it is good for women and for 
babies. It means that the era of the so-called drive-through delivery 
will come to an end. And it means that this important health care 
decision--what kind of care a new mother and a new baby need--will be 
made where all health care decisions should be made, in discussions 
between doctors and their patients.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the conference report addresses the very real 
and pressing public health needs of more than 1.5 million people who 
live in Michigan's 16th Congressional District, as well as six other 
congressional districts in my home State. The Rouge River national wet 
weather demonstration project, a $1.4 billion effort to improve the 
condition of one of this Nation's most polluted rivers, will continue 
with $16 million in additional Federal commitments in fiscal year 1997. 
My colleague from Bloomfield Hills, Mr. Knollenberg, worked very hard 
in the Appropriations Committee to assure inclusion of these much-
needed funds, and as a result, dozens of communities in Metropolitan 
Detroit will gain from a cleaner and more usable Rouge River watershed.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the conference report.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
legislation. I am pleased that the bill provides the full amount 
requested by the President for NASA's human space flight programs. This 
will allow the functions at Kennedy Space Center, the launch site for 
all human space flight, to be fully funded at the budget requested by 
the President. This will ensure the safe operation of our Nation's 
space shuttle fleet.
  The overall NASA budget is $13.7 billion, just $100 million under the 
President's budget request. The $100 million reduction comes in the 
science, aeronautics, and technology account, and will have no adverse 
impact on the operations of our space shuttle fleet or Kennedy Space 
Center.
  This funding is important for the future of our Nation. We are the 
world's leader in space and we are moving forward with the next step in 
this leadership, the space station. We already have over 100,000 pounds 
of hardware ready for launch. This Congress has soundly rejected 
efforts to eliminate the space station.
  The VA/HUD/Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee 
recognizes clearly that 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. The committee recognized this and provide an amount nearly the 
President's budget request. Our children and grandchildren will thank 
you for supporting NASA and supporting their future.
  The bill also contains provisions that would allow NASA to offer 
buyouts to NASA employees. This is important as some additional 
downsizing may take place at NASA centers around the country. I was 
pleased to support the inclusion of this provision, which should make 
the transition easier for NASA employees.
  Finally, the bill includes language that urges the VA to move forward 
with the outpatient clinic in Brevard County, FL. For nearly a decade 
and one-half, veterans in this part of Florida have been promised a 
medical facility and after all these years have nothing to show for it 
but broken promises. That has changed, earlier this year the Congress 
passed and the President signed into law an authorization and 
appropriation of $25 million for the construction of an outpatient 
clinic in Brevard.
  In a letter to me dated July 17, 1996, Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
Jesse Brown committed to me and the veterans of Florida that he would 
award a design contract by the end of September. He has yet to do this, 
and the bill before us includes language directing the Secretary to 
move forward expeditiously with this clinic. I am pleased that the bill 
includes this direction and hopefully it will encourage the Secretary 
to act quickly. The money has been available for nearly 5 months, and 
it's past time to get moving.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
on H.R. 3666, the VA/HUD appropriation for 1997.
  In particular, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Health of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, I want to point out that two legislative 
provisions contained in the conference report amend Public Law 104-191, 
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which 
falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. The 
rule, which the House just passed, waives the necessary points of order 
allowing the conference

[[Page H10963]]

report to be considered with these legislative items.
  First, title VI of the conference report, titled ``Newborns' and 
Mothers' Health Protection Act of 1996,'' would introduce new rules 
which must be met by group health plans subject to the requirements of 
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. These 
rules would prevent group health plans from restricting certain 
benefits for hospital care in connection with childbirth.
  Second, title VII of the conference report, titled ``Parity in the 
Application of Certain Limits to Mental Health Benefits,'' would 
introduce new rules which also must be met by group health plans 
subject to the requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and 
Accountability Act of 1996. These rules establish certain requirements 
concerning application of lifetime or annual limits to mental health 
benefits, if mental health benefits are included in the group health 
plan.
  The conferees have noted in their report language that, in order for 
this provision to be fully implemented, the Internal Revenue Code must 
be appropriately amended. Such amendments would permit enforcement of 
these new requirements through the tax penalty structure that was 
recently enacted in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 
Act applicable to group health plans. In other words, we are adding new 
requirements to only the Public Health Service Act and ERISA--Employee 
Retirement and Income Security Act--portions of the underlying law 
without being able at this time, to make the necessary conforming 
requirements to the Internal Revenue Code due to procedural constraints 
on this appropriations bill. It is our intention on the Committee on 
Ways and Means to move the conforming tax provisions as soon as 
possible.
  It is also important to note that the maternal stay provision has 
been scored as having a negative income and payroll tax revenue effect 
of $112 million over the period 1997-2002. The mental health parity 
provision has a negative revenue effect of $431 million over the same 
period. These revenue losses are clearly a matter of concern and 
responsibility for the committee with jurisdiction over tax matters.
  The legislative language needed to accomplish full implementation of 
the maternal stay and mental health provisions in the framework of the 
underlying Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, is 
reflected in the text of H.R. 4135, introduced today by myself and Mr. 
Stark, the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Health. We 
are entering the text of H.R. 4135 in the Congressional Record to 
indicate the changes the Committee on Ways and Means intends to pursue.
  Finally, we have exchanged letters regarding these jurisdictional 
matters with the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and I 
understand that these letters will be placed in the Congressional 
Record.

                               H.R. 4135

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Newborns' and Mothers' 
     Health Protection and Mental Health Parity Implementation 
     Amendments of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986 TO 
                   IMPLEMENT THE NEWBORNS' AND MOTHERS' HEALTH 
                   PROTECTION ACT OF 1996 AND THE MENTAL HEALTH 
                   PARITY ACT OF 1996.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle K of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (as added by section 401(a) of the Health Insurance 
     Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) is amended--
       (1) by striking all that precedes section 9801 and 
     inserting the following:
              ``Subtitle K--Group Health Plan Requirements

``Chapter 100. Group health plan requirements.

             ``CHAPTER 100--GROUP HEALTH PLAN REQUIREMENTS

``Subchapter A. Requirements relating to portability, access, and 
              renewability.
``Subchapter B. Other requirements.
``Subchapter C. General provisions.

   ``Subchapter A--Requirements Relating to Portability, Access, and 
                              Renewability

``Sec. 9801. Increased portability through limitation on preexisting 
              condition exclusions.
``Sec. 9802. Prohibiting discrimination against individual participants 
              and beneficiaries based on health status.
``Sec. 9803. Guaranteed renewability in multiemployer plans and certain 
              multiple employer welfare arrangements.'',
       (2) by redesignating sections 9804, 9805, and 9806 as 
     sections 9831, 9832, and 9833, respectively,
       (3) by inserting before section 9831 (as so redesignated) 
     the following:

                   ``Subchapter C--General Provisions

``Sec. 9831. General exceptions.
``Sec. 9832. Definitions.
``Sec. 9833. Regulations.'', and
       (4) by inserting after section 9803 the following:

                   ``Subchapter B--Other Requirements

``Sec. 9811. Standards relating to benefits for mothers and newborns.
``Sec. 9812. Parity in the application of certain limits to mental 
              health benefits.

