[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.

                          ____________________