[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 100 (Tuesday, July 15, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5272-H5288]
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 the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2158.

                              {time}  2055


                     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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, all 
time for general debate had expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  Amendments printed in House Report 105-180 may be offered only by a 
Member designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in 
the reading of the bill, are considered read, are not subject to 
amendment and are not subject to a demand for division of the question.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time 
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
for a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to not less than 5 
minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any postponed 
question that immediately follows another vote by electronic device 
without intervening business, provided that the time for voting by 
electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not be 
less than 15 minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word 
for purposes of making an announcement.
  Mr. Chairman, before we get into reading the bill for amendments, I 
would like to make this announcement about how we have agreed to 
proceed for the balance of the evening.
  First, there will be no more recorded votes this evening. Any votes 
ordered will be rolled until tomorrow.
  We will be reading the bill for amendments. We plan to read for 
amendments and debate all amendments

[[Page H5273]]

through title II at the maximum. We will not read into title III even 
if we finish the first two titles quickly.
  So, any Member with an amendment that will be offered in the first 
two titles needs to be here tonight. However, we will stop considering 
amendments no later than 10:30 p.m. even if we are not through with 
title II.
  To summarize, there will be no more recorded votes tonight, and we 
will consider amendments through title II or 10:30 p.m., whichever 
occurs earlier.

                              {time}  2100

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2158

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 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, namely:

                                TITLE I

                     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

                    Veterans Benefits Administration


                       compsensation and pensions

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the payment of compensation benefits to or on behalf of 
     veterans and a pilot program for disability examinations as 
     authorized by law (38 U.S.C. 107, chapters 11, 13, 18, 51, 
     53, 55, and 61); pension benefits to or on behalf of veterans 
     as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. chapters 15, 51, 53, 55, and 
     61; 92 Stat. 2508); and burial benefits, emergency and other 
     officers' retirement pay, adjusted-service credits and 
     certificates, payment of premiums due on commercial life 
     insurance policies guaranteed under the provisions of Article 
     IV of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, as 
     amended, and for other benefits as authorized by law (38 
     U.S.C. 107, 1312, 1977, and 2106, Chapters 23, 51, 53, 55, 
     and 61; 50 U.S.C. App. 540-548; 43 Stat. 122, 123; 45 Stat. 
     735; 76 Stat. 1198); $19,932,997,000 to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That not to exceed $26,380,000 of 
     the amount appropriated shall be reimbursed to ``General 
     operating expenses'' and ``Medical care'' for necessary 
     expenses in implementing those provisions authorized in the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, and in the 
     Veterans' Benefits act of 1992 (38 U.S.C. chapters 51, 53, 
     and 55), the funding source for which is specifically 
     provided as the ``Compensation and pensions'' appropriations: 
     Provided further, That such sums as may be earned on an 
     actual qualifying patient basis, shall be reimbursed to 
     ``Medical facilities revolving fund'' to augment the funding 
     of individual medical facilities for nursing home care 
     provided to pensioners as authorized by the Veterans'' 
     Benefits Act of 1992 (38 U.S.C. chapter 55).


                         readjustment benefits

       For the payment of readjustment and rehabilitation benefits 
     to or on behalf of veterans as authorized by 38 U.S.C. 
     chapters 21, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 39, 51,53, 55, and 61, 
     $1,366,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That funds shall be available to pay any court order, court 
     award or any compromise settlement arising from litigation 
     involving the vocational training program authorized by 
     section 18 of Public Law 98-77, amended.


                   veterans insurance and indemnities

       For military and naval insurance, national service life 
     insurance, servicemen's indemnities, service-disabled 
     veterans insurance, and veterans mortgage life insurance as 
     authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 19; 70 Stat. 887; 72 Stat. 
     487, $51,360,000, to remain available until expended.


         veterans housing benefit program fund program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of indirect and guaranteed loans, such sums as 
     may be necessary to carry out the program, as authorized by 
     38 U.S.C. chapter 37, as amended: Provided, That such costs, 
     including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, as amended,: Provided further, That during fiscal year 
     1998, within the resources available, not to exceed $300,000 
     in gross obligations for direct loans are authorized for 
     specially adapted housing loans.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct and guaranteed loan programs, $160,437,000, which may 
     be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``General operating expenses''.


                  education loan fund program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, $1,000, as authorized by 238 
     U.S.C. 3698, as amended: Provided, That such costs, including 
     the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in 
     section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as 
     amended: Provided further, That these funds are available 
     to subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount of 
     direct loans not to exceed $3,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct loan program, $200,000; which may be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``General operating expenses''.


            vocational rehabilitation loans program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, $44,000, as authorized by 38 
     U.S.C. chapter 31, as amended: Provided, That such costs, 
     including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, as amended: Provided further, That these funds are 
     available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal 
     amount of direct loans not to exceed $2,278,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct loan program, $388,000, which may be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``General operating expenses''.


          native american veteran housing loan program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan 
     program authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 37, subchapter V, as 
     amended, $515,000, which may be transferred to and merged 
     with the appropriation for ``General operating expenses''.