     ``SEC. 9811. STANDARDS RELATING TO BENEFITS FOR MOTHERS AND 
                   NEWBORNS.

       ``(a) Requirements for Minimum Hospital Stay Following 
     Birth.--
       ``(1) In general.--A group health plan may not--
       ``(A) except as provided in paragraph (2)--
       ``(i) restrict benefits for any hospital length of stay in 
     connection with childbirth for the mother or newborn child, 
     following a normal vaginal delivery, to less than 48 hours, 
     or
       ``(ii) restrict benefits for any hospital length of stay in 
     connection with childbirth for the mother or newborn child, 
     following a cesarean section, to less than 96 hours; or
       ``(B) require that a provider obtain authorization from the 
     plan or the issuer for prescribing any length of stay 
     required under subparagraph (A) (without regard to paragraph 
     (2)).
       ``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1)(A) shall not apply in 
     connection with any group health plan in any case in which 
     the decision to discharge the mother or her newborn child 
     prior to the expiration of the minimum length of stay 
     otherwise required under paragraph (1)(A) is made by an 
     attending provider in consultation with the mother.
       ``(b) Prohibitions.--A group health plan may not--
       ``(1) deny to the mother or her newborn child eligibility, 
     or continued eligibility, to enroll or to renew coverage 
     under the terms of the plan, solely for the purpose of 
     avoiding the requirements of this section;
       ``(2) provide monetary payments or rebates to mothers to 
     encourage such mothers to accept less than the minimum 
     protections available under this section;
       ``(3) penalize or otherwise reduce or limit the 
     reimbursement of an attending provider because such provider 
     provided care to an individual participant or beneficiary in 
     accordance with this section;
       ``(4) provide incentives (monetary or otherwise) to an 
     attending provider to induce such provider to provide care to 
     an individual participant or beneficiary in a manner 
     inconsistent with this section; or
       ``(5) subject to subsection (c)(3), restrict benefits for 
     any portion of a period within a hospital length of stay 
     required under subsection (a) in a manner which is less 
     favorable than the benefits provided for any preceding 
     portion of such stay.
       ``(c) Rules of Construction.--
       ``(1) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require 
     a mother who is a participant or beneficiary--
       ``(A) to give birth in a hospital; or
       ``(B) to stay in the hospital for a fixed period of time 
     following the birth of her child.
       ``(2) This section shall not apply with respect to any 
     group health plan which does not provide benefits for 
     hospital lengths of stay in connection with childbirth for a 
     mother or her newborn child.
       ``(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as 
     preventing a group health plan from imposing deductibles, 
     coinsurance, or other cost-sharing in relation to benefits 
     for hospital lengths of stay in connection with childbirth 
     for a mother or newborn child under the plan, except that 
     such coinsurance or other cost-sharing for any portion of a 
     period within a hospital length of stay required under 
     subsection (a) may not be greater than such coinsurance or 
     cost-sharing for any preceding portion of such stay.
       ``(d) Level and Type of Reimbursements.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to prevent a group health plan 
     from negotiating the level and type of reimbursement with a 
     provider for care provided in accordance with this section.
       ``(f) Preemption; Exception for Health Insurance Coverage 
     in Certain States.--The requirements of this section shall 
     not apply with respect to health insurance coverage if there 
     is a State law (including a decision, rule, regulation, or 
     other State action having the effect of law) for a State that 
     regulates such coverage that is described in any of the 
     following paragraphs:
       ``(1) Such State law requires such coverage to provide for 
     at least a 48-hour hospital length of stay following a normal 
     vaginal delivery and at least a 96-hour hospital length of 
     stay following a cesarean section.
       ``(2) Such State law requires such coverage to provide for 
     maternity and pediatric care in accordance with guidelines 
     established by the American College of Obstetricians and 
     Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, or other 
     established professional medical associations.
       ``(3) Such State law requires, in connection with such 
     coverage for maternity care, that the hospital length of stay 
     for such care is left to the decision of (or required to be 
     made by) the attending provider in consultation with the 
     mother.

     ``SEC. 9812. PARITY IN THE APPLICATION OF CERTAIN LIMITS TO 
                   MENTAL HEALTH BENEFITS.

       ``(a) In General.--

[[Page H10964]]

