[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 100 (Tuesday, July 15, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5251-H5266]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 184 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill, H.R. 2158.
{time} 1830
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the 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, with Mr. Combest in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] will each control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure today to outline the work of the
Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies as well as the full
Committee on Appropriations in developing the fiscal year 1998 VA-HUD
and Independent Agencies appropriations bill.
First, I want to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Stokes], and his staff for their helping in crafting this
bill. Our working relationship, I believe, is a model of how
appropriations subcommittees can and should work together on a
bipartisan basis. We have effectively controlled the rate of growth of
Federal spending through our bill while making sure that the needs of
our constituents are met in communities across the country.
Mr. Chairman, beginning with the fiscal year 1995 rescission bill,
this subcommittee has led the way in our battle with the budget by
reducing spending and fully paying for the emergency supplemental.
While the administration and Congress have finally agreed in principle
to balancing that budget by 2002, this subcommittee has been moving in
that direction for well over 2 years now, and so far we have produced
some $20 billion in spending cuts to show for our efforts.
Because of the bipartisan budget agreement with the President, this
year the subcommittee had the chance to catch its breath. The
subcommittee's 602(b) allocation for fiscal year 1998 will provide us
with the funding levels necessary to continue our commitment to serving
veterans, protecting the environment, providing housing for the poorest
of the poor, and ensuring America's future leadership in space.
With regard to space programs, I hope that each of my colleagues have
had an opportunity to focus upon the remarkable NASA Pathfinder mission
to Mars. If this mission does not provide the catalyst for our next
generation of scientists, then I certainly do not know what will.
We are able to achieve all of these important results while still
holding a line on spending of hard-earned taxpayers' dollars. Our
allocation should allow us to go through the process quickly and
eventually gain a signature by the President.
Since our counterparts in the Senate received an allocation well
below ours in the House, we are in for some very tough decisions
nonetheless as we go down this road. Not everything in this bill will
find its way in the final conference report. While the President may
not wholeheartedly endorse every decision reflected in this bill, it is
my hope that when we conference in September, we can come to a mutual
agreement on a final bill that will be signed.
Let me quickly move to some of the specifics of this bill beginning
with our 602(b) allocation.
[[Page H5252]]
Due to the structure of the budget resolution, there is some
confusion about our allocation. Basically, when we take into account
the recent rescission of $3.6 billion we enacted to pay for the
emergency disaster supplemental, our allocation this year is the same
as for fiscal year 1997, amounting to some $60.8 billion. When we
consider that, it would be a mistake, however, not to look at the fact
that within this whole package there is an additional $9.2 billion that
is necessary to pay for HUD's section 8 program, a program that
suddenly has blown up before us and creates ongoing problems that all
of us must deal with.
Since the gentleman from Ohio and I have proposed funding the section
8 program at the administration's request of $9.2 billion, our
allocation increased by that amount once we reported our bill from the
full committee. With that in mind, even this funding level may not be
enough if the administration, in dealing with section 8, working along
with the House and the Senate housing authorizing committees, do not
work in a way to solve this critical section 8 problem, a difficulty
which, as I have indicated, will balloon in the years ahead of us.
Now, let me explain the highlights of the larger agencies funded
through this measure.
First, the veterans medical care is funded at the full budget request
of $17 billion, and we expect an additional $468 million will be made
available when the reconciliation bill becomes law.
Veterans research operating expenses and construction activities are
moderately increased over the budget request levels.
For the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the section 8
program, as I have indicated, at $9.2 billion, is a part of the
package.
Severely distressed housing and drug elimination grants are at the
President's request of $524 million and $290 million respectively.
CDBG, HOPWA, and Homeless Assistance Grants are also funded at the
budget request level.
{time} 1845
The native American housing block grant program is funded at $650
million, an increase of some $165 million above the budget request.
Likewise, the HOME Program has also increased by $191 million to a
figure of $1.5 billion for fiscal year 1998.
Finally, and thanks to an amendment offered during our subcommittee
markup by the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] and the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen], the section 202 elderly housing
program is funded at $645 million, which is $345 million above the
President's request.
The section 811 housing for the disabled program is funded at $194
million, at an increase of $20 million over the budget request.
For EPA, the budget agreement requires us to produce a bill which
funds the EPA operating programs at the budget request level of $3.4
billion. The operating programs include all programs at the agency
except Superfund; Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program, known as
LUST; and the clean and safe drinking water State revolving funds. We
have met this obligation in a way that I believe accurately reflects
congressional priorities.
For example, we have proposed an additional $40 million for
particulate matter and ozone research, something I believe most Members
strongly support and all of us wish the EPA would utilize before
implementing new PM and ozone regulations that many would suggest have
questionable scientific backing. We have also increased by $25 million
the funds going to States and cities for air monitoring and data
collection, a necessary component of better research in this very
important area.
Furthermore, the Great Lakes programs are fully funded, many above
the budget request. The State revolving fund programs have been
increased by $200 million over the President's request. Brownfields are
funded at $85 million. And the Superfund Program, although it continues
to need serious, comprehensive reform, is funded at $1.5 billion.
Space station and shuttle programs at NASA are fully funded, and NASA
will receive a modest increase of $148 million over the budget request.
I would note, however, that NASA's funding level still represents a
decrease of $61 million below last year's level. NASA is a prime
example of an agency that has responded to our charge of doing more
with less. One need only look at the $200 million Pathfinder program as
a prime example of doing more with less.
The National Science Foundation would, likewise, receive a modest
increase above the President's request, including an additional $23
million for research, $90 million for major research equipment, and $7
million for education programs. We have provided the full budget
request for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA.
Finally, we have frozen funds for AmeriCorps at the 1997 level of
just over $402 million. This year's funding level for AmeriCorps
represents a reduction of $146.5 million, or 27 percent below the
President's request.
I want my colleagues to know that together, the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Stokes], members of the subcommittee and I have worked hard to
produce a fair and balanced bill, one that can and should be supported
all the way to the Presidential signature. It is true that it will be a
long and hot summer while we all work on this and the other 12
appropriations bills that are necessary to keep our Government
operating. On the other hand, the bipartisan support that this measure
has already received will certainly make the summer a little easier.
Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], my
friend and ranking member, and his staff Fredette West, David Reich,
and Del Davis, as well as Rose Roberts, Valerie Baldwin, Tim Peterson,
Paul Thomson, and Frank Cushing of my committee staff, and Dave Les
Strang, Alex Heslop, and Jeff Shockey of my personal staff for their
help and support for putting together this difficult bill which is full
of competing interests but balanced funding priorities.
Mr. Chairman, I want to take just a moment to say that it is obvious
this is a very complex bill, dealing with programs that are very, very
important to the American public as well as those individual families
that receive many of the services involved. In shrinking budgetary
circumstances, the competition between accounts is all the more
difficult.
There will be amendments, as we go forward in this discussion, which
people will come to the floor and suggest that their program has higher
priority than another, let us say taking away from AmeriCorps and
putting in another program, maybe a veterans' program, without
necessarily evaluating the good work we have already done on the
veterans programs. That sort of exchange is part of the process. But I
urge the Members to recognize that this is a very difficult process and
we have done a very good, I think, bipartisan job in putting this bill
together.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:
[[Page H5253]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY97.000
[[Page H5254]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY97.001
[[Page H5255]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY97.002
[[Page H5256]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY97.003
[[Page H5257]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15JY97.004
[[Page H5258]]
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, and I urge my
colleagues to do likewise. I could not make a similar statement last
year or the year before that for the VA-HUD appropriation bills. I am
pleased that I can support this legislation, and I am pleased with the
circumstances that have made this possible.
