[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 100 (Tuesday, July 15, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5247-H5251]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2158, DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 184 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 184
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2158) making appropriations for the
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and for sundry independent agencies,
commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order
against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with
clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI, clause 7 of rule XXI, or section
306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points
of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply
with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived except as follows:
on page 25, line 17, through page 27, line 4; beginning with
``: Provided'' on page 28, line 20, through ``loans'' on page
[[Page H5248]]
29, line 11; beginning with ``: Provided'' on page 48, line
3, through ``program'' on line 7; and on page 76, line 7
through line 12. Where points of order are waived against
part of a paragraph, points of order against a provision in
another part of such paragraph may be made only against such
provision and not against the entire paragraph. The
amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution may be offered only by a
Member designated in the report and only at the
appropriate point in the reading of the bill, shall be
considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment, and
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
All points of order against the amendments printed in the
report are waived. During consideration of the bill for
amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may
accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the
Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed
in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for
that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so
printed shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole
a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2)
reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic
voting on any postponed question that follows another
electronic vote without intervening business, provided
that the minimum time for electronic voting on the first
in any series of questions shall be fifteen minutes. At
the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment
the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House
with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
{time} 1815
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. Linder] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley],
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of
debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 184 is an open rule providing for
consideration of H.R. 2158, the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998. The rule waives points of
order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with
clause 2(1)(6) of rule XI related to the 3-day availability of the
report, clause 7 of rule XXI related to the 3-day availability of
printed hearings on appropriations bills, or section 306 of the Budget
Act related to the prohibition on including matters within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget in a measure not reported
by it. I assure the House that this is a technical violation and not a
substantive budget violation.
House Resolution 184 provides for one hour of general debate divided
equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations.
The rule waives points of order against provisions in the bill for
failure to comply with clause 2 and clause 6 of rule XXI, except as
specified in the rule. The rule also waives all points of order against
the amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report which may, one,
only be offered by a Member designated in the report and only at the
appropriate point in the reading of the bill; two, shall be considered
as read; and, three, shall not be subject to further amendment or to a
demand for a division in the House.
This rule also continues to implement two approaches that have been
used effectively in recent Congresses by according priority in
recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the
Congressional Record and allowing the chairman to postpone recorded
votes and reduce to 5 minutes the voting time on any postponed
question, provided that voting time on the first in any series of
questions is not less than 15 minutes. These provisions will facilitate
consideration of amendments and guarantee the timely completion of the
appropriations bills.
House Resolution 184 also provides for one motion to recommit, with
or without instructions.
I mentioned earlier that there are a few exceptions to the waiver of
clause 2 of rule XXI specified in the rule. I want to briefly describe
those exceptions at this time.
First, the Committee on Rules has left exposed two provisions
objected to by the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, one
related to a program under the Community Development Block Grant
Program for supportive services, and the other relating to an expansion
of the secondary market for nonconforming home mortgage loans under the
HOME program.
In addition, the Committee on Science objected to a provision
relating to $35 million in funds being transferred from the EPA to the
NIH, and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure objected to
a provision related to the implementation of comprehensive conservation
and management plans. Each of these provisions has been exposed to a
point of order under House Resolution 184.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 184 is an open rule providing Members
with every opportunity to amend this appropriations bill. As I stated
earlier, the Committee on Rules has also made in order two amendments
to be offered by the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], and the
chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon]. I will leave it to those Members to fully explain the
substance of their amendments.
H.R. 2158 appropriates a total of $70.1 billion for fiscal year 1998,
and I want to mention a number of important provisions in this bill.
First, regarding appropriations for our veterans, this country has a
commitment to our men and women in uniform, and we as Americans owe
those dedicated men and women a debt of gratitude. This bill will meet
our obligation to our veterans by providing $40.4 billion for the
Department of Veterans Affairs, $21.7 billion for the Veterans Benefits
Administration compensation and pensions, $17.5 billion for the
Veterans Health Administration medical care, and $267 million for
veterans medical and prosthetic research. It is important to note that
these are increases above the fiscal year 1997 appropriations.
I also believe our space program has been sufficiently funded this
bill. We have all been captivated in the past few weeks by the images
broadcast back to us from the planet Mars by the Pathfinder mission via
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. I am pleased that H.R. 258 provides
$13.6 billion for NASA, which is $148 million more than the President
requested.