       ``(1) Aggregate lifetime limits.--In the case of a group 
     health plan that provides both medical and surgical benefits 
     and mental health benefits--
       ``(A) No lifetime limit.--If the plan does not include an 
     aggregate lifetime limit on substantially all medical and 
     surgical benefits, the plan may not impose any aggregate 
     lifetime limit on mental health benefits.
       ``(B) Lifetime limit.--If the plan includes an aggregate 
     lifetime limit on substantially all medical and surgical 
     benefits (in this paragraph referred to as the `applicable 
     lifetime limit'), the plan shall either--
       ``(i) apply the applicable lifetime limit both to the 
     medical and surgical benefits to which it otherwise would 
     apply and to mental health benefits and not distinguish in 
     the application of such limit between such medical and 
     surgical benefits and mental health benefits; or
       ``(ii) not include any aggregate lifetime limit on mental 
     health benefits that is less than the applicable lifetime 
     limit.
       ``(C) Rule in case of different limits.--In the case of a 
     plan that is not described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and 
     that includes no or different aggregate lifetime limits on 
     different categories of medical and surgical benefits, the 
     Secretary shall establish rules under which subparagraph (B) 
     is applied to such plan with respect to mental health 
     benefits by substituting for the applicable lifetime limit an 
     average aggregate lifetime limit that is computed taking into 
     account the weighted average of the aggregate lifetime limits 
     applicable to such categories.
       ``(2) Annual limits.--In the case of a group health plan 
     that provides both medical and surgical benefits and mental 
     health benefits--
       ``(A) No annual limit.--If the plan does not include an 
     annual limit on substantially all medical and surgical 
     benefits, the plan may not impose any annual limit on mental 
     health benefits.
       ``(B) Annual limit.--If the plan includes an annual limit 
     on substantially all medical and surgical benefits (in this 
     paragraph referred to as the `applicable annual limit'), the 
     plan shall either--
       ``(i) apply the applicable annual limit both to medical and 
     surgical benefits to which it otherwise would apply and to 
     mental health benefits and not distinguish in the application 
     of such limit between such medical and surgical benefits and 
     mental health benefits; or
       ``(ii) not include any annual limit on mental health 
     benefits that is less than the applicable annual limit.
       ``(C) Rule in case of different limits.--In the case of a 
     plan that is not described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and 
     that includes no or different annual limits on different 
     categories of medical and surgical benefits, the Secretary 
     shall establish rules under which subparagraph (B) is applied 
     to such plan with respect to mental health benefits by 
     substituting for the applicable annual limit an average 
     annual limit that is computed taking into account the 
     weighted average of the annual limits applicable to such 
     categories.
       ``(b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed--
       ``(1) as requiring a group health plan to provide any 
     mental health benefits; or
       ``(2) in the case of a group health plan that provides 
     mental health benefits, as affecting the terms and conditions 
     (including cost sharing, limits on numbers of visits or days 
     of coverage, and requirements relating to medical necessity) 
     relating to the amount, duration, or scope of mental health 
     benefits under the plan, except as specifically provided in 
     subsection (a) (in regard to parity in the imposition of 
     aggregate lifetime limits and annual limits for mental health 
     benefits).
       ``(c) Exemptions.--
       ``(1) Small employer exemption.--This section shall not 
     apply to any group health plan for any plan year of a small 
     employer (as defined in section 4980D(d)(2)).
       ``(2) Increased cost exemption.--This section shall not 
     apply with respect to a group health plan if the application 
     of this section to such plan results in an increase in the 
     cost under the plan of at least 1 percent.
       ``(d) Separate Application to Each Option Offered.--In the 
     case of a group health plan that offers a participant or 
     beneficiary two or more benefit package options under the 
     plan, the requirements of this section shall be applied 
     separately with respect to each such option.
       ``(e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) Aggregate lifetime limit.--The term `aggregate 
     lifetime limit' means, with respect to benefits under a group 
     health plan, a dollar limitation on the total amount that may 
     be paid with respect to such benefits under the plan with 
     respect to an individual or other coverage unit.
       ``(2) Annual limit.--The term `annual limit' means, with 
     respect to benefits under a group health plan, a dollar 
     limitation on the total amount of benefits that may be paid 
     with respect to such benefits in a 12-month period under the 
     plan with respect to an individual or other coverage unit.
       ``(3) Medical or surgical benefits.--The term `medical or 
     surgical benefits' means benefits with respect to medical or 
     surgical services, as defined under the terms of the plan, 
     but does not include mental health benefits.
       ``(4) Mental health benefits.--The term `mental health 
     benefits' means benefits with respect to mental health 
     services, as defined under the terms of the plan, but does 
     not include benefits with respect to treatment of substance 
     abuse or chemical dependency.
       ``(f) Sunset.--This section shall not apply to benefits for 
     services furnished on or after September 30, 2001.''
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Chapter 100 of such Code (as added by section 401 of 
     the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 
     1996 and as previously amended by this section) is further 
     amended--
       (A) in the last sentence of section 9801(c)(1), by striking 
     ``section 9805(c)'' and inserting ``section 9832(c)'';
       (B) in section 9831(b), by striking ``9805(c)(1)'' and 
     inserting ``9832(c)(1)'';
       (C) in section 9831(c)(1), by striking ``9805(c)(2)'' and 
     inserting ``9832(c)(2)'';
       (D) in section 9831(c)(2), by striking ``9805(c)(3)'' and 
     inserting ``9832(c)(3)''; and
       (E) in section 9831(c)(3), by striking ``9805(c)(4)'' and 
     inserting ``9832(c)(4)''.
       (2) Section 4980D of such Code (as added by section 402 of 
     the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 
     1996) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (c)(3)(B)(i)(I), by striking 
     ``9805(d)(3)'' and inserting ``9832(d)(3)'';
       (B) in subsection (d)(1), by inserting ``(other than a 
     failure attributable to section 9811)'' after ``on any 
     failure'';
       (C) in subsection (d)(3), by striking ``9805'' and 
     inserting ``9832'';
       (D) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ``9805(a)'' and 
     inserting ``9832(a)''.
       (3) The table of subtitles for such Code is amended by 
     striking the item relating to subtitle K (as added by section 
     401(b) of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 
     Act of 1996) and inserting the following new item:

``Subtitle K. Group health plan requirements.''
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to group health plans for plan years 
     beginning on or after January 1, 1998.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I commend my good friends, Congressman 
Stokes, and Congressman Jerry Lewis, ranking member and chairman 
respectively of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Housing and 
Urban Development, Veterans Administrations Subcommittee for all their 
hard work in producing the conference report on the fiscal year 1997 
VA-HUD appropriations bill.
  I want to take this opportunity to discuss one of the important 
programs that has been supported in the past by this subcommittee, the 
Economic Development Initiatives of the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. The EDI program is part of HUD's Community Development 
Block Grant Program. This program is assigned the important task of 
financing efforts that generate economic revitalization and link people 
to jobs and social services, goals which are critical to the 
communities which I represent in Harlem and Washington Heights.
  I hope that over the next year Congressmen Lewis and Stokes work with 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development to consider requests to 
fund grant proposals in the Economic Development Initiative Program. I 
also encourage the Department that if it does decide to fund such 
proposals, that it give strong consideration to an important project in 
my district, Columbia University's Center for Disease Prevention.
  The Center for Disease Prevention provides a crucial instrument for 
the creation of new business and jobs in the economically depressed 
neighborhoods of Washington Heights and Harlem. CDP, as well as the 
larger Audubon Research Park of which it is a vital component, will be 
the central element of the new Enterprise Zone program in New York, 
providing job training and business development services to these north 
Manhattan neighborhoods. Furthermore, CDP will provide a center for 
enabling American biomedical science to generate new business in 
advanced pharmaceuticals and medical technologies in this economically 
depressed area. The purpose of the entire project is to attract 
entrepreneurs and expand businesses and establish the area as a hub of 
biotechnology industry employment.
  When completed, the CDP will support 400 new jobs. The entire Audubon 
project will create nearly 2,500 jobs, including scientific, research, 
laboratory, clerical, administrative, retail, and building operations 
and support, and young people in the area will have access to job 
training and educational opportunities that would otherwise not be 
available to them. In addition to this important economic stimulus, the 
health benefits from new discoveries at CDP (and the entire Park) will 
flow directly to the surrounding community which is characterized by 
high rates of illness associated with poverty poor health, and urban 
distress.
  In closing, I would appreciate the subcommittee encouraging the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development to consider proposals under 
CDBG's Economic Development Initiative program, and if such proposals 
are considered, I will work with the Department to favorably review 
Columbia University's Center for Disease Prevention, a project that 
will promote economic revitalization and job training and creation in 
New York City.