First, I wanted to take a moment to thank the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis], the chairman, for the open and inclusive way
that he has approached the drafting of this bill. Both the gentleman
from California [Mr. Lewis] and his able staff have been extremely
courteous and helpful during the hearing process and especially
preparing for the markup of this bill in subcommittee.
I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] publicly
for the comity which has been restored to the operation of this
subcommittee and for the pleasure it is to work with him in crafting
this bill.
While I cannot wholeheartedly embrace every recommendation contained
in the bill and report, I think overall the bill represents a fair
balance for the diverse and worthwhile programs which it funds. I think
the administration currently holds a similar opinion. In the last
statement of administration policy, there is no mention of a possible
veto for the bill as it now stands.
However, the statement continues that if an amendment is adopted to
eliminate funding for the Corporation for National and Community
Service, or AmeriCorps, a veto is likely. The administration is already
deeply concerned that the committee's recommendations for AmeriCorps is
$146 million below their request and does not provide for the new
America Reads initiative.
An amendment was offered in committee and may be renewed in the House
to eliminate AmeriCorps funding. I sincerely hope that amendment is not
offered or, if offered, is defeated. We all know how strongly the
President believes in this program. He has fought hard for it in the
past, and I am sure he will continue to do so.
After some understandable startup issues, the program appears to be
operating much more smoothly. Reforms have been made, costs are coming
down, and results are being achieved. So I would hope that we would
avoid the histrionics and posturing and the tired old arguments about
AmeriCorps and pass a bill that the President will sign.
As I said, all and all, this is a fairly well balanced bill, one that
is worthy of the Members' support. In notable contrast to the
experience during the last Congress, this bill contains virtually no
legislative provisions. There are no antienvironmental riders, unlike
the score of such controversial riders 2 years ago, and there is no
major rewrite of housing law as there was last year.
The combination of the subcommittee's section 602(b) allocations and
the provision in the budget resolution providing an additional $9.2
billion in budget authority and associated outlays for the section 8
contract renewal situation has allowed the subcommittee the flexibility
to craft a bill with many positive aspects. In particular, the bill
provides the full amount requested for renewal of all expiring section
8 housing assistance contracts. It also provides the full
administration request for operation and modernization of public
housing and for revitalization of severely distressed public housing.
Further, the bill includes substantial increases over last year's
level for the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation and the Community
Development Financial Institutions Fund, two relatively small programs
that are nevertheless very important to economic development in cities
and rural areas alike.
The measure also maintains funding for housing for the elderly and
disabled and provides the full amount requested for homeless assistance
programs. It also gets the new native American housing block grant
program off to a good start by providing a $165 million increase over
the levels spent on comparable programs this year.
I do wish that we could have done more in some areas. I especially
wish we could have provided the 50,000 new section 8 housing
certificates proposed by the administration. This will be the third
year in a row without any additional units of assisted housing. The
need for affordable housing for low-income families is growing, while
the supply is shrinking.
I also wish we could have funded the administration's proposal for
grants to promote the redevelopment of brownfields, that is, former
industrial properties with moderate environmental contamination. The
problem of brownfields is one of the most serious difficulties
hampering redevelopment in many inner cities.
I also wish we could have provided the requested increase in the
Superfund Program to speed the clean-up of contaminated sites across
the country. There appears to be a considerable difference of opinion
regarding the wording of the budget agreement as it relates to
Superfund.
The Republican leadership says the agreement means ``enactment of
comprehensive Superfund reform legislation.'' OMB Director Frank Raines
has stated, and I quote him, ``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.''
Because there has not been any movement yet with regard to Superfund
policies, I believe the committee's action not to include the requested
increase at this time is understandable. However, in effect, by taking
the extra Superfund money and spending it on other programs and
activities instead of keeping a reserve against the day the Superfund
policies are worked out, I fear that we have prejudiced the program
unfairly. I doubt that we have heard the last from the administration
on the additional Superfund spending.
I also wish we could have provided additional funding for veterans'
medical care. Although increases above the President's request are
recommended for NASA, the National Science Foundation, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, veterans' medical care receives only the requested amount.
If the proceeds of the third party reimbursement proposal are
realized in the amounts estimated, and if the legislation to enable
individual medical centers to keep such funds is enacted, the crunch
will be eased somewhat. However, there is some concern that the
estimated level of third party reimbursements may be overly optimistic.
Concerning veterans' medical care funding, Mr. Chairman, I have
received a letter signed by all the Democrats on the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs. I quote in part from their letter, which is dated
June 25:
As you know, the President's proposed budget for fiscal
year 1998 did not request a level of appropriations expected
to be needed to meet the cost of veterans' health care. We
disagreed with this approach when it was initially proposed
and we continue to disagree with the President's proposal
today. As our veterans age and their health-related needs
increase, this is surely not the time to provide an
appropriation for VA which is insufficient to meet the health
care needs of veterans.
I share their concerns. Even with the additional funding from third
party reimbursements, veterans' medical care is not sufficient to
sustain the current services level, much less provide for any increase
in patient work load.
In sum, Mr. Chairman, while I have some concerns about the bill, on
the whole it is a bill which we should support. It is a good bill now,
and I hope that it can be made even better by the time we go to
conference and we send it to the President. Again, I express my
appreciation to both the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the
chairman, and his staff for the excellent cooperation that we have
received in crafting this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1900
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield].
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill. I
commend the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the gentleman
from California [Mr. Lewis], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]
and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] for
[[Page H5259]]
the fair and equitable manner in which they have sorted out the
competing priorities of the agencies funded by this proposal. I
particularly want to express my appreciation for the commitment this
appropriation makes to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The Department of Veterans Affairs plays a vital role for the
thousands of veterans in America. I want to share with my colleagues
the story of Mr. Joe Atterbury of Hansen, Kentucky. As a 17-year-old in
Vietnam, Joe, like many soldiers of that era, experienced many
traumatic events, some so traumatic that I really cannot discuss them.
After serving in Vietnam, Joe returned home to western Kentucky, got
a job, married and began raising a family. He worked hard as his family
grew, with the addition of each of his six children. But by 1972, he
began to have serious doubts about his ability to work and support his
family. There was something affecting Joe Atterbury. He turned to the
Department of Veterans Affairs for help seeking disability
compensation. Seven years later, after several appeals, Joe was denied
his claim. The VA found no cause for his inability to hold a job. He
continued to work, off and on, trying to make ends meet for his family
and it was very difficult. But in 1991 with the help of a caring
physician, Joe refiled his claim.
I am pleased to say today, with the help of the Department of
Veterans Affairs, after 25 years of denials and frustrations, Joe
Atterbury was awarded a disability claim in excess of $100,000 for the
posttraumatic stress disorder he had suffered since 1972.
The bill before us today represents a modest increase for veterans
benefits, health administration, construction projects and other
programs. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the bill and to
renew their commitment to ensuring that all American veterans will find
the help and the hope they deserve as did Joe Atterbury.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], the distinguished ranking member of the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2158, a bill
making appropriations in 1998 for VA, HUD and the 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 in future years, I applaud the
Committee on Appropriations for the work that they have done this year.
H.R. 2158 is devoid of noxious legislative riders and most
authorizing language that should be developed by the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services. Indeed I am hopeful that even the few
housing provisions will not be necessary here and that the Congress
will enact real and fair public housing reform this year. On one of the
problems of the last appropriations bill, the very complicated issue of
section 8 portfolio restructuring, I am hopeful that the budget
reconciliation conference will provide the legislative framework for
reviewing section 8 contracts. The Committee on Appropriations took the
most critical step in this bill. H.R. 2158 provides sufficient funding
for all renewals coming due in 1998. I applaud them for their work and
foresight.