The Committee on Appropriations has once again had to balance a wide
array of interests, and as we work to get our fiscal house in order, we
must ensure that all funding is spent efficiently and where it is
needed most. This bill achieves this goal. I want to commend the
chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the ranking
member, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] for the bipartisan manner
in which they constructed this appropriations bill.
H.R. 2158 was favorably reported out of the Committee on
Appropriations, as was the open rule by the Committee on Rules. I urge
my colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed with general
debate and consideration of the merits of this very important bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank my colleague from Georgia [Mr. Linder] for yielding me the
customary half hour.
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating my colleagues on the
appropriations subcommittee, the ranking member, the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Stokes], and the chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr.
Lewis], for their outstanding efforts on this bill. The gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and the
members of their committee worked extremely hard and came up with a
relatively bipartisan bill that many of us can support.
They recognize the need to fund American housing and veterans
programs fully, as well as the Federal Emergency Management Program and
NASA. I know that the Space Rover on Mars is a lot more exciting to
some Members than housing rehabilitation in south Boston, but as a
former resident of public housing I can tell my colleagues it is very
important. Lucky
[[Page H5249]]
for us, Mr. Speaker, that the members of the subcommittee have decided
that we could have our Rover and our houses, too.
This bill will allow Housing Secretary Cuomo to continue his
outstanding work in securing affordable housing for the less fortunate
Americans and providing grants to spur economic development.
The bill also funds all renewals of section 8 contracts so nobody
will have to move and nobody will lose their housing assistance.
It will also allow the Secretary to reform the project-based section
8 program through which HUD has been paying incredibly high rents.
It also increases HOME grants to cities and States for building
affordable housing. Mr. Speaker, one of my cities in my district, the
city of Brockton, just received a HOME grant. I can tell Members it is
going to do a tremendous amount of good. Thanks to last year's grant,
Brockton has been able to help 200 people buy homes. This year they
will be able to even help more people. It is a very good program and
very well worth funding.
Mr. Speaker, the bill will also provide funding for the Veterans
Administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. It funds the
Environmental Protection Agency, which keeps our air and our water
clean. And most of the funding levels are at or above President
Clinton's requests.
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to see how well Members from both sides
of the aisle have worked on getting this bill together. I urge my
colleagues to support the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Goss], a colleague on the committee.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the distinguished gentleman
from Georgia [Mr. Linder] for yielding me this time. I rise in strong
support of this fair and open rule. It is the right process, as each
Member can have the opportunity to address the issues that we have in
this appropriations bill, the committee's product.
I would like to focus my limited time on an area of great concern to
my constituents and perhaps constituents of other Members; that is,
veterans, the veterans' health care aspects of this. I am very pleased
that we are going to provide $549 million more for veterans' medical
care this year. That is going to mean a lot to our veterans. I think it
is a very responsible increase when you measure it against the
resources available.
For the first time we are going to try something different. Not all
the money for veterans' care is going to come from the appropriators. A
portion of it is going to come from allowing the VA to retain third
party insurance collections and user fees, something like $600 million,
we expect. This is in response to an administration request and a
provision in the bipartisan budget agreement.
I think it is a good idea, but I understand that the veterans'
community is a little concerned that we have not planned realistically
enough, given recent trends of collecting these kinds of fees. I share
that concern, and I am going to be supporting an amendment that is
going to be offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon],
chairman of the Committee on Rules, to place a fail-safe provision in
the bill in case the funds are not sufficient. So either way the
veterans can be assured they are going to have the moneys they need for
veterans' care. There is nothing wrong with experimenting with new ways
to fund the VA as long as we are certain that the money gets to the
veterans, and that it is done fairly and equitably and put where the
veterans are.
That gives me the biggest pause with this bill we have got before us.
The report accompanying the bill contains controversial language that
would reinstate the funding inequities of previous years that we saw in
the VA medical care system, and it could deprive many veterans in my
district and elsewhere of needed health care. That language seeks to
reverse a funding formula put in place by the VA and approved in last
year's VA-HUD bill, in fact, overwhelmingly approved, to ensure that
the dollars flow to the veterans where the veterans are. The numbers
paint a very clear picture.