[[Page H10965]]

  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of the maternity stay 
agreement reached in the Conference Report on VA-HUD appropriations for 
fiscal year 1997. The Maternity Stays provision ensures that newborn 
babies and their mothers receive appropriate health care in the 
critical first few days following birth.
  The 48-hour minimum stay is consistent with steps being considered by 
some States and is very similar to the bill which I introduced during 
the 104th Congress, The Mother and Child Protection Act of 1996.
  The typical length of stay over a decade ago for a woman and her 
infant after delivery was 3 to 5 days for a vaginal delivery and 1 to 2 
weeks for a caesarean delivery. Over the past few years the typical 
length of stay decreased to 24 hours or less for a uncomplicated 
vaginal delivery and two or three for caesarean. In some regions of the 
country, hospitals are now discharging women 6 to 12 hours following a 
vaginal birth. The Conference Report on VA-HUD Appropriations for 
fiscal year 1997 will stop this problem from occurring.
  I am pleased that my colleagues all agree that shorter hospital stays 
are placing the health of many newborns and mothers at risk. We all 
agree that the shorter stay increases the incidence in newborns of 
jaundice, dehydration, phenylketonuria [PKU], and other neonatal 
complications.
  Prevention has always been a way to cut health care costs. However, 
discharging mothers and newborns early creates its own costs. No longer 
will a child have to suffer brain damage or other permanent 
disabilities because they did not receive adequate early care, insurers 
will not be forced to pay for treating patients for conditions which 
could have been prevented or lessened if caught earlier.
  Mr. Speaker, the VA-HUD appropriations for 1997 will allow new 
mothers to focus on learning to care for their newborns and themselves 
instead of being concerned with when their insurance will run out. I 
also want to lend my full support of the mental health parity 
provisions contained in the 1997 VA-HUD Conference Report. As a trained 
social worker, I am quite comfortable with expressing the important of 
providing mental health coverage to the mentally ill population.
  The mental health parity provision will help to eradicate the stigma 
that is commonly placed on mental health patients. This provision will 
begin to wash away the deep rooted ignorance of thinking that mental 
illness is due to some sinful behavior. This kind of stigma has kept 
many individuals from seeking help, and it has prevented health 
professionals from providing needed services. It is my honest belief 
that the stigma associated with mental health will be greatly reduced 
by this provision. No longer will patients be too embarrassed to seek 
help. And, no longer will providers be forced to turn patients away, 
and thus discriminate between illnesses.
  I urge the adoption of these provisions.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3666, 
the VA/HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Conference Report. 
This bill provides a total of $84.7 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 $2.3 billion higher than 
last year's level. I would like to thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee, Jerry Lewis, for moving this bill with little 
controversy, and I would like to recognize and thank the ranking member 
Louis Stokes for all of this assistance in getting this bill to the 
floor.
  Although I am pleased that funding for the replacement hospital at 
Travis Air Force Base is included in this bill, I am concerned that 
construction for this hospital will continue to be delayed and cause 
veterans to wait even longer for adequate medical facilities. I would 
just like to point out that until last year this hospital was on track 
to be finished by the end of 1998. Now it looks as though we will not 
even begin construction until 1998 at the earliest.
  I know that some members of the other body would like to see 
additional justifications for this project. However, with all due 
respect, Congress has already authorized this hospital. We don't need 
any more studies or more delays. We need to get concrete in the ground 
and begin to construct the hospital for our veterans.
  I would again 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 in 
the river and its tributaries.
  I am also pleased that the conference committee was able to address 
three significant problems in the field of health policy.
  First, I am glad to see that the conferees included a provision which 
will require insurance companies to pay for a mother and her newborn to 
stay in the hospital for at least 48 hours following delivery. Many of 
us have sponsored legislation which would achieve that same goal and I 
am glad that this bill includes that provision.
  Next, I am pleased to see that the mental health parity provision was 
included in the conference report. This is an issue of fundamental 
fairness. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has indicated 
that this provision will result in a minute increase in health 
insurance premiums. This is a small price to pay for equal treatment 
which will benefit millions of Americans.
  Finally, I am particularly happy that the conference committee has 
included provisions that will have the Veterans Affairs provide certain 
benefits to children born with spina bifida, if one of the child's 
parents was exposed to Agent Orange while serving in the Vietnam War. I 
believe that we have the moral obligation to help these families. By 
having the VA provide benefits to these families who are in need of 
assistance, we can honor those who have served and stood by this 
country in times of need.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to express my thanks to the 
conference committee for their fine work and urge my colleagues to 
support this bill.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3666, the VA, 
HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act. I ask unanimous 
consent to revise and extend my remarks.
  This legislation contains several important provisions for my home 
State of Florida. First, the conference report for H.R. 3666 includes 
$20 million for the construction of the first phase of a new spinal 
cord injury [SCI] unit at the James Haley VA Medical Center in Tampa, 
FL.
  The State of Florida has one of the highest concentrations of 
veterans with spinal cord injuries [SCI] or spinal cord disease in the 
country. The 70 SCI beds currently in operation at the James A. Haley 
VA Medical Center were originally intended for use by psychiatry 
patients and are inadequate for the unique needs of SCI patients. The 
VA first proposed expanding the current SCI unit in 1979.
  The construction of a new SCI unit will replace Tampa's severely 
overburdened SCI unit and improve services to meet the high demand for 
specialized care provided to spinal cord injured veterans in the State 
of Florida.
  I have been working on this project for several years and am pleased 
that the House Appropriations Committee recognized the importance of 
the SCI unit project and included its funding in H.R. 3666. I want to 
thank Chairman Lewis and ranking minority member Stokes for their 
continuing support of this important project. This construction funding 
will allow the process of building the new spinal cord injury unit to 
move forward.
  The conference report also retains a Senate amendment which directs 
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to develop a national plan for the 
allocation of health care resources among health care facilities. This 
provision would ensure that veterans have similar access to health care 
regardless of where they live.
  This resource allocation problem has been verified by the General 
Accounting Office in a report entitled ``Veterans' Health Care: 
Facilities' Resource Allocation Could Be More Equitable.'' The GAO 
found that the Department of Veterans' Affairs continues to allocate 
funding based on past budgets rather than current needs. In addition, 
the Agency has failed to implement the resource planning and management 
system [RPM] developed 2 years ago to help remedy funding inequity.