Now the authorizers must do their work in reconciliation. We are well
on our way to balancing all the disparate interests of the tenants,
owners, communities, and the Federal Government in preserving as much
affordable housing as possible, reducing the costs to the Federal
Government, reasonably protecting the financial investments of the
owners and protecting the tenants from unnecessary displacement. We
thank them for making our job a little easier.
Mr. Chairman, that having been said, there are two glaring
deficiencies in this bill. For the third year in a row, there is
absolutely no money for incremental section 8 housing assistance, even
in the face of continued, mounting evidence that greater numbers of
very low income families and the working poor are finding it ever more
difficult to find affordable housing. Some 5.3 million Americans have
worst-case housing needs. That number grows by leaps and by bounds. I
find it unconscionable that this refuses to fund any new section 8
assistance in this proviso.
The bill also fails to provide funding for preservation. Since its
inception, 751 properties with more than 90,000 units have received
preservation funding. Another 477 properties with about 56,000 units
costing $1.6 billion are ready and waiting for preservation funding.
The 1997 appropriations will take care of only about 58 of the approved
preservation units, or plans, but that leaves more than 400 properties
where owners or nonprofit and community groups that wish to preserve
affordable housing will not be funded. Affordable housing will be lost.
Mr. Chairman, we are building precious few new affordable housing
units. We simply cannot afford to lose this scarce and precious
affordable housing resource.
On balance, however, this bill is about as good as we can get under
our severe budget constraints. I urge my colleagues to support H.R.
2158.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen], an outstanding member of
our committee.
(Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time,
and I rise in support of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes]) and the
subcommittee staff for their guidance throughout the year.
This bill contains funding for many vital programs for our Nation's
veterans, for protection and preservation of our environment, for
meeting the housing needs for our elderly and disabled, and for
scientific research and discovery.
Nearly half of this bill's funding of $40.4 billion supports the
Department of Veterans Affairs efforts to provide health care, housing
and benefits. As a member of this subcommittee, I am pleased that this
bill provides full funding for the VA health care system.
In addition to veterans funding, H.R. 2158 provides funding for the
section 811 program, housing for people with disabilities at $194
million, $20 million more than the President requested, and for the
section 202 program, housing for older Americans, the number is $645
million, $300 million more than the President's request. Both of these
programs are working extremely well at the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, and I am pleased that the committee provided
increased funding for both of them.
This bill also continues a set-aside program that the committee
started last year to meet housing needs for people with disabilities.
The committee has again included, and I commend the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis] in particular, $50 million for tenant based
rental assistance to ensure decent, safe and affordable housing in
communities for low income people with disabilities.
Finally, this bill includes more funding for Superfund cleanups.
Specifically, $1.5 billion is included for the program, $106 million
more than last year's funding.
Mr. Chairman, there is a desperate need for Superfund reform and
change. First, the program needs to be reauthorized. Secondly, it needs
to promote actual cleanups based on sound science, not the rhetoric of
political science. Polluters need to pay and steps need to be taken to
ensure that public or private funds are used for environmental cleanup,
not to sustain endless litigation.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be a member of this committee and I
support the bill.
This bill contains funding for many vital programs for our Nation's
veterans, for protection and preservation of our environment, for
meeting the housing needs for our elderly and disabled and for
scientific research and discovery.
In total this bill provides over $91 billion for the Departments of
Veteran Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and 17 independent
agencies and offices. Nearly half of the bill's funding $40.4 billion,
supports the Department of Veterans Affairs' efforts to provide health
care, housing and benefits.
As a member of this subcommittee I am pleased that this bill provides
full funding for
[[Page H5260]]
the VA Health Care System. However, I remain concerned over the way the
VA has chosen to implement the Veterans Integrated Network System
[VISN]. My concern lies with the fact that veterans' health care
funding has increased each year for the last 2 years by some $400
million yet some area networks are not seeing any increases and in fact
are receiving cuts in funding and services.
In testimony before our subcommittee this year VA Secretary Jesse
Brown told the subcommittee that no services will be reduced under the
VISN proposal. In spite of this promise, the VA continues to reduce the
number of veteran services to VA hospitals in New Jersey and veterans
are beginning to believe that the Secretary's promise is meaningless.
During subcommittee markup I offered report language, accepted by the
subcommittee, which would delay by 4 months the cuts to specific
veterans' networks until the General Accounting Office has reviewed the
new system. This review would determine if funding is being equitably
distributed and if services to our veterans are adequate. I believe
that this provision is a fair way of assessing the new VA plans to
distribute these important health care funds.
In addition to veterans funding, H.R. 2158 provides funding for the
section 811 program, housing for people with disabilities, at $194
million, $20 million more than the President requested and the section
202 program, housing for older Americans, at $645 million, $300 million
more than the President's request. Both of these programs are working
extremely well at the Department of Housing and Urban Development and I
am pleased that the committee provided increased funding for them.
This bill also continues a set-aside program that the committee
started last year to meet housing needs for people with disabilities.
The committee has again included $50 million for tenant-based rental
assistance to ensure decent, safe, and affordable housing in
communities for low income people with disabilities.
Finally, this bill includes more funding for Superfund clean-ups.
Specifically, $1.5 billion is included for the program, $106 million
more than last year's funding.
There is a desperate need for Superfund reform and change. First, the
program needs to be re-authorized and second it needs to promote actual
clean-ups based on sound science, not the rhetoric of political
science. Polluters need to pay and steps need to be taken to assure
that public or private funds are used for environmental clean-up, not
to sustain endless litigation.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be a member of this committee and I
support this bill.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida [Mrs. Meek], a very distinguished member of this subcommittee,
very hardworking and very knowledgeable.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the leadership of the
Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis], the chairman, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Stokes], the ranking member. I am pleased to have served on this
subcommittee.
I think that the work that was done by this subcommittee was surely a
bipartisan kind of effort, where both Democrats and Republicans worked
well for the benefit of the people of this country. I want to
congratulate them and their staffs for the work on this fine bill.
This particular bill will not do everything for everybody, Mr.
Chairman, but what it does, it does a lot for people in need to improve
the housing in this country. It is a responsible compromise that merits
the support of every Member of this House. I think there is something
in this bill, Mr. Chairman, that every Member of the House can go back
home and say, ``This is what this subcommittee did and we are very
proud of it.''
This has been a very tight budget year. Each of us is aware of that.
The 602(b) appropriation is not as high as many of us thought it would
be. Of course in the Senate it is probably much lower. So I think this
committee did an outstanding job. They prepared for the renewal of
expiring section 8 contracts, increased funding for EPA research which
is so direly needed, the Superfund cleanups, housing for people with
AIDS, community development financial institutions and a 40-percent
increase for the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation. They really
went out and reached out to those groups that really needed help and
those programs that have been working well.
This bill also continues the Nation's commitment to space exploration
and research, including development of the space station as well as the
AmeriCorps national service program.
I particularly thank the chairman for working with the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen] and myself in increasing funding for the
section 202 housing program for the elderly and for working with us on
increasing funding for the self-help home ownership opportunity
program. The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the chairman and
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the ranking member, were very
receptive to ideas that would be workable for the people of this
country as far as veterans housing and independent agencies. Many
groups like Habitat for Humanity that our chairman so graciously
decided that we would go out and help them, this was a show to this
country and to those of us on that subcommittee that we not only deal
with projects and with numbers but we deal with human lives in trying
to rebuild housing for people in need.