                     Veterans Health Administration


                              medical care

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of 
     hospitals, nursing homes, and domiciliary facilities; for 
     furnishing, as authorized by law, inpatient and outpatient 
     care and treatment to beneficiaries of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, including care and treatment in facilities 
     not under the jurisdiction of the Department; and furnishing 
     recreational facilities, supplies, and equipment; funeral, 
     burial, and other expenses incidental thereto for 
     beneficiaries receiving care in the Department; 
     administrative expenses in support of planning, design, 
     project management, real property acquisition and 
     disposition, construction and renovation of any facility 
     under the jurisdiction or for the use of the Department; 
     oversight, engineering and architectural activities not 
     charged to project cost, repairing, altering, improving or 
     providing facilities in the several hospitals and homes under 
     the jurisdiction of the Department, not otherwise provided 
     for, either by contract or by the hire of temporary employees 
     and purchase of materials; uniforms or allowances therefor, 
     as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; aid to State homes as 
     authorized by 38 U.S.C. 1741; administrative and legal 
     expenses of the Department for collecting and recovering 
     amounts owed the Department as authorized under 38 U.S.C. 
     chapter 17, and the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act, 42 
     U.S.C. 2651 et seq.; and not to exceed $8,000,000 to fund 
     cost comparison studies as referred to in 38 U.S.C. 
     8110(a)(5); $16,958,846,000, plus reimbursements: Provided, 
     That of the funds made available under this heading, 
     $565,000,000 is for the equipment and land and structures 
     object classifications only, which amount shall not become 
     available for obligation until August 1, 1998, and shall 
     remain available until September 30, 1999. Provided further, 
     That funds under this heading shall be available for medical 
     examinations required for benefits claims under title 38, 
     United States Code: Provided further, That of the amount made 
     available under this heading, not to exceed $5,000,000 shall 
     be for a study on the cost-effectiveness of contracting with 
     local hospitals in East Central Florida for the provision of 
     nonemergent inpatient health care needs of veterans.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
       On page 7, line 6, after ``$16,958,846,000,'' insert 
     ``(increased by $48,000,000)''.
       On page 57, line 7, after ``$321,646,000'' insert 
     ``(decreased by $60,000,000)''.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I regret very much that 
I am offering this amendment under these circumstances. But for anyone 
who happens to be watching, either Members or anyone else, on C-SPAN, I 
am afraid what they are witnessing is another step in the gradual 
destruction of the ability of this House to conduct rational debate.
  What is now happening is that amendments of substance will be debated 
with virtually nobody in the room. Members will then be called upon as 
the first order of business tomorrow to vote on those amendments, not 
having heard them, not having even had the opportunity to watch them 
from their offices on their TV screens. They will walk in blind and we 
will be asked, ``What is in this? Oh, I don't get it.'' And within 
about a minute they have to make up their minds. I think it is a 
further debilitating of this House, but there is not a whole lot that I 
can do about it.
  Mr. Chairman, let me simply explain what this amendment is. This 
amendment accomplishes two important objectives. First, it deletes 
funding for an unauthorized, unbudgeted construction project that 
appears to be premature at best. Second, it increases funding for 
veterans' medical care.

[[Page H5274]]