[[Page H10966]]

  Since coming to Congress, I have heard from veterans who have moved 
to Florida and have been denied care by the VA. Prior to moving, these 
veterans were able to receive care from their local VA medical 
facility. However, once they move to Florida, which has one of the 
lowest rates of non-mandatory care in the country, they are turned away 
by the VA because they fall into the discretionary care category.
  It is hard for these veterans to understand how they can lose their 
VA health care simply by moving to another part of the country. As 
their representative in Congress, I share their frustrations. 
Therefore, I am pleased that the House conferees agreed to the Senate 
amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3666.
  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report for H.R. 3666, the FY VA-HUD appropriations bill. I urge all of 
my colleagues to join in passing this important measure.
  As chairman and ranking minority member of the VA-HUD appropriations 
subcommittee, our colleagues, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Stokes, have a very 
difficult job--almost by definition--trying to steer the 3d largest 
spending bill through the Congress in these times of fiscal restraint. 
I commend them for their decision to, in some very important areas, 
adopt the more favorable funding levels proposed by the Senate, 
including such high priorities as: a $726 million increase in funding 
for the Veterans Department; a $323 million increase in funding for the 
Housing and Urban Development Department; and a $184 million increase 
in funding for the Environmental Protection Agency.
  At the same time, this appropriation conference report meets all of 
its budget targets as part of our ongoing effort to balance the budget 
by the year 2002 by simply slowing-down the growth rate of Federal 
spending.
  But, more than any particular funding level that is contained in this 
bill, I am rising in strong support of H.R. 3666 because the conferees 
retained two very important Senate amendments regarding health care for 
American families.
  In this respect, I particularly wish to commend Representative Stokes 
for his dedication in bringing the focus and spotlight to the health 
insurance provisions attached to this bill by the Senate. He brought 
this issue to the attention of this House through his very successful 
motion to instruct the conferees almost 2 weeks ago. Because of his 
bold action, this conference committee report contains the so-called 
Bradley-Frist amendment requiring at least 48 hours of hospitalization 
coverage for women giving birth and the Domenici-Wellstone amendment 
requiring non-discrimination or parity in a health plan's annual and 
lifetime limits for physical and mental illness were both clarified and 
retained for the conference committee.


         48-hour hospitalization for mothers w/newborn children

  The Bradley-Frist amendment builds on the law that New Jersey and 
more than 20 other States have recently enacted in response to some of 
the latest so-called cost savings proposals--which in reality ration 
care and violate standards of modern medicine--from the managed care 
industry. In fact, some managed care plans send mothers with newborn 
children home 12 or 18 hours after delivery in order to cut costs and 
enhance their bottom lines. These practices are a disgrace and our 
action here today will mark the beginning of our standing up for the 
tradition of quality of care in our Nation.
  Women don't go to hospitals to give birth for the hotel room service 
they receive there--mothers and newborn children should be able to stay 
in the hospital as long as medically necessary. Establishing 48 hours 
as a minimum hospital stay isn't really asking for too much for a 
health insurance plan to provide for a mother with a newborn child. 
Medical monitoring for at least 48 hours is necessary if we are to 
guard against new mothers hemorrhaging or newborns getting jaundice, in 
order to avoid the threat of mental retardation.


                    mental health parity compromise

       And, in addition, the conference report included a modified 
     version of the Domenici-Wellstone-Roukema mental health 
     parity amendment. The latest compromise version of this 
     legislation simply requires health insurance companies to 
     have equal annual and lifetime caps on physical and mental 
     illness.
  This is only a first step toward ending the discrimination that 
insurance plans practice against the mentally ill. But I believe it 
will be a landmark breakthrough--a first step, if you will, toward full 
parity.
  This requirement will go into effect in 1998 and remain in effect 
until 2001 for employers with more than 50 workers. And, if insurance 
premiums increase by more than 1 percent as a result of this change, 
employers will not be required to offer parity.
  Now, I should advise my colleagues that the Congressional Budget 
Office [CBO] has reviewed the Domenici-Wellstone-Roukema plan and 
concluded that the health insurance premiums will increase by less than 
one-fifth of 1 percent.
  In other words, CBO believes that health premiums will not even 
increase by a half of one-percent, let alone anything more than 1 
percent, as a result of this modest mental health parity requirement.
  In the final analysis, what that really means in plain English is 
``mental health parity is the right thing to do for workers, and it 
makes good business sense, too.''
  While Senator Domenici and I originally sponsored legislation that 
required full-blown parity of health insurance treatment between 
physical and mental illness, people of good faith on the conference 
committee were able to reach consensus and compromise in order to help 
millions of people who suffer from mental illness, and for that, I 
thank Chairman Lewis and subcommittee ranking minority member Stokes.
  With this breakthrough, we are advancing beyond the ignorance and 
apathy that has characterized the treatment of the mentally ill by the 
insurance industry.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to again commend Senator Domenici and the 
conferees for this enlightened and humane legislative package. I urge 
its passage and enactment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of the Conference 
Agreement on H.R. 3666, the VA, HUD and independent agencies 
appropriations bill. This fiscal year 1997 conference agreement is 
overall an improved bill in comparison to the extreme bill passed by 
the majority party of the House last year and by the measure that the 
House earlier acted on this year for fiscal year 1997.
  I remain concerned, however, that this measure largely out of step 
with people, priorities and shared sacrifice which should characterize 
reductions in spending necessary to achieve sound fiscal balance. I do 
pragmatically understand, however, that more often than not the votes 
in this Congress simply don't reflect American public opinion and 
priorities.
  On the whole, the agreement basically maintains the status quo with 
1996 levels of spending; that is levels established After serious cuts 
of between 20 and 30 percent were made to housing and homeless programs 
in 1995-96. Unfortunately, it does continue the trend of cutting 
housing programs. While it changes the names of many of the housing 
accounts, the agreement is unable to mask 17 percent cuts from last 
year's levels in section 202 elderly housing and section 811 disabled 
housing and a 10 percent cut in section 8 rental assistance contract 
renewals. It is impossible to mask the fact this bill provides no new 
section 8 tenant rental assistance. This bill does not even attempt to 
put a dent in the number of households that have worst case housing 
needs. HUD has reported to us that some 5.3 million people who do not 
receive housing assistance are underhoused or are paying much too much 
of their income to be housed. By treading water, this bill's allocation 
for HUD espouses a policy of inadequate and limited help for people in 
need of housing assistance.
  I am pleased at the continued funding for the drug elimination grant 
program for public and assisted housing, a program I have fought to 
keep authorized in the 104th Congress. I note, however, that the 
inability to compromise or work bipartisanly has put off a partial 
authorization of housing programs in this Congress. We are left, again, 
to ask the appropriators to carry forward critical programs and to 
enact only incremental or temporary reforms in public and assisted 
housing, FHA multi-family, FHA single-family, and the FHA assignment 
program.
  I am hopeful that the authorizing subcommittee will work bipartisanly 
next year on all housing programs in our jurisdiction so that we can 
move forward on FHA reforms to expand homeownership opportunities, 
neighborhood and economic development programs so we continue to 
improve our assistance to our Nation's communities, and public housing 
reform so we can move forward permanently with appropriate devolution 
of authority to local housing agencies balanced by Federal standards to 
protect low-income tenants and aspiring residents.
  As a senior member of the authorizing committee for housing programs, 
I have grave concerns about a bill that basically maintains about $4 
billion worth of cuts from FY 1995 levels and undercuts the 
Administration's request by $2.3 billion while at the same time 
continuing to provide $5.4 billion to NASA for human space flight, the 
space station, in its tenth reincarnation. Like so many before it, this 
appropriations bill continues to place deficit reduction on the backs 
of the most vulnerable Americans--the poor, the homeless, and even our 
elderly.
  EPA funding is $330 million below the Administration's request. A 
strong and cost effective community program, AmeriCorp, is level-funded 
at $403 million by this Conference Agreement. Perhaps the only ``safe'' 
programs

[[Page H10967]]

are those important programs within the Department of Veterans Affairs 
which has available over $39 billion. Even in this instance, we must 
acknowledge the greater needs for veterans and these programs. Despite 
funding less than the Administration requested, positive increases in 
VA medical care and major construction of VA facilities are achieved.