Another thing in my district, like Centro Campesino dealing with the
Mexicans in that area who are in so much dire need of housing. The
chairman provided for those kinds of people to make possible the home
ownership, Mr. Chairman, for people who perhaps would never get that
opportunity. While this bill is not perfect, I want to again
congratulate the chairman and the ranking member. It is a responsible
bill and it is supportable. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg], a member of the
subcommittee.
(Mr. KNOLLENBERG asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
{time} 1915
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
bill. I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman
from California [Mr. Lewis], who has done an outstanding job along
with, of course, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the ranking
member. I think the two of them forged a relationship that brings about
some bipartisanship that frankly we need in this body, and I applaud
both of them for that.
As we began this appropriations process this year, the biggest
unanswered question was whether we could fashion a good bill acceptable
to a bipartisan majority. I would say that this subcommittee has done
just that in a definitive fashion. This appropriations bill is unique
in that it covers an array of diverse agencies ranging from AmeriCorps,
to the environment, to space exploration. It is not easy to bring such
a wide range of interests together into a single bill. In fact, it is
one of the most difficult legislative juggling acts that my colleagues
will ever encounter in this body, and again the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis] and the ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Stokes], deserve a lot of credit.
I believe that H.R. 2158 strikes a unique balance that addresses the
needs of our veterans' housing programs, the environment and special
needs of space exploration. Veterans funding is increased by more than
330 million, sending, I believe, a clear message of continued support
for those who risk their lives for our country. We preserved funding
for NASA's core mission, and in light of the recent success of
Sojourner's mission to Mars, I think we should applaud what has been
done and exciting to see some of the results of that spending. While we
increased EPA funding to protect our environment, I have some grave
concerns over EPA's use of these funds to implement the proposed new
clean air standards. Much of the debate surrounding this issue has
become emotional, polarizing, rather than constructive and innovative.
Without question, I believe the administration is attempting to impose
costly new regulations on our communities, workers, businesses and
families without anything more than a shred of concrete evidence that
the new standards will help.
A part of me would really like to see this bill separated in the
fashion so we could look at it, analyze it and apply some cost-benefit
analysis and some risk analysis to this whole process. I do not believe
that is the case.
But in conclusion, the bill before us is a good bill. I am very sure,
very sure that every Member in this body could
[[Page H5261]]
find something wrong with it, and probably has, but on the basis of
what has been presented I believe it is a good bill and, frankly, if
they can find something wrong with it, that is the nature of the
process down here on the floor. We can all find something wrong with
whatever comes through in the way of a product.
But I again want to take a moment to applaud the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis], the staff who have done an outstanding job,
again the ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], and I
particularly wanted to thank Mr. Stokes for his working with me on an
issue that in times passed has been a bit of a hangup, but it has come
about, I think, where we have reached a conclusion that we have agreed
that we can agree on this issue.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to express my appreciation to
the gentleman for his kind remarks and in the same turn that the matter
which the gentleman and I were able to work out satisfactorily to both
of us I think is one that also demonstrated the bipartisan manner in
which the gentleman and I have approached matters relating to this
committee, and it has been a pleasure to serve and work with him.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Stokes]. I appreciate his comments.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Evans].
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I prepared an amendment to this appropriations bill
that would have prohibited the VA from using fiscal year 1998 dollars
to contract with businesses that have serious and repeated violations
of Federal labor and safety laws. I will not, however, offer my
amendment at this time. The Committee on Rules did not agree to waive
possible points of order against it. But I want to remind Members that
our Nation's Federal contracting laws are in need of much reform.
The amendment I had hoped to offer this evening is similar to H.R.
1624, the Federal Procurement and Assistance Integrity Act that I
introduced during this Congress. The amendment was narrowly tailored,
however, so it would only apply to VA appropriations during the next
fiscal year. It would have prohibited the VA from contracting with
businesses with a history of serious and repeated labor and safety law
violations. The amendment would have helped ensure that the VA only
does business with entities that comply with the laws that protect
America's working men and women from unfair working practices and
unsafe workplace conditions.
Beverly Enterprises is one of the largest nursing home operations in
the United States. It has an extremely poor safety record and a
longstanding record of vindictive and illegal labor practices. The GAO
has labeled Beverly as one of the most serious labor violators among
our Nation's Federal contractors. The U.S. District Court in
Pennsylvania recently stated that Beverly's labor law practices have
been ``selectively geared to destroy or at least impede communication
among union members.'' On the health and safety front Beverly has
repeatedly refused to allow investigators from OSHA to visit their
facilities, even when the inspectors produce a warrant.
These facts speak for themselves. It is time to stop pouring taxpayer
dollars down the corporate coffers of the Federal contractors who play
fast and loose with the employees' rights and jeopardize the lives of
American workers for the sake of the bottom line.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to consider this kind of
contracting reform as we take up future appropriations bills in this
Congress.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn] for purposes of a colloquy.
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for
his courtesies today.
Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Benefits, I am
very concerned about the gradual decline in the overall appearance at
our Arlington National Cemetery. The cemetery staff does a marvelous
job, Mr. Chairman, of trying to keep the Nation's premier veterans'
cemetery up to the standards of a National shrine that it is, but
relatively flat budgets and a growing workload make that more and more
difficult every year.
For instance, in 1992, Arlington employed a staff of 140 and interred
4,352. Five years later in 1997, the cemetery interred 5,400 with a
staff of only 117. We know construction funds are also lagging, and
these are the funds that are needed to replace an aging infrastructure
such as old buildings and roads and to open new areas for burial. In
1992, Arlington received $4.8 million; this year's budget requests only
$2.4 million, and clearly, Mr. Chairman, if this continues, our
standards will not be met.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. QUINN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Veterans Benefits is right on target. The gentleman
from New York [Mr. Quinn] and I have discussed this matter on other
occasions. Arlington National Cemetery holds a very special place in
the hearts of the Nation, and I think it is important that Arlington be
maintained at the highest standards. I am very aware that the
cemetery's maintenance backlog has been growing.
Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman have a proposal?
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I believe that they can probably absorb
several millions of dollars worth of improvements, but the budget
pressures that we are under, and others have worked so hard, I was
going to offer an amendment to add $250,000 to the cemetery's budget. I
appreciate the gentleman's leadership and respect the hard work of the
subcommittee.
So I would merely request that during the conference with the other
body the gentleman from California seek to add that $250,000 to the
operations and maintenance accounts so that we can maintain Arlington
in the manner reflecting the deeds of those who are buried there.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his
cooperation and consideration of the subcommittee's work and the
difficulty we face. This is a modest sum, and I am sure that it will be
well used at Arlington. I would be pleased to seek additional funds
during conference.
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Brown], the ranking member of the Committee on Science.
(Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few
words about the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies' appropriation bill
developed under the able leadership of the gentleman from California
[Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the ranking
member. While there are, of course, specific items to which I may
object, I believe that the bill is, on balance, a good one. Thus, in
the brief time that I have I would like to comment on a few of the NASA
provisions that have generated some controversy.
The bill, as reported, provides the NASA Administrator with the
authority to transfer up to $150 million from the science, aeronautics,
and technology and mission support accounts to the space station
account. I shared the concern of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Sensenbrenner] with that provision, and I am disappointed that the rule
protects the provisions against a point of order. However, I do want to
be clear about the reasons for my opposition.
I do not oppose providing NASA with additional funds to complete the
development of the space station. I recognize that both NASA and the
space station prime contractor have suffered cost growth and schedule
problems over the past year. That does not make me happy, but it would
be foolish to ignore reality and to pretend that all is well with the
program and that additional funds will not be needed.
[[Page H5262]]
The situation has been exacerbated by the $2.1 billion annual funding
cap that was imposed on the space station program in 1993. The cap may
have been politically advantageous, even necessary, but it has further
constrained NASA's ability to respond to Station development problems.
