[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.

                          ____________________