  Although total spending for the Environmental Protection Agency is 
slightly higher than last year's level, if we are to protect the air we 
breathe and water we drink, we must be serious about the funding for 
this important agency. The bill also restores the $725 million funding 
to the state drinking water revolving funds which was lost when the 
Safe Drinking Water Act was reauthorized too late to include these 
funds in 1996 fiscal year. If the majority had been doing its job 
correctly, this deadline would have been respected and this funding 
would have been available as soon as the Safe Drinking Water Act was 
passed.
  I do want to note my strong support for the $50 million of funding 
for the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation and for the provision of 
$45 million to continue the promising Community Development Financial 
Institutions Program. Both of these represent good public private 
partnership that would be penny wise and pound foolish to further cut 
or deny. I also note that the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program 
has been level funded at $100 million for fiscal year 1997. Here again 
is an essential program that is a very successful partnership that 
should be pursued as vigorously as possible. With the non-profits who 
are attempting to cope with the needy, the homeless.
  Mr. Chairman, while this agreement is a better bill, a less 
contentious bill, than last year's or this year's initial House-passed 
measure, I am concerned that this bill could have far reaching adverse 
effects as cuts masquerade as level funding amounts. The trick is 
viewing the reality of those cuts compared to a 1995 baseline. What I 
see is a continued reality of human deficits and environmental 
tragedies that will not be assuaged or fooled by the funding in this 
bill.
  While this measure breaks the rules for consideration of policy 
matters. The fact is this 104th Congress has repeatedly disregarded 
such process specifics.
  I am pleased to see the addition of several important health 
provisions to this bill. I am a supporter of parity health insurance 
coverage of mental illness and this bill states that insurers must 
provide the same spending cap for mental illness as they do for 
physical illness. This is a common sense measure of fairness.
  Another important consumer victory in this bill is the inclusion of a 
provision to end ``drive-through deliveries.'' The bill require 
insurance plans to provide for at least a two-day hospital stay for 
mothers and newborns following a normal delivery, and a four-day stay 
following a Caesarean procedure. I am a cosponsor of separate 
legislation to provide this protection and am pleased to see it 
included in this Conference report.
  Although I do not support every aspect of the bill and have grave 
misgivings about some of the NASA programs funded at the expense of 
housing and homeless programs, along with the tremendous number and 
dollar amount of the earmarks made in veterans and EPA programs. I will 
support the bills--as this Congress and administration have been 
through this exercise during this section once and the outcome and mark 
established in 1996 Fiscal Year is improved in this 1997 fiscal year 
version--compromise and reality argues for a positive vote. With the 
hope that the future will change the priorities and the mind set in 
Congress that has skewed the programs this session.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Veterans 
Administration and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations 
Conference Report. The inclusion of maternity care provisions which 
require health insurance companies to provide a minimum hospital stay 
of 48 hours following the delivery of a child and a 72 hour stay for 
cesarean sections; an increase of $25 million for a total of $196 
million for Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS; and the 
adoption of a mental health party provision, all represent great 
victories.
  I am proud that maternity care protection, modeled on legislation 
which I introduced with Representative Torricelli, the ``Mothers' and 
Infants' Good Health Act,'' is included in this bill. As health care 
insurance companies continue to cut costs by reducing services and 
hospital stays the care given to mothers and newborns has suffered 
greatly. What has come to be known as ``express deliveries'' has led to 
numerous cases of undetected and untreated ailments--some potentially 
fatal--in both infants and mothers after they return home. The result 
has been additional complications, with more suffering, higher costs 
with increased emergency room visits, later hospital readmissions, and 
long lasting disability. The fact that it is now becoming the standard 
of care to release mothers and infants in under 24 hours following 
birth is atrocious.
  As the trend continues for health insurance companies to sacrifice 
care for the sake of profits, the government has an obligation to make 
health insurers accountable to provide adequate and reliable health 
care for all Americans.
  Numerous states have already enacted laws or regulations to enforce 
this provision. It's time that this became the national standard of 
care. I commend the Conferees for including it.
  As a Representative of New York City, the city hardest hit by AIDS, I 
am pleased that this agreement contains an extra $25 million for the 
Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS program.
  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. HOPWA 
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. This program is critically important 
is not only securing safe and suitable housing for the millions of 
people living with AIDS, but also for sustaining the health of those 
who have lost their housing or who have been homeless. Without stable 
housing, people with AIDS are at a greater risk of premature death due 
to exposure to other diseases, poor nutrition, stress, and lack of 
medical care.
  The increase of $25 million for HOPWA will truly make a difference 
for people with AIDS in New York and the nation.
  As millions of Americans suffer from mental illnesses which are quite 
often treatable, the mental health parity provisions in this bill are 
extremely important. To require health insurance companies to equalize 
the coverage of mental and physical illness is only fair and right, and 
to deny equal coverage amounts to nothing less than discrimination. As 
we continue to educate people about the nature of mental illness--that 
it is treatable like any other illness--we must continue to ensure that 
individuals suffering from those illnesses receive the help they need.
  After a long year of fighting for these basic housing and health care 
protections I am pleased to see them included in this bill and urge my 
colleagues to support these very important provisions.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 3666, the fiscal 
year 1997 VA/HUD appropriation bill. While a number of Members will 
undoubtedly touch on other important provisions in the bill--including 
parity for mental health benefits and mandatory stays for mothers and 
newborns--I would like to focus my limited time on veterans health 
care.
  As we work to balance the budget, it is imperative that we maintain 
our sacred compact with our veterans. Again this year, we have 
demonstrated that you can save money and eliminate wasteful spending 
without cutting back on high priority items like veterans services. For 
fiscal year 1997, we have provided $17 billion for veterans medical 
care--a $449 million increase from last year's level and a raise from 
the President's request.
  We have also moved to transform our health care delivery system from 
a hospital based system to one that emphasizes more cost-efficient 
primary and outpatient care. In my own district, we have moved forward 
to expand services to our underserved veterans through expansion of our 
Fort Myers outpatient clinic. I am pleased to report that the VA has 
chosen a site and we are on schedule for completion.
  Veterans' health care continues to present other serious challenges 
as we enter the next century. For too many veterans in growth States 
like Florida, a guaranteed entitlement of medical care has become a 
hollow promise. We must find a way to have the dollars follow the 
veterans rather than being distributed in antiquated formulas. The 
Graham-McCain amendment, adopted in conference, is an excellent step in 
the right direction as we work for fairness and equity in the VA health 
care system. I hope and expect that the VA will follow this clear 
directive and expeditiously work for a better formula.
  I applaud Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Stokes for a job well 
done and I urge a yes vote for this important legislation.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, many people have stated that the VA-
HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee has to deal with 
everything but the kitchen sink. As a member of this important 
subcommittee, I can tell you that this year we had to deal with the 
kitchen sink too. Fortunately, under the superb leadership of my 
friend, Jerry Lewis, H.R. 3666 works hard for the citizens of our 
country.
  Under the bill, veterans can be reassured that VA medical care is a 
top priority for Congress, increasing this account by 2.7 percent over 
last year. And for the first time ever, health benefits will be 
provided to children