  There are four veterans' services organizations, the DAV, AmVets, 
Paralyzed Veterans of America, and VFW that each year jointly produce 
an independent budget for veterans' programs. This year's independent 
budget estimates are that $18.044 billion is necessary for medical care 
in fiscal 1998 just to maintain current services. So the committee 
recommendation is $17.56 billion, assuming VA medical facilities can 
keep third-party reimbursements, which are being dealt with in another 
bill before this Congress.
  Those recommendations in the committee are almost $500 million less 
than the current services amount and $2 billion below the optimum 
level. So basically what I am trying to do is to add the funding in 
this amendment to increase that account slightly.
  To pay for the increased veterans' medical care, we cut $60 million 
that the committee has recommended for a windstorm simulation center to 
be constructed at the Department of Energy's Idaho National Engineering 
and Environmental Laboratory.
  There are many questions raised by the manner in which this project 
has been considered. Let me simply list a few. First of all, the funds 
were not requested by the administration. The latest statement of 
administration policy indicates funds should be redirected to higher 
priorities.
  Second, the project is not authorized, either for the Department of 
Energy or for FEMA;
  Third, the split authority between FEMA and DOE on the project makes 
it a classic case for mismanagement;
  Fourth, the project meets six of the seven criteria of the 
``porkbusters coalition'' as to items that should qualify for viewing 
as pork;
  Fifth, there have been no hearings on the project;
  Sixth, the company that operates the Idaho lab for the DOE is the 
same company that is currently in a major dispute with the government 
over another construction job at that lab. It seems that the 
contractor, Lockheed Martin, is $150 million over the amount that they 
were supposed to reach on a fixed price contract. They now want the 
government to change the terms of that contract to bail them out.
  Seventh, there has been no peer review at all for this project. 
Indeed, there has not been any review at all. The American Association 
of Wind Engineers has raised serious concerns about the construction 
and operation of this facility. In addition, although the contractor 
has indicated that $34 million is all they can use in 1998, the 
committee recommendation is for $60 million.
  Next, the $60 million is just a down payment. The total is estimated 
to cost about $181 million. I would also point out that FEMA has 
indicated its support for the proposal, only to be contingent upon 
establishment of a broad coalition of financial support. Yet, to date, 
the industries with potentially the most to gain from this facility, 
the insurance industry and the home builders' industry, have not 
contributed one dollar.
  I would also point out that 2 years ago the Department of Energy had 
a major study on the future of the national labs. This project flies in 
the face of nearly every important recommendation made by the so-called 
Galvin report. I would also point out that this year a draft report was 
prepared by a DOE working group, which is chaired by the Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Energy for Procurement.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 5 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, they recommended this lab lose its status as 
a federally funded research and development center, a condition that 
allows it to receive government contracts on a noncompetitive sole 
source basis.
  I am aware that the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure has indicated his intention to offer an amendment that 
would require authorization before those funds can be spent, but I 
would submit that that device is merely a ruse. The amendment contains 
a kick-out clause. It is only operative until April 1, 1998. If the 
project is not authorized by that time, the limitation comes off and 
the money can still be spent.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say that in addition to that, it is not even 
clear that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has 
jurisdiction over this matter. A good case can be made that the 
Committee on Science is more properly the House committee with 
authorization oversight.
  In summary, Mr. Chairman, I would simply urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment. I would suggest that if Congress is to add 
money above the budget, we ought to be doing so for cash starved 
programs like veterans' medical care, and not for questionable, 
unauthorized, premature pork projects like this windstorm simulation 
center.
  Mr. Chairman, this operation started out to be a quite different 
operation. It started out to be a center to evaluate earthquakes. It 
did not get quite the review that they wanted, and so now the 
contractor has simply said: ``Well, if we cannot get the money on an 
earthquake simulation project, we will move it over and we will design 
a windstorm operation.'' That is what they have done.
  Mr. Chairman, no one suggests that this work does not need to be 
done, but before it needs to be done this project needs to be peer 
reviewed. We need to know we are getting what we pay for. It just seems 
to me that until we do, we ought to simply put this money where it is 
needed the most, which is in the veterans' medical care budget.
  If the House adopts this amendment, I will offer a conforming 
amendment in the FEMA portion of the bill to delete the proviso 
earmarking $60 million for the wind facility.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I would simply close and suggest that at the 
appropriate time tomorrow, the House would do well to adopt this 
amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise with a good deal of sympathy for the amendment 
presented by my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. But 
I would suggest to him that there are a number of questions that I 
still have in my head that cause me to resist this amendment.
  I can remember our discussions time and time again about horrendous 
costs that the country is facing relative to disaster circumstances. In 
the time I have been chairman of this committee, FEMA has received some 
$10 billion.
  One of the areas that is difficult, that we do not have a handle on, 
does deal with wind damage. One way or another we have to try to do the 
right things. None of these things seems to be perfect, but we have to 
try to do the right thing in terms of wind mitigation.
  Mr. Chairman, as I look at the gentleman's amendment, I know his 
purpose is directed at this wind simulation center, but really he just 
affects one of the accounts within FEMA by reducing that, but that does 
not prevent them from going forward with the wind tunnel.
  In an attempt to respond to the very questions that the gentleman has 
in mind, I have been in discussion with the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Shuster], and frankly, I am not sure who really has the 
appropriate jurisdiction, here or there, because those battles on the 
authorizing side are considerably more difficult than ours.
  But having said that, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], 
some discussion, responded by saying, ``I would present an amendment 
where I think we are going to have an authorization that goes forward 
that would essentially delay this until we have more time to talk 
through the very questions that the gentleman is discussing.''
  I do not really think we have any differences here, so I would urge 
the gentleman to at least reserve at this point and see if we cannot 
figure out a way to begin marching our way down the path where that 
makes sense, with the cost of wind damages. And clearly the gentleman 
can tell from what I am saying here that I do not have the answers 
either, but we need to begin to seek them in a serious way.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any problem whatsoever with the 
way the gentleman is running this subcommittee. But I would simply 
observe that, as I said earlier, if this amendment is adopted, then 
under the rules