It is not very surprising to me that an R&D undertaking as large and
as complex as the space station has run into difficulties, especially
since we are at the point in the development program where we would
anticipate such problems typically would arise. Moreover, I fully
expect that the space station program will need additional funds prior
to its completion, and I am prepared to support additional funding as
appropriate.
However, I strongly believe that additional funding requests should
not be quietly slipped into appropriations bills without prior review
by the authorizing committee. Neither do I believe that it is prudent
to indiscriminately raid NASA's other important activities to pay for
space station cost growth. We will need to be flexible in our approach
in order to ensure that no programs are damaged. Conversely, I would
also oppose a limitation on the administration's ability to add funds
to the space station engineering account, subject to congressional
approval.
In a related vein, I intend to oppose the amendment that I understand
will be offered by Mr. Rohrabacher and Mr. Roemer to eliminate the $100
million Russian program assurance account. While the amendment may
reflect an understandable frustration with Russian delays in meeting
their space station commitments, this amendment would have the net
effect of damaging American interests--not promoting them.
That is because the $100 million is intended to reduce United States
dependence on the Russians by funding the development of United States-
owned contingency hardware that would help take Russia off the space
station's critical path. Moreover, it is money that will be almost
entirely spent within the United States--it is not a gift to the
Russians, nor is it a blank check. Eliminating those funds would, in
all likelihood, force NASA to curtail its work on contingency options
and alternatives. Fundamentally, we can't have it both ways: We can't
direct NASA to reduce the space station program's dependence on the
Russians, and at the same time eliminate the funds NASA requires to
carry out that directive.
The authors of the amendment have tried to add additional provisions
that they hope will make it more appealing. However, Members should not
be confused. If adopted, I believe that this amendment would lead to
increased space station costs, further delays, and continued
vulnerability to potential Russian delays. I intend to support Chairman
Lewis and oppose the amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], my colleague and friend.
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank, first of all, the
chairman and the ranking member and all the members of the subcommittee
for the excellent work they did under difficult budgetary restraints,
and I want to particularly comment favorably upon their treatment of
some of the housing programs. Section 8, section 184, section 202, and
section 811 programs were funded as adequately as we can under the
circumstances, and they are very important, and I appreciate the
subcommittee's good work.
Mostly, however, I would like to address the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Legislation was enacted last year to amend that act and inject more
common sense in the process of testing and treating our Nation's water.
This Member is concerned, however, that the Environmental Protection
Agency's groundwater disinfection program may be ignoring congressional
intent. Specifically, the EPA may attempt to implement a rule which
would result in enormous disinfection costs for small communities, but
with no actual benefit to the citizens of those communities. In
recognition of the general good quality of our Nation's groundwater,
the excellent existing State water quality protection programs and the
expense and other complications of unneeded treatment, the Safe
Drinking Water Act of l996 provided the EPA with only the authority to
promulgate regulations requiring disinfection as a treatment technique
as necessary, and I stress the words as necessary, for all public water
systems using groundwater. Therefore, it appears that the EPA staff,
all too predictably and as this Member predicted, would be the problem
in his floor comments on June 25, 1996. It appears they may be focusing
on a proposed regulation which goes far beyond the regulation of those
systems with groundwater quality problems. Agency drafts have proposed
regulatory measures that exceed disinfection and which are currently
and properly covered under State authority or State programs.
Therefore, this Member would request that the chairman of the
appropriations Subcommittee on VA-HUD enter into a colloquy on this
matter.
Mr. Chairman, is it the committee's intention that a small community
using groundwater should not be subject to EPA-directed improvements
unless the community's groundwater poses a genuine health risk?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Unless the community's groundwater poses a
genuine health risk, yes, there is such a requirement.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, is it also the committee's intention that
in order not to override creative and locally supported State efforts,
which are effective in assuring public health, the EPA should develop a
rule that clearly demonstrates that the groundwater poses a genuine
health risk before requiring systems to disinfect?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Yes, it is, and I must say to my colleague
that I very much appreciate his raising this question, for across the
country there are other districts that have similar concerns, and the
answer is yes.
Mr. BEREUTER. This Member thanks the distinguished gentleman for this
clarification. Since Nebraska has more communities, all except five
public water systems, that depend upon groundwater, more than any other
State, this is a matter of great importance to our State, and I
understand it affects other districts around the country as well.
Mr. Chairman, once again, the Appropriations Committee has completed
the tough task of allocating limited resources to many deserving
programs. As a member of the House Banking Committee, the committee
with jurisdiction over Federal public housing programs, this Member is
keenly aware of the growing strain section 8 contract renewals are
placing on the HUD budget. This Member commends the appropriators for
dealing with this difficult task in the absence of a legislative
solution.
Although there are numerous deserving programs included in this
funding bill, this Member would like to mention three specific
programs. First, the bill provides $3.0 million for the section 184
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program which is administered by HUD.
According to the committee report, this appropriation will result in
over $36.9 million in loan guarantees. The section 184 Indian Housing
Loan Guarantee Program has already proven to be an excellent program
that for the first time is providing privately financed homes through a
guarantee program for Indian families who are otherwise unable to
secure conventional financing due to the trust status of Indian
reservation land.
Second, appropriators should be applauded for including $4.6 billion
for the Community Development Block Grant [CDBG]. This amount, which is
the same as the fiscal year 1997 enacted level will efficiently provide
block grants for many successful programs, including Youthbuild.
Finally, this Member would like to thank appropriators for retaining
the fiscal year 1997 enacted level of $645 million for the section 202
elderly housing program and $194 million for the section 811 disabled
housing program. These levels, which this Member supported during House
floor consideration last year, are a minimum commitment Congress should
make to these special needs citizens.
Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in support of H.R. 2158 and urges his
colleagues to support this measure.
{time} 1930
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
(Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BORSKI. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this
time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, while this bill has many positive attributes, it fails
to
[[Page H5263]]
adequately fund the Superfund toxic waste cleanup program. It violates
the budget agreement by refusing to fund the President's request. It
shortchanges the millions of Americans and their children whose lives
and welfare are threatened by toxic waste.
By failing to provide the $650 million requested by the President for
Superfund cleanup in fiscal year 1998, up to 120 Superfund site
cleanups will not begin. There will be an enormous reduction in the
relief that could be afforded to nearly 70 million Americans, including
10 million children who live within 4 miles of a Superfund site. The
money requested sits in a trust fund collected for the very purpose of
providing relief to these people who live with hazardous waste,
threatening the water supplies and health.
Mr. Chairman, in the past the Superfund program has been justly
criticized for the speed with which it cleaned up sites. As ranking
member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, I am all
too aware of the history of the program. But I can tell the Members
with a certainty that EPA, under the effective leadership of Carol
Browner, has implemented over 50 initiatives to reform and improve the
program.
The criticisms of the past do not accurately reflect the Superfund
program of today. Eighty-two percent of sites on the final list are
undergoing cleanup construction or already have construction completed.
Superfund has 439 completed cleanups and an additional 492 underway.
These numbers indicate that the current program is clearly much more
effective than in years past. The President proposed funding in his
budget to complete an additional 500 cleanups by the year 2000. These
are cleanups that are ready to go.
Despite their insistence that they, too, are committed to speeding up
cleanups, the Republican leadership refused to provide needed cleanup
funding.
Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and
the Committee on Commerce, along with the administration, have been
meeting on a bipartisan basis to reauthorize the Superfund program.