[[Page H10968]]

born with spina bifida, if one parent was exposed to agent orange while 
serving our country.
  In addition, H.R. 3666 keeps our commitment to those who need housing 
assistance. Specifically, the bill provides $39.2 billion for the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development. This amount includes $4.6 
billion for community development grants which continue to help 
communities across the Nation.
  H.R. 3666 also ensures that our missions in space are mean and lean. 
Funding for NASA is carefully calculated so that every penny can be 
accounted.
  While the kitchen sink may be a useful item in our homes, it can get 
cumbersome in an appropriations bill. But the chairman and his staff 
have the skills of excellent plumbers. The health provisions to help 
newborns and their moms, and provide mental health parity were 
carefully crafted to provide the maximum benefit to citizens, with 
limited pressures on businesses. I thank the committee and the 
leadership for inclusion of these provisions.
  On a personal note, I would like to thank the committee staff for 
their hard work and dedication to finishing this bill on time. I would 
also like to thank Mr. Stokes and Mr. Lewis for their help and kind 
friendship throughout my years in Congress, and especially during my 
time on this important subcommittee.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support passage of H.R. 3666, the VA-HUD-
independent agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997 and I 
urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, this appropriations bill includes two 
important first steps toward improving health care in America--
protection for mothers and newborn babies from being forced out of 
hospitals prematurely and better mental health insurance benefits.
  Yet these are the first steps in what needs to be done.
  Both amendments have gaping loopholes in them that we will need to 
fix in the next Congress.
  The parity for mental health caps amendment has a potentially gutting 
amendment offered by the senior Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] which 
says that the parity in annual or lifetime limits between mental health 
and physical health need not apply if it causes the cost of the health 
insurance plan to rise by 1 percent or more. The Congressional Budget 
Office has estimated that the cap parity amendment should only affect 
health insurance premiums by about 0.4 percent. A recent Coopers & 
Lybrand analysis says that the premium impact should not only be about 
0.12 percent. But thanks to the Gramm amendment, any employer or 
insurer who does not want to provide this equity treatment only has to 
say that it will increase costs by 1 percent or more. You can drive an 
armored division through that loophole--and I hope the next Congress 
will repeal the Senator's mischievous amendment.
  The mental health cap parity amendment also does not include 
treatment for drug or alcohol addictions--even though the airwaves are 
filled with political ads decrying the rising level of drug use. If we 
were serious about turning Americans away from drug use, we would 
certainly provide health care services for drug and alcohol addiction--
and this should be a priority for the next Congress. I would like to 
include in the Record at this point, a letter from the heads of several 
of the Nation's major addiction treatment centers--such as the Betty 
Ford Center--on this point.

                                               September 16, 1996.
     Hon. Fortney Pete Stark,
     House of Representatives,
     Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Stark: We are writing to express our grave 
     concern over the mental health parity provision that was 
     included as an amendment to the Senate's HUD-VA 
     Appropriations bill, H.R. 3666. We are shocked that a 
     provision that specifically excludes substance abuse 
     treatment services is being recommended by the leadership in 
     Congress at a time when Republicans and Democrats alike are 
     engaged in a heated national dialogue about addressing our 
     nation's escalating drug problem.
       At the Betty Ford Center, the Hazelden Foundation, and the 
     Valley Hope Association, we see first hand the devastation 
     that spiraling alcohol and drug use has on the lives of 
     millions of Americans and their families. We also know the 
     benefit that cost effective treatment has on reducing 
     collateral health care costs, increasing workplace 
     productivity, and reestablishing strong family ties.
       We urge you to insist that the leadership drop the language 
     from the HUD-VA bill that excludes substance abuse services 
     from the parity provision. The cost of providing these 
     benefits is a nominal .7% increase in premiums according to 
     an April 12, 1996 study prepared by Milliman and Robertson. 
     At a time when Congress has pledged renewed efforts to 
     address our nation's drug problem, you should not pass 
     legislation that goes entirely in the wrong direction.
           Sincerely,
     John Schwarzlose,
       President, Betty Ford Center.
     Jerry Spicer,
       President, Hazelden Foundation.
     Dennis Gilhousen,
       President, Valley Hope Association.

  On the new mothers and babies bill, the 48 hours of protection is an 
important first step. But again, look at the details. The amendment 
includes language that says nothing in the new law will interfere with 
a managed care plan's cost-sharing provisions. In other words, a 
managed care plan could require a two day deductible for maternity 
stays, thus completely negating this provision. It could require a 
$1000 a day copayment for maternity stays, thus making a mockery of 
this provision for most middle income Americans. There are some plans 
that are so money-hungry they will probably adjust their cost-sharing 
arrangements so as to continue to force new mothers out of hospitals 
before they are ready. I call on the nation's consumer groups to form a 
database on what the current maternity co-pays and deductibles are in 
major managed care plans, and publicize any changes in those 
requirements that are designed to subvert this new law. The spotlight 
of publicity may be our only real protection against this loophole.
  The amendment also drops original language that requires that if a 
mother and her baby leave the hospital before 48 hours that there be 
follow-up, at home services. The U.S. General Accounting Office has 
just released a report entitled, ``Appropriate Follow-up Services 
Critical With Short Hospital Stays.'' This report clearly shows that we 
need to revisit this issue next year to provide the kind of care to new 
babies that a civilized society should provide. As the GAO says

