[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.
____________________