Since 1980, Florida and Arizona and other similar places have
registered a large growth rate, in fact in Florida and Arizona nearly
25 percent in their veterans' populations. While in other States, New
York comes to mind, that is dropped by nearly 20 percent. Obviously we
have to adjust the funding. There is no reason why veterans in
southwest Florida with service-connected disabilities should be turned
away in order to serve lower priority, routine needs of nondisabled
counterparts in other areas of the country. That is unfair. It is bad
policy. I hope that the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] will not pursue that language
in the conference.
I urge a ``yes'' vote, nevertheless, on this wide-open rule and for
the bill that it makes in order. I believe that the Committee on Rules
has done an excellent job on this. I thank the distinguished gentleman
from Georgia for yielding me this time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for
yielding me the time. I rise in support of the rule but with concerns
about the NASA budget.
First of all, I would like to congratulate NASA and the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory out in California for pulling off one of the most
spectacular scientific accomplishments and achievements that we have
seen in decades in this country. The Mars Pathfinder and the Sojourner
have returned us marvelous scientific data, exceeding all expectations.
What they have done for $267 million has restored some of the public's
confidence in our ability not only to get into space in faster,
cheaper, better methods but they have also, I think, opened up a new
thing to the American people, that it does not particularly have to
always be men and women in space, although I support men and women in
space. It does not always have to be something like a space station to
captivate the public. This unmanned vehicle on Mars has excited the
entire Nation and the world for what it is bringing back home to
America.
The space station, which has been capped at $2.1 billion per year,
and I believe this bill, if the Rohrabacher-Roemer amendment is not
agreed to, will exceed that cap, the space station flies in the face of
what the Mars Pathfinder, Galileo, Hubbell, Clementine and a host of
other projects have been able to accomplish, which is a great deal for
the taxpayer, phenomenal science, and maintaining a budget.
As we are trying to make difficult decisions here in this Congress to
fairly balance the budget, do it structurally and do it with the right
values, do it fairly to education, fairly to the environment and fairly
to science, then the Mars Pathfinder, the Hubbell, these are the kinds
of projects, Mr. Speaker, that really will captivate the public's
attention and support, that return NASA to the glory days of the 1960's
and 1970's, that for every $1 we invest in NASA, we return $7 in new
technology, in new experimentation and knowledge, in new things that
really would help not only support NASA in the future but would bring
us the knowledge and the science for us to leverage those kinds of
discoveries into new things here on earth.
{time} 1830
So I would continue to applaud NASA for its wonderful achievement on
Mars with the Pathfinder, but to further push them to do things like
the Pathfinder, and Galileo and Hubbell, and reusable launch vehicles,
and to not only sustain the cap on the space station but I would
advocate eliminate the space station and find even more things that we
can do in manned and unmanned ways to return NASA to the public
confidence and excitement that we have seen NASA achieve in the past.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Kucinich].
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise with great concern about the United States' efforts in
the
[[Page H5250]]
space station program, not agreeing with my colleague from Indiana who
so eloquently stated the achievements of the space program, but
specifically stating that the United States has made a very strong
commitment in elevating the vision of this Nation and the potential of
this Nation in building a space station, in paving the way for
international cooperation, which would have been undreamed of in those
fiercest days of the cold war; and that the space station presents not
just a bridge to outer space but a bridge across the oceans for
cooperation and for peace in our time and for the future.
The very thought of people being up in outer space working together
shows certainly what the manifest possibilities here are on earth. And
any efforts to try to change that program, any effort to try to lessen
the resources that program needs to be successful inadvertently attacks
the underpinnings of this great effort that has been made to try to
achieve peace. It is the cooperation of the United States and Russia in
space which has shown the world that great powers can work together.
How can we put a dollar value on that? We must in the program and we
have. And I submit that the benefits of the space station have not only
been certainly for the private sector programs, which are looking for
that public-private partnership that enables the growth of many
industries, but even more importantly than that, the benefit of that
station has been to enable this country to achieve peace that we would
not have been able to dream of.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Manton].