[[Page H5275]]

the next amendment that I would be able to offer will indeed eliminate 
the earmark for the wind tunnel, which is what the amendment is 
designed to attack.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also say that if we really want to do something 
about protecting the Federal Treasury from the cost of disasters, in my 
mind what we ought to do is to require States to join an experience-
rated self-insurance program, so every time there is a disaster States 
do not come to Uncle Sam with their hand out; that they can simply, on 
the basis of their own experience, do just as we do in workmen's 
compensation and prepay for disasters, so every time a disaster comes 
we do not have to call up Uncle Sam and jimmy the budget.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do 
understand where the gentleman is coming from. But the fact is, one 
more time, that is an authorizing question, and they ought to be 
working their way through that without any doubts. I think the 
gentleman knows that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and I are 
struggling with the bill in no small part because over 85 percent of 
our bill is unauthorized. So we struggle along, at best. I want to 
address this problem. I do not want to do it pell-mell, but at the same 
time I do not want to cut off avenues that are important.
  I must say, one of the things that is disconcerting here is, because 
the gentleman and I have such a fine working relationship, up until now 
the ranking member and his staff have given me amendments ahead of time 
so I can talk these things through. It must be that he slipped over 
this technically some way.
  Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will continue to yield further, let me 
explain that, Mr. Chairman. I was in a Labor-HEW markup all day. I was 
here all day yesterday working on Labor-HEW, expecting that others on 
the gentleman's side would also be here. They were not. So today our 
Labor-HEW mark was extended. I never dreamed that we would be getting 
to this point in the bill today, given the other legislation we had 
before us. I expected to give it to you before we had it tomorrow.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if it had not been for the 
very fine bipartisan work the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and I 
had been involved in, we would not have moved very quickly, so we even 
contributed to this very positive development.