However, that process should not be the excuse to fail to fund cleanups
which are ready to begin today. I do not know what a revised Superfund
might look like, but I do know that the failure to provide additional
cleanup funding will delay cleanups.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to urge support of this bill, and I
must say that I am pleased with the overall funding for the EPA, plus
language that was put in in an appropriation of $4 million for our
decontamination effort of toxic dredge material in the New York Harbor,
which impacts New Jersey. I wanted to thank the chairman, the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], as well as the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Frelinghuysen] for that effort in particular.
But I do have to say, as my previous colleague, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] did, that there is not enough money to
significantly expand the Superfund program as proposed by the
President. The President's initiative to clean up an additional 3,500
Superfund sites by the end of the year 2000 was designed to protect the
public from the risks that these sites posed to health and the
environment. I think this was an important initiative. It was
recognized by the Congress. It was part of the accommodation in the
balanced budget agreement.
What we intend to do, myself, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Markey] and the gentlewoman from Colorado [Ms. DeGette], is to offer an
amendment that restores the $650 million in additional funding
requested by the President.
Many of Superfund's detractors are fond of saying that the sites do
not get cleaned up fast enough. I think this is the opportunity to make
a difference. We should reauthorize and reform Superfund, but we have
to fund the cleanups while we work on the bill.
I just wanted to say that in my home State of New Jersey, there are
some 70 percent of our 107 sites that are either being cleaned up or
are cleaned up. A great number of the sites have not been delisted in
New Jersey only because long-term monitoring is still ongoing or long-
term treatment of groundwater is still ongoing, but we have worked very
hard with the EPA administrator and the President to put in place a
Superfund program that is leaner and cleaner than it ever was before.
Nationally, the reforms put into place by the EPA have revived the
Superfund program after many years of neglect. In the last 4 years the
EPA has cleaned up more sites than in all of the 12 years of the
program's previous years.
Mr. Chairman, the President made a promise to clean up these
additional sites by the year 2000. To do that, I think we should
include this money in the bill.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my
colleague, the gentleman from Cleveland, Ohio [Mr. Kucinich].
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, at this hour the ailing Russian astronaut Tsibliyev is
aboard the Mir space station awaiting help in outer space to see if an
American astronaut, Michael Foale, can take charge to make critical
repairs to the space station.
As often happens in the universe, the drama in the sky above mirrors
that on the Earth below, because we are faced with the possible
elimination of $100 million in the fiscal year 1998 appropriations for
NASA's Russian Program assurance activities. This $100 million is
needed to continue NASA's contingency against Russian delay in the
delivery of the International Space Station service module.
The majority of these funds will be spent in the United States to
develop and modify hardware needed to ensure that the International
Space Station will be built on time. The elimination of these funds
would put the program at risk and delay the critical research that is
being planned for the space station.
Mr. Chairman, NASA has made significant progress towards the on-orbit
assembly of this unique international research facility. The $100
million allows NASA to fulfill a mandate that has been emphasized by
Congress, the importance of contingency planning to prepare the United
States to deal with delays in Russian hardware for the space station.
The day is near when the International Space Station, the product of
an international partnership between the United States and 13 other
countries, will begin to be assembled in orbit around the Earth. When
it is completed soon after the turn of the century, it will serve as a
world class laboratory for microgravity research.
Mr. Chairman, the International Space Station represents the future
of aerospace technology, medical research, international cooperation,
and space travel. The continued support of this orbiting laboratory is
critical. We wish the Russian astronaut well and Godspeed, and we wish
our American astronaut good luck as he faces this critical moment. We
are with him, and I hope that we will support the continuation of the
International Space Station.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] is recognized for
2 minutes.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I do not expect to take all the time. I
just want to once again say to my colleagues that this is a good bill.
I want to say also that this is a difficult bill to craft. It is a bill
that takes a number of months to put together. The staffs on both
sides, the majority and minority staffs, have spent a lot of time
working on this bill. Then the chairman and I spent long hours working
to craft this bill.
Mr. Chairman, we wish, both of us I am sure, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis] and I, that we could have had the resources to
do many more things with this bill, but with the resources that were
available to us I think we have crafted a bill that the House can take
pride in.
Right now this bill has the support of the President. I hope we will
not put any onerous amendments on this bill to place it in jeopardy of
any type of a veto. I would like to see us be able to pass this bill
and go to conference, and bring back to the House an even better bill.
[[Page H5264]]
In closing, Mr. Chairman, once again I want to thank my esteemed
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], and say what a
pleasure it is to work with him in crafting this very difficult bill. I
offer him full support for this bill and hope that our colleagues will
pass it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] is recognized
for 6 minutes.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, it has been suggested that the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and I, working on this very complex
bill, have found ourselves in a circumstance where perhaps this
subcommittee is a model for the work of the balance of our
subcommittees.
I think more important than that, the bill involves, as has been
suggested, a great variety of very complex issues that cover the gamut
in terms of services to the American public. Veterans' medical programs
are important, obviously. Housing programs are important. We are all
excited today about NASA. EPA's work is critical to the country's
future.
Indeed, when those kinds of programs are involved and there is
competition head-on, the point that shortly comes to the fore is that
major public policy issues, when we can get down to the nub of it, have
very little to do with partisan politics. It is searching for
alternative solutions and answers that lead to the best result for the
American public. In this bill, I think we come very close to
accomplishing much of that.
Because of that, I give my thanks to our staff, as the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Stokes] has suggested, but very much to my colleague, the
gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Lewis Stokes, for his cooperation as well.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support this bill.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice unqualified support for
one of the Nation's most vital housing programs--the Low Income Housing
Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act [LIHPHRA] of 1990 and its
predecessor, the Emergency Low Income Housing Act of 1987. This program
has, without qualification, preserved the homes of thousands of low-
and moderate-income families and senior citizens. Yet, the HUD-VA
appropriations bill that we have before us today includes zero funding
for this popular and effective program.
In Chicago, there are presently 600 units of housing that have been
approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for
preservation. These apartments involve sales to community-based
nonprofit organizations that are awaiting funding. But they will not be
preserved as affordable housing if this Congress fails to provide
funding for the LIHPHRA Program.
In the First Congressional District, there are presently 418 units
approved for preservation and awaiting funding. Since its inception,
LIHPHRA funds have contributed to the preservation of 1,500 apartments
in the First Congressional District and 7,500 units in Illinois. This
includes the recent transfer of a 312-unit senior citizen property on
Chicago's south side--Cambridge Manor--to resident nonprofit ownership.
Just weeks ago I had the opportunity to share in the celebration of
this achievement with residents of the community.
LIHPHRA has proven a cost-effective approach to preserving affordable
housing in our financially strapped cities. The national average cost
to acquire and rehabilitate housing under LIHPHRA is $40,000 per
apartment. This compares to an average cost of $80,000 to $120,000 per
unit for total replacement of housing in the First Congressional
District.
Regrettably, the actions of the HUD-VA Appropriations Committee will
result in hundreds of prepayments of HUD-assisted mortgages. The end
result will be the conversion of quality housing stock that has been
financed with taxpayer dollars to market-rate uses.
In place of continued and expanded LIHPHRA funding, the committee is
recommending the use of housing vouchers. But experience shows that in
Chicago, at least 20 percent of tenant-based assistance is returned to
the housing authority unused because of economic and racial barriers
faced by tenants who try to use the certificates. Clearly, the voucher
alternative does not offer a workable viable vehicle to preserve
housing stock as a source of low-income housing for current tenants and
future generations.
I regret that the VA-HUD appropriations bill reported by the
committee failed to include funding for the preservation program. I
urge my colleagues in the Senate and the conferees to ensure that
funding for the LIHPHRA Program is restored.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to extend my support for the
legislation before us. I especially commend Chairman Lewis and his
colleagues on the VA-HUD Appropriations Committee for their cooperation
with the Committee on Veterans Affairs in reaching a consensus and
commitment to adequately fund the Department of Veterans Affairs for
fiscal year 1998.