       Although the public debate over maternity care has focused 
     on the shortening of the hospital stay after childbirth, the 
     critical issue is whether mothers and newborns are receiving 
     all necessary services. . . .There is evidence that women and 
     newborns are being discharged early without much follow-up 
     care. Even when follow-up care is provided, it is not always 
     delivered in a timely manner by properly trained 
     professionals.
       Requiring insurers to either cover hospital stays of 48 
     hours for vaginal births or cover follow-up care within 72 
     hours of discharge may be giving the public a false sense of 
     security. Extending hospital stays to 48 hours may provide 
     for more medical surveillance, but it does not include the 
     period when many neonatal problems usually occur--at 3 days 
     of age. Follow-up care can be a safety net to protect mothers 
     and newborns who are discharged early only if the appropriate 
     services are actually provided.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the VA/
HUD appropriation bill's maternity stay provisions. I am a firm 
believer in the saying ``mother knows best.''
  On Mothers' Day this year, I introduced the Newborns and Mothers 
Health Protection Act. Like the VA-HUD provisions, my bill would enable 
new mothers to receive insurance coverage for a 48-hour hospital stay 
after normal childbirth, and 96 hours for a Caesarean section.
  Like the legislation we consider today, my bill is not Federal 
intrusion or a Federal mandate. Rather this bill removes a mandate--an 
insurance company mandate--and replaces it with the common sense idea 
that in America today mothers should be given the choice to stay in a 
hospital for more than 24 hours after they give birth.
  My bill, like the language included in the VA/HUD bill, returns 
decisions about this important issue to those who know it best--a 
mother and her physician.
  I introduced my bill after receiving numerous heartfelt letters from 
mothers in my district who were kicked out of the hospital only 24 
hours after giving birth. I am happy to report to those mothers today 
that Congress listened, and Congress took action, to stop insurance 
companies who think their bottom line profits are more important than a 
newborn's health.
  While I would have liked more elements of my bill to be included in 
the VA-HUD language--including coverage of post-delivery treatment--the 
provision I rise in support of today makes a major improvement in the 
way this Nation's mothers will be treated in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, a birth is a sacred event. We cheapen it, and endanger 
lives, when we turn its management over to some insurance company 
official whose eye is only on the bottom line. The maternity stay 
provisions we approve today will end the discouraging, and 
demoralizing, practice of putting profits before people. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to express my support 
of one of our Nation's greatest success stories for our youth, the 
AmeriCorps Program. While the VA-HUD conference report does not provide 
the President's full funding request for AmeriCorps, it does 
appropriate $403 million in fiscal year 1997, an amount equal to the 
current funding level. This is an enormous improvement over the House-
passed bill which eliminated funding for the program entirely.

[[Page H10969]]

  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 
neighborhood 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 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 funding for the AmeriCorps 
program included in this conference report.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, the conference report before the House today 
includes many provisions worthy of support. Funding for the Federal 
Emergency Management Administration [FEMA] is much better than the 
House-passed level. The Americorps Program will continue to provide 
civic minded young women and men the opportunity to help their 
communities and earn money for their college education. Even the 
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], the target of endless Republican 
attacks, is funded at a level that will allow the agency to fulfill its 
mission.
  In addition, this conference report contains three health-related 
provisions that deserve the strong support of every Member of the 
House. The year-long fight to ensure parity for mental health benefits 
has been successful. New mothers will no longer have to worry about 
being forced from the hospital by insurance companies placing costs 
over care. And the children of veterans exposed to agent orange will 
get the benefits they deserve to help treat spina bifida.
  Because of these provisions and the improved funding levels, I will 
support this conference report; yet I must point out that this report 
also contains a provision I strongly disagree with and which fails the 
good public policy test. I am referring to language included by the 
conferees prohibiting the space agency from consolidating NASA research 
aircraft from centers east of the Mississippi, leaving only one 
facility subject to this ill-conceived proposal--NASA-Ames, located in 
the 14th District of California which I represent.
  The numbers are clear. The NASA inspector general's final audit 
report states that the consolidation plan would mean nonrecurring costs 
of $11.3 million and annual savings of $218,049, resulting in a payback 
period of 52 years. If the cost of money--discount rate--is factored 
in, NASA will never recover its financial investment in aircraft 
consolidation.
  Mr. Speaker, over the past several months I have worked with several 
of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate, in 
opposition to NASA's consolidation plan. As I stand here today, it is 
only NASA Ames, which lies West of the Mississippi, that remains 
subject to the consolidation. I want my constituents to know that I 
continue to believe the consolidation is a bad plan and I will continue 
to press this case both with the Congress and the administration.
  Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring your attention to an 
effort in my district to establish a healthy lifestyles and 
opportunities for wellness in children. This enterprise is being 
undertaken by the Glendale Adventist Medical Center in a endeavor to 
establish an Institute for Childrens Health and Wellness. The institute 
will incorporate existing hospital treatment programs and add 
educational, clinical, and special family programs along with a 
comprehensive community outreach.
  Good health is essential if children are to benefit fully from their 
education. At the same time, the education they receive must contribute 
to helping them to keep healthy. The link between education and health 
is strong and reciprocal. Prenatal and well baby care, language and 
speech development, good nutrition, emotional bonding, and the 
opportunity for age-appropriate cognitive, social, and physical 
experiences all have a profound impact in shaping a child's readiness 
to learn and become a healthy adult.
  Today, tobacco, alcohol, diets rich in saturated fats and 
cholesterol, lack of physical exercises, the widespread use of drugs, 
and other hazards are, unfortunately, not only part of the lifestyle of 
many adult Americans, but of many teenagers and children as well. 
Helping children to live a healthy lifestyle in the face of destructive 
societal behaviors is a challenging task, but one that must be met head 
on. The savings in terms of human life and dollars will be monumental 
if children nationwide adopt a healthier lifestyle.
  The Institute will serve community children in a wide array of 
services, touching every aspect of their development. Programs include 
a Learning Center, Mildly-Ill Care to assist working parents, Drop-In 
Care, Outpatient Pediatric rehabilitation, mental health services, 
health education classes, Outpatient Adolescent Recovery Program and 
extensive community outreach. The focus will not be to merely avoid 
illness, but rather to prolong life through activities that are 
designed to continually improve physical and emotional well-being.
  We all recognize that children are America's most valuable resource. 
It is important to our future to give children opportunities for health 
and more importantly, the tools to learn how to live a healthy 
lifestyle that continue throughout their life.
  It is my hope that the next Congress will want to join in partnership 
with Glendale Adventist Medical Center and create positive step toward 
a nation of healthier children. It is also my expectation that other 
communities across the Nation will undertake a replication of this 
admirable program. I hope to encourage the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development to support a proposal funding this initiative.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the conference report.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 388, 
nays, 25, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 426]

                               YEAS--388

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     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
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari

[[Page H10970]]


     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--25

     Bachus
     Coburn
     Cooley
     Cox
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Geren
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hoekstra
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Largent
     Minge
     Neumann
     Petri
     Roemer
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Stump
     Walker

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Bunn
     Durbin
     Funderburk
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Goodling
     Hayes
     Heineman
     Jacobs
     Lincoln
     Oxley
     Parker
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Rangel
     Schroeder
     Studds
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson

                              {time}  2042

  Mr. BACHUS and Mr. HALL of Texas changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________