                              {time}  2115

  In the meantime, Mr. Chairman, there is little doubt that the country 
knows that disaster costs have been horrendous over the last several 
years. I think also all of us in the House know that when the next 
disaster occurs, we are going to come together as Americans and 
respond.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Lewis of California was allowed to proceed 
for 5 additional minutes.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take very 
much time, but I would say that there is little doubt the next time a 
disaster comes along, that the Congress will come together, reflecting 
the American people's view that we ought to help people in disaster 
circumstances.
  But having said that, there is no doubt that we need to do work 
internally to try to mitigate against these disasters. We are doing it 
in building codes in earthquake sectors. Clearly the wind problem is a 
very, very serious problem we need to seriously move in the direction 
of addressing, trying to find some answers that mitigate against these 
costs.
  Those efforts are not going to be perfect in their initial stages. I 
would hope that we would work closely with our authorizers and 
encourage the authorizers to do the work as we make this effort to hold 
down the costs.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, why 
on Earth, if this facility is to be funded by the Government, should it 
be funded in a manner that allows them to seek sole source contracts 
with no competition and why should this not be peer reviewed? And if it 
is so important, why is FEMA resisting providing money for it without 
that kind of proper review?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I frankly cannot answer the 
question. I do not know the technical side of how they went about 
putting it together, this process that relates to a contract. But I do 
know that this is apparently a facility that would be built on land 
that the Department of Energy owns and they would see it used for this 
purpose, and end up with free land. There is a need that is very real 
and apparently there are personnel in the region that could be very 
responsive to the challenges of this particular facility.
  But I am sure the process is not perfect, and one of the reasons that 
one of the authorizing chairmen will be presenting an amendment is he 
wants time to step back and take a look at some of these questions. I 
think they are very appropriate questions.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mrs. Meek of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
the Obey amendment. It certainly goes against my grain to go against a 
person of the caliber and capability of the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey]. I truly regret having to oppose my own ranking member, 
because I do believe he is one of the best representatives in this 
body. And I know that he has the best of intentions. However, in this 
case I think my ranking member is wrong.
  First of all, I do not think he has walked in the shoes that I have 
walked in since I have been in this Congress and personally experienced 
the need for help with disasters, particularly disasters that wipe out 
the life of your constituents.
  Our House Committee on Appropriations has included in this bill 
funding for the construction of a full size wind damage testing 
facility. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] says we should cut 
out these funds.
  I say and I appeal to the Congress to keep them in because we need 
this facility. In 1992, Hurricane Andrew was the single most natural 
disaster ever to hit the United States. Powerful, devastating, it 
plowed right through the south end of Dade County, FL. It utterly 
destroyed a huge portion of my congressional district.
  I want to say to the Congress, my district has not yet regrown and it 
has not yet come back from this devastating disaster. I remember 
vividly the hundreds of homes in my community that literally blew apart 
in Hurricane Andrew. There was just no estimate of the destruction and 
of the force of this hurricane. As a matter of fact, according to the 
people at the Homestead Air Force Base, there was a tornado strength 
wind within this hurricane. So the desperation, if Members could see 
the lives of these thousands of men and women and children who were 
left homeless because of Hurricane Andrew. I spent my first 2 years in 
this Congress working to try to make this community whole again.
  And this Congress has helped me do that. Mr. Obey was one of the ones 
who helped me do it. But they still are not whole yet. The gentleman 
from California [Mr. Lewis] can tell you that 5 years later I am still 
working on problems created by Hurricane Andrew.
  All three of these things are extremely costly. One, winds from the 
big, big storms, hurricanes and Nor'easters, kill people and they 
destroy homes. Two, we know these storms are going to come and we can 
plan and prepare for them. And, three, they are extremely costly.
  That is why we need this wind testing facility. That is why I am 
appealing to the Congress to take this out of the realm all the time of 
numbers and utility and philosophical vents, but to think about what it 
has meant to people, to destroy this community, the entire community. 
Most of people from this community have moved north. They will never 
come back to this southernmost area. And therefore, the economy has 
gone down and the social fabric of the lives of these people has been 
destroyed.
  We need a wind testing facility. With proper research and testing, we 
can minimize wind damage and destruction. Thousands of insurance 
companies went under because of this storm, because no one had the 
facility to know that this storm would be that devastating to this 
area.

[[Page H5276]]

  By testing different types of housing and construction techniques and 
materials under actual hurricane wind conditions, we can design and 
build homes in ways that will minimize the danger to human life and 
minimize the cost of these natural disasters. This can be done ahead of 
time so that we will know what to expect when we have hurricanes and 
natural disasters.
  We need to take action now. We do not need to put this off, because 
it has been put off too long. If you ask anyone in Florida or in 
Georgia, or out there in the West where all of these natural disasters 
have occurred, you will find out that it is time for it now.
  We need to be able to develop the knowledge. This knowledge is so 
important to keep our constituents' homes from blowing a part. That is 
what this wind testing facility is all about. This is not just common 
sense. It is dollars and cents. I repeat, it is not just common sense; 
looking forward to test this facility ahead of time is dollars and 
cents.
  The amount of money at stake here, it is just staggering. It belies 
one's imagination to realize the cost associated. Hurricane Andrew 
alone resulted in losses that exceeded $25 million, and those were just 
the losses that they have been able to account. I am still coming back 
to the Congress, I am still coming back to FEMA asking them to forgive 
in many instances the big costs that grew up with this.
  No doubt my colleagues remember that 5 years ago the House voted for 
a disaster relief bill of $8 billion in Federal aid to help my 
community get back on its feet. We can pay a little now or pay a lot 
later.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. Meek of Florida was allowed to proceed 
for 30 additional seconds.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to appeal to the House to 
please vote for this wind testing facility. It will save lives and it 
will also save money.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am always hesitant to follow my colleague from 
Florida. It is almost like being against motherhood to do so. But I 
want to speak in favor of the amendment that has been put forward by 
the ranking member.
  I think what we have here is a comparison. On the one hand we have a 
proposal to add $48 million in this amendment to the veterans' health 
services program which everyone understands is needed, where we have 
people and we have made a promise to our veterans that we were going to 
provide them with health care in their lives, particularly when we have 
so many of our World War II veterans who are at an age when they are in 
need of health care. So that $48 million on the one hand is replacing 
monies that are otherwise below, added to funding which is otherwise 
below what is needed to keep the funds at the level of services that 
are presently there.
  On the other hand we have a very questionable kind of an expenditure 
for this wind simulation center. The $60 million reduction which we 
have been talking about is just stage one, phase one of a construction 
program for this wind simulation center, the sum total of which is 
going to be $181 million, and all of it is going to come out of FEMA, 
and apparently from all indications there is not a single cent that has 
yet been put into this from any of the industries that might be a part 
of it.
  Now, it was not in the President's budget. It was not even requested 
by either the Department of Energy or by FEMA. So here we have an 
uncooked idea, a half-baked idea being put in in place of adequate 
funding for veterans' health care services.
  Now, I would like to mention the testimony of the gentleman who is 
the head of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, his testimony 
before the Committee on Science, which I served on in the previous 
Congress as a minority member, the statement by W. John Denson. He 
pointed out in his testimony that the INEL maintains critical 
technology skills for nuclear operations, nuclear safety and nuclear 
waste management. The INEL is a multiple purpose laboratory supporting 
all the missions of the department. The INEL has been designated by DOE 
as the lead lab for research and development for EM mixed waste. They 
also lead the national programs for spent nuclear fuels management and 
national low level waste management.