Chairman Lewis has provided a total appropriation of $40.0 billion in
fiscal year 1998 for programs and benefits provided to our veterans by
the VA. This total is $143 million more than requested by the
administration and includes $17.0 billion in direct appropriation for
medical care and treatment of eligible beneficiaries. The legislation
also takes an important step to allow the VA to retain for its own use
the collections and user fees paid from third parties as reimbursement
for VA-provided medical care.
While this Congress is dedicated to spending less of the taxpayers
dollars on unnecessary programs and departments of Government, we
cannot and should not jeopardize veterans healthcare, compensation, and
other program benefits. This country made a commitment to every single
veteran and we have a responsibility to follow through. I believe that
this legislation is true to this commitment.
This Congress should, however, expect the Department of Veterans
Affairs to commit taxpayer dollars toward programs and services in a
fiscally responsible manner. I am particularly concerned with the
manner in which the VA is progressing toward VA hospital integrations
across the country.
Let me first say that I support consolidating VA facilities. I
believe this process is necessary to improve the efficiency of
healthcare delivery for America's veterans. However, the VA should
never implement an integration of facilities before designing a
detailed integration plan. Unfortunately, the VA proceeded with the
formation of the Central Alabama VA Health Care System and
implementation of clinical and administrative changes without a
business plan. The GAO considers the VA proposal inadequate, at best.
Further, the GAO suggests that the plan raises more questions that it
provides answers.
For this reason, I have requested that the VA halt the integration of
two facilities in Alabama until such time as the Department has
provided critical information on the consolidation process,
specifically, on the formation of the Central Alabama Veterans Health
Care System through the integration of the Montgomery, AL, VA Medical
Center, and the Tuskegee, AL, VA Medical Center.
The General Accounting Office [GAO] is reviewing the integration of
these facilities and has identified specific issues which should be
addressed before further implementation takes place. The VA agreed to
temporarily halt this integration in June.
At my request, Chairman Lewis has included report language in the
bill directing the VA to not proceed with further integration of these
two facilities until a detailed plan of the integration has been
submitted to the Congress and the General Accounting Office issues a
report reviewing the plan.
I believe, and the committee agrees, that given the specific
circumstances surrounding the integration of these two facilities,
integration should be halted until the VA and the GAO can assure this
Congress that the integration of the Montgomery and Tuskegee facilities
will serve the best interests of the veterans of Alabama and the
taxpayers of this country.
Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of this legislation and thank
Chairman Lewis, once again, for this attention to the concerns of
veterans in my district and throughout the country.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the members of the
Appropriations Committee and its leaders, Mr. Livingston, Mr. Obey, Mr.
Lewis, and Mr. Stokes, for their work on this bill. It is a good bill
for veterans.
Earlier this year, when the administration sent its budget to the
Congress, there was a great deal of concern about the proposed funding
scheme for veterans health care. For the first time, the administration
proposed that part of the funding for veterans health care would be
dependent on what VA could collect from insurance companies and others
who are obligated to pay for VA health care.
The funding level contained in this bill assumes that Congress will
send to the President authority for the Secretary to spend amounts
collected from insurance companies for veterans' health care. However,
it is important to note that the House has taken a number of steps to
make this less risky than the administration's original proposal. In
the House-passed reconciliation bill, the VA Committee inserted several
provisions to avoid a situation in which veterans are denied health
care because of an unexpected shortfall in collections. The House-
passed provisions
[[Page H5265]]
would: Provide additional appropriations if collections from third
parties fall short of projections by more than $25 million; authorize
VA to collect the same amount that insurance companies pay other health
care providers; require VA to develop a plan to maximize collections
through appropriate incentives; and establish a monitoring mechanism so
that Congress can accurately assess whether this new authority is
working.
The language reported by the VA Committee would have made these
collections available without any further action by the Congress, and I
still believe that if we want to maximize collections, that is the best
policy.
There are a number of other noteworthy improvements to the
administration's budget proposal for veterans contained in this
measure. It adds $32.6 million to the President's request for veterans
medical research. I am concerned, however, that the reported bill
includes unwise and unnecessary restrictions on how this money is to be
spent. The bill includes increased funding for the State veterans home
construction grant program, an action which the VA Committee
recommended earlier this year. The bill provides the funds requested by
the administration to upgrade the National Cemetery in Arizona. It also
adds funds to modernize some of the VA's health care facilities, a
necessary investment even though the VA is going through a nationwide
restructuring of the way in which health care is delivered. Finally, it
adds modestly to the funds needed to administer the benefits which the
Congress has authorized for veterans. All of these increases were
recommended earlier this year and I congratulate the committee for its
wise choices.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in overall support of this
legislation which will provide $91.7 billion in fiscal year 1998 for
housing programs, veterans programs, environmental programs, and a
myriad of other independent agencies' programs.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is acceptable, in relative
terms, for housing, an area of appropriations that continues to bear
the scars and burden of the 1995 rescissions bill which gutted
important housing and homeless programs. We see in this bill a
recognition of the section 8 renewal needs at $9.2 billion, a
recognition of the political realities. The measure as reported does
not antagonize Presidential priorities with regard to AmeriCorps or
community development financial institutions, and there is a
recognition in the bill of the need for balance among the programs
funded through this important mixture of programs. These programs in
effect display the full spectrum of Federal Government activities.
Mr. Speaker, I do have reservations about some of the spending
priorities in this VA-HUD-independent agencies appropriations bill. For
example, while these are exciting times on Mars and as a person with a
strong science interest, I celebrate the discoveries, I only wish we
could see such exuberance, ingenuity, and funding commitment in
tackling our Nation's housing challenge. If only we could see such
commitment to funding and supporting efforts to clean up our Nation's
air, and those in our Nation's Capital these past few days in July has
only shown too ``clearly'' that our air is in need of help, and other
environmental cleanup needs of spaceship Earth. Certainly I recognize
that this is an acceptable bill than recently has been presented on the
floor because the 602(b) appropriation allocation permitted the
subcommittee, led by Messrs. Lewis and Stokes, a more equitable
allocation.
There are several issues I am pleased to note specifically: for one,
the level funding of the AmeriCorps Program at $400 million. There has
been a lot of talk about the Minnesota/North Dakota/South Dakota
floods; about funding; and about the necessity of expedited funding.
AmeriCorps put its people and money where its promises were and sent
close to 100 AmeriCorps members to help flood victims. They came from
all over the country, from Colorado, from Virginia, to help slog
through the mud of the Red River that clogged people's basements, to
pitch sandbags, to deliver food, and to work in other important jobs
that were essential during this still trying time. These volunteers did
all this and more for an opportunity to help people and to restore hope
for people who really needed it.
AmeriCorps helped more than 9 million individuals throughout 1995-96.
Although we could do more for this vital win-win program that wins for
the volunteers and those who are served, level funding is a step ahead
of where we were in the previous bills. I urge the House to defeat
amendments to strike or reduce AmeriCorps funding.
I am surprised and dismayed that the bill does not fund the
additional 50,000 section 8 certificates and vouchers requested by the
administration. The third year without new housing being made
available. The need for housing persists. It has not gone away. The
changes that welfare reform will bring are going to impact our housing
programs in many ways including a likely increase in demand for section
8 housing. Affordable housing supplies are not keeping pace with the
growth in housing needs. It has been estimated that the gap between the
number of affordable housing units and the number of people needing
them is 4.7 million units. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development estimates that over 11 million Americans have worst case
housing needs. Families with children represent 43 percent of the
households with those needs--paying more than half of their income for
rent and utilities, or living in substandard housing. These are housing
canyons forming in our Nation, not mere housing gaps and the numbers
clearly show that many, many millions of Americans are but an accident,
a job loss, or a health care crisis away from unfortunately becoming
homeless.