(Mr. MANTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MANTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague, the
ranking member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the rule before the House today is a
reasonable and fair measure which will allow for a free and open debate
of the fiscal year 1998 VA HUD appropriations bill. While I support and
will vote for the rule, I am concerned about a number of provisions and
omissions in the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I must concur in the additional views submitted by the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the full
Committee on Appropriations, which accompanied the report on H.R. 2158
and question the judgment of numerous outlays contained in the bill.
The bill falls short in one area of environmental protection which I
simply cannot allow to go unchallenged, and that is the failure of the
subcommittee to include the President's requested increase in funding
to double the pace of Superfund cleanups.
Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed in the failure to include an
additional $650 million for the Superfund Program. This increase in the
Superfund response, or cleanup account, was requested by the President
and concurred in by the bipartisan leadership of both the House and the
Senate budget agreement.
This money is vitally important if we are to expedite the cleanup of
hundreds of toxic waste sites located in virtually every State of the
Union. The failure to include the requested funding in this bill will
ensure that at least 250 additional Superfund invites will not be
cleaned up over the next 3 years.
Mr. Speaker, as the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on
Finance and Hazardous Materials, I am uniquely aware of the importance
of the Superfund Program and the President's initiative to double the
pace of cleanups.
If there is one clear and overriding call I have heard regarding the
Superfund Program, it is that the pace of cleanups is too slow. Time
and time again over the past several years of hearings, concerns have
been expressed that the program has not cleaned up hazardous waste
sites quickly enough, that the program is mired in bureaucracy,
resulting in unnecessary and costly delays in cleanups.
Mr. Speaker, I have several letters that I received which emphasize
the importance of approving the President's initiative to speed
cleanups and stress the administration's understanding that the
initiative was indeed a significant part of the budget agreement and
was not, let me repeat, was not contingent upon the enactment of
Superfund reauthorization. I submit these letters from Vice President
Gore, Administrator Browner and OMB Director Raines to be included in
the Record.
The letters referred to are included as follows:
Office of the Vice President,
Washington, DC, June 25, 1997.
Hon. Thomas J. Manton,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Manton: I am writing to you because you
have a strong supporter of our efforts to protect communities
from toxic waste and to address the problem of brownfields.
Our shared commitment to these issues reflects an important
bipartisan consensus concerning the importance of toxic waste
cleanup to restoring both the environment and the economy in
communities burdened with toxic waste sites.
As part of their landmark agreement with the President on a
balanced budget, the House and Senate leadership committed to
support the President's brownfields tax incentive. This
proposal is a targeted tax incentive that should generate
cleanup and redevelopment at approximately 14,000 sites in
distressed communities by the year 2000.
Unfortunately, the tax bill recently reported by the Ways
and Means Committee does not include the brownfields tax
incentive. I hope you will join me in urging the House
leadership to meet its commitment by addressing this issue
before final passage of the bill.
I also hope that the Administration can rely on your
support for other aspects of the budget agreement that
protect communities from toxics, including the funding needed
to achieve cleanup at two-thirds of the national priority
list sites by the year 2000, and significantly expand funding
of brownfields cleanup and redevelopment efforts by the
Environmental Protection Agency. This acceleration of toxic
waste cleanup highlights the importance of reinstating the
taxes that support the Superfund program. Superfund taxes
fund emergency removals of hazardous substances, support
long-term cleanups at more than a thousand toxic waste sites,
and provide assistance to brownfields and other cleanup
efforts by state and local governments.
Several Members of Congress are suggesting that all of
these proposals must await the outcome of protracted
negotiations on a Superfund reauthorization bill. While this
Administration is participating actively in those
negotiations and hopes to achieve a bipartisan reform bill
with broad support, we must draw the line of attempts to hold
communities and their cleanup funds hostage pending the
outcome of that process. The accelerated cleanup funding and
brownfields tax incentive are needed now.
I know that, given your leadership on brownfields issues,
you understand how important these initiatives are to
empowering our communities. Therefore, I hope you will join
me in pressing the Congressional leadership to honor the
commitments in the budget agreement regarding brownfields.
Additionally, I hope you will support expedited action to
fully fund our initiative to accelerate toxic waste cleanup
and to reinstate the taxes that support the Superfund
program. I would be most grateful for your support.
Sincerely,
Al Gore.