  Now, I say this because what that says is that the mission of the 
particular DOE laboratory is far from the proposed area. And to follow 
up on that, we have had a lot of testimony in the 104th Congress before 
the Committee on Science about this question of just how we were to use 
our energy laboratories. The GAO study asked experts on energy policy 
and former DOE executives, including several of the previous 
Secretaries of DOE, their views on it, and they by a substantial 
majority said that we should not be taking on missions at the DOE 
laboratories that are beyond the missions of DOE itself.
  Then we have the Galvin Commission that was mentioned by one of the 
previous speakers, a major commission to look at the future of 
alternative futures for the Department of Energy national laboratories. 
They strongly expressed their concern about expanding the laboratories' 
industrial R&D beyond the existing DOE missions.
  I quote from their work: The current industrial partnership 
activities of the laboratories are unfocused and invariably lead to 
add-ons. As in this case, an add-on. The Galvin Commission made three 
specific recommendations. In two of those cases this kind of a project 
is in direct contradiction to the recommendations. Their 
recommendations that are contradicted are that government-funded 
technology transfer industrial competitiveness activities should be 
focused on industries and areas of technology that contribute directly 
to the DOE primary missions in national security, energy and 
environment.
  The second recommendation, that competitive selection and more 
rigorous technical and merit review, namely peer review, which has been 
mentioned on several occasions by external experts, should be applied 
broadly within the department's cooperative research and development 
agreement.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Olver] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Olver was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, let me just point out here that Citizens 
Against Government Waste, which held a number of hearings, a group that 
was invited to a number of hearings to put a focus on government waste 
during the 104th Congress, had put forward 7 criteria on which to judge 
what might be considered waste.
  Their criteria included cases where the request was made by one 
chamber of commerce; where it was not authorized; number three, where 
it was not competitively awarded, not peer reviewed, in essence; four, 
where it was not requested in the President's budget; five, greatly 
exceeds the President's budget or the request of the previous year's 
funding; and, six, had not been the subject of congressional hearing. 
Six out of the seven, this project violates.
  So what I think here, let me go back and just reiterate, what we are 
comparing is a $48 million increase in veterans' health services to 
fulfill a promise that we have made to our veterans for a continuation 
of their veterans' health programs, versus a program, a proposal which 
is at best not ready for this stage, where it is meant as a 
partnership, there is no industry portion in the partnership. The money 
all would come out of a budget from an agency, namely FEMA, which did 
not request the money at all and which has written at least to the 
Senate chairman of the subcommittee on VA-HUD to indicate that they 
have serious questions about this.

                              {time}  2130

  And, Mr. Chairman, I will ask to submit this letter into the Record 
during the whole House section of this session.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope the amendment would be adopted.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to make one additional 
point.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Olver] has expired.

[[Page H5277]]

  (On request of Mr. Obey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Olver was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?
  Mr. OLVER. I will continue yielding to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the argument has been made that this research 
needs to be conducted. I am sure the gentleman would agree that no one 
questions that. Certainly I do not question that.
  The question is, why should this research proceed under conditions 
which enable the contractor to obtain sole source noncompetitive 
contracts? Why should it proceed when there has been no peer review to 
determine whether or not this is the right way to proceed? Why should