In its annual survey, the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that 20
percent of all requests for emergency shelter went unmet this year
because of a lack of resources. Emergency shelter requests increased in
the 29-city survey by an average of 5 percent, with the requests for
assistance from homeless families increasing by 7 percent. On average,
people remain homeless for a disappointing 6 months in the survey
cities. The No. 1 reason, among many reasons to be sure, is the lack,
of affordable housing. And now, with the impact of welfare reform
starting to be felt, it is even more evident that we must marshal the
necessary resources to keep American citizens off the streets.
I intend to offer an amendment to restore the Federal Emergency
Management Agencys' Emergency Food and Shelter Program to $130 million,
up from $100 million in the bill, and to support the Kennedy amendments
to increase funding from the HUD McKinney Act homeless programs for
$823 million to $1.1 billion and to add 45,000 units of incremental
section 8 assistance. I urge my colleagues to consider that same course
of action. This would indeed bring homeless funding to its 1995 level
and provide some new additional support.
The public housing program will be affected by welfare reform,
especially in their operating subsidies. Although public housing
programs are level funded, I fear that a proper accounting has not been
made on the real potential impacts of welfare reform cuts on public
housing in the future. Public housing authorities are strapped already.
I am pleased, however, that the committee fully funded the important
Drug Elimination Grants Program, a program I've been fighting to save
in the authorizing legislation process, the spending commitment is
necessary and deserves the support of the house.
Other housing and community development programs are in need of
mentioning. Last Congress, we reorganized the native American housing
programs into a block grant. Although the bill provides $165 million
more than requested by the administration for this new block grant, I
am concerned that be shielded from cuts as it goes through the
congressional process. Housing needs in Indian country are great, and
block grants that dribble out are not as effective as those that come
out with meaningful allocation amounts to the designated housing
entities.
I thank the committee for allocating additional resources to the
Community Development Financial Institutions [CDFI] fund. This
important fund seeks to increase the availability of credit and
investment capital in distressed communities as a means of increasing
economic opportunity and revitalizing distressed communities. In many
places, like rural Minnesota and right here in Washington DC,
allocations have been approved that may well work through innovative
micro credit lending that is being advanced through the CDFI. Funding
this program at $125 million will give the CDFI program additional
boost to help more communities, businesses, and individuals the
opportunity to help themselves. CDFI works. Now its appropriate to
realistically fund the CDFI's.
In this same vein, H.R. 2158 has allocated $70 million for the highly
successful and proven work of the Neighborhood Reinvestment
Corporation. As a long-time supporter of this program and an author of
the law expanding their mission several Congresses ago, I am pleased at
the dollar commitment for the Neighborhood Reinvestment and
Neighborhood Housing programs serving hundreds of cities across our
country.
With regard to the funding level for the EPA, the bill on the whole
is positive but has some serious flaws. I am very concerned about the
failure to fund to restore the environment in communities burdened with
toxic waste sites. By providing only $1.5 billion for the Superfund
hazardous waste cleanup program, the bill translates into 29 percent
less than requested by the administration. I would also like to have
seen funds allocated from Brown fields cleanup, not just $85 million
for assessment. Our cities need assistance in cleaning up sites so that
they can turn these areas into positive areas, environmentally and
economically. I regret that the politics of reauthorization has
resulted in shortchanging these key
[[Page H5266]]
programs, Superfund and Brownfields which are integral to the economic
vitality of our communities.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2158 and to support
the several important amendments that will be offered to increase
funding for housing and homeless assistance programs.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the H.R.
2158, the fiscal year 1998 VA, HUD and independent agencies
appropriations bill. As a member of the VA-HUD Subcommittee I have
enjoyed working with Chairman Lewis, my fellow subcommittee members,
and the fine subcommittee staff and I commend their work on this often
difficult bill.
This year, as always, the subcommittee was faced with many challenges
as it worked to approve funding for the wide array of programs under
its jurisdiction. Nonetheless, I am pleased that we were able to
appropriate $70 billion to meet the important needs of our veterans,
protect the environment, address the Nation's housing and emergency
assistance needs, and retain our commitment to space and science
programs. The 1998 funding level in this bill is $600 million more
than the President's request and approximately $6 billion higher than
last year, guaranteeing that our most vulnerable citizens receive the
assistance they need to lead productive lives.
As someone who has served on active duty, I firmly believe that we
can never thank our veterans enough for putting their lives on the line
in defense of our Nation. I am proud that the VA-HUD bill continues the
House's strong support for veterans by protecting the veterans medical
care account from reductions by funding it at $17 billion, with an
extra $468 million to follow when the Balanced Budget Act is passed.
The bill also provides funding to ensure that those Americans who
need housing assistance can receive it. H.R. 2158 funds the section 202
housing program for the elderly at $645 million and the 811 housing
program for persons with disabilities at $195 million, both of which
have been a concern of residents of Ohio's seventh district. Spending
in both of these programs represents an increase over the President's
request. Also, section 8 contract renewals are fully funded at $9.1
billion ensuring that all expiring contracts will be renewed for 1
year. The extremely popular Community Development Block Grant Program
and HOME home investment partnerships are funded at $4.6 billion and
$1.5 billion respectively, which protects CDBG funding and expands the
HOME effort by $100 million.
The Environmental Protection Agency also received an increase of $433
million which will allow for the protection of our Nation's resources,
for increased environmental research and for the clean-up of hazardous
sites. More specifically, H.R. 2158 appropriates $656 million for EPA
research including $40 million to study aspects of the controversial
proposed EPA air regulations. The Superfund receives $1.5 billion, an
increase of $100 million, and $85 million is allocated to help clean-up
brownfield sites and restore them to useable condition, which is $48
million over the 1997 level. Finally, the clean water state revolving
loan fund is funded at $1.25 billion and the safe drinking water
revolving fund at $750 million, a total increase of $200 million. These
funding levels will help preserve our valuable resources for future
generations and help ensure that small communities receive the
technical assistance to continue providing pure, clean water for rural
families.
H.R. 2185 fully funds the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
disaster relief account. This agency is of vital importance to
coordinating the Federal Government's emergency preparation, response
and recovery efforts. FEMA works closely with State and local
governments in managing emergency programs and offering technical
assistance and I am pleased to see these efforts being maintained.
Finally, the VA-HUD bill increases funding for NASA by $148 million
over the President's request. Over the past few weeks we have marveled
at the Mars Pathfinder mission and other projects such as the
microgravity experiments developed by Ohio's NASA Lewis Research that
are being conducted on the Space Shuttle Columbia. In Ohio and other
locations across the country NASA taps the excitement of space
exploration to help underserved children learn about science and math,
and I'm glad to see these efforts adequately funded in this bill. It is
important that our Nation continue our investment in science and space
exploration, and that we use these efforts to improve life on Earth--
H.R. 2185 provides the funding necessary to do all of these.
Tough decisions are made in this bill, such as the action to close
the Office of Consumer Affairs--whose functions can be transferred to
existing agencies--and freeze funding for the expensive Americorps
program. These were carefully considered actions, and make it possible
for the 1998 VA-HUD bill to provide for our veterans, meet the
country's housing and environmental needs, invest in emergency
planning, and support science and space exploration. I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move that
the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr.
Cunningham] having assumed the chair, Mr. Combest, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill, (H.R. 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, had come to no resolution
thereon.
____________________