____
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Thomas J. Manton,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Manton: The House Appropriations
Committee marked up the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies FY
1998 Appropriations Bill on July 8, 1997. While I appreciate
the overall funding provided to EPA by the House, the
Committee failed to include funding to restore the
environment and the economy in communities burdened with
toxic waste sites. The President's initiative to clean up an
additional 500 Superfund sites by the end of the year 2000
was designed to protect the public from the risks these sites
pose to health and the environment. The importance of this
initiative was recognized by Congress and the President's
request for Superfund was accommodated in the Bipartisan
Budget Agreement.
As Vice President Gore and the Office of Management and
Budget Director Raines have recently indicated, the
Administration remains committed to working with Congress to
enact a consensus-based Superfund reform bill. However, it is
not agreed that additional Superfund cleanup funding provided
in the Budget Agreement is contingent on any prior
legislation, much less a comprehensive reform bill. Agreement
still needs to be reached on ways in which the supplemental
cleanup funds would be spent, but not on the level of
funding.
In the Budget Agreement, Congress and the Administration
increased funding for the Superfund program to accelerate the
cleanups affecting the quality of life for millions of
Americans. Failing the increase, up to 120 fewer sites would
begin cleanup. This would mean hundreds of communities
nationwide waiting even longer before the hazardous waste
sites in their neighborhoods are cleaned up. Not only will
this put their
[[Page H5251]]
health and the environment at risk, it will prevent economic
redevelopment in those areas.
EPA, through our administrative reforms, has done much to
improve the overall pace, cost, and fairness of the program.
These administrative reforms represent permanent changes in
the way EPA does business and reflect the Administration's
vision for the future of Superfund--a future that builds upon
our progress over the past four years. These reforms are
building a faster, fairer, more efficient Superfund program
which: (1) achieves our goal of 20% reduction in total
cleanup process time, with 439 completed cleanups (as of 7/7/
97) and more than 480 site cleanup constructions underway;
(2) includes 75% of Superfund long-term cleanups performed by
responsible parties; and (3) reduces cleanup costs towards
our goal of 20% cost reduction.
Based on the Agency's administrative reforms, EPA is ready
to accelerate the cleanup program. Much of the pre-cleanup
work has been completed and actual cleanup work is ready to
begin at many toxic waste sites. The necessary contracts to
implement an accelerated cleanup program are in place. We
have worked with state offices in identifying sites ready for
cleanup and will continue to coordinate with them on cleanup
activities.
I urge you to support the funding level for the Superfund
program as outlined in the Budget Agreement while we continue
our discussions on Superfund reauthorization.
Sincerely,
Carol M. Browner.
____
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC. June 25, 1997.
Hon. John D. Dingell,
Ranking Member, Committee on Commerce, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC
Dear Representative Dingell: I am writing to clarify the
Administration's views regarding the Superfund funding that
was included in the recent Bipartisan Budget Agreement.
On June 5th, Congressmen Kasich and Oxley conducted a
colloquy on this subject on the floor of the House of
Representatives. As they discussed, the Budget Agreement
establishes a reserve fund to provide $200 million per year
for Superfund orphan shares. As this would be mandatory
spending, the reserve fund requires authorizing legislation
to be reported by the Committees on Commerce and
Transportation and Infrastructure, although the reserve fund
could be authorized in a reconciliation bill, a Superfund
reform bill, or other legislative vehicle. The Administration
does not agree that these funds should become available only
after the Congress passes a Superfund reform bill.
Regarding the $700 million of additional requested funding,
the Administration adheres to the language of the Budget
Agreement, which provides that Superfund appropriations will
be at the President's level ``if policies can be worked
out.'' We have always understood this to mean that the
Administration needs to reach agreement with the appropriate
Committees regarding the way in which the supplemental
cleanup funds would be spent. We do not agree that the
additional Superfund cleanup funding agreed to in the budget
Agreement is contingent on any prior legislation, much less a
comprehensive reform bill.
The Administration remains committed to working with
Congress to enact a bipartisan consensus-based Superfund
reform bill. However, we believe that the increased Superfund
appropriations should not be held up until this occurs, since
these funds are urgently needed to eliminate the backlog of
Superfund cleanups and improve the quality of life for more
than 27 million Americans, including over four million
children, who live within four miles of a Superfund site.
Please do not hesitate to contract me if I can be of
further assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Franklin D. Raines,
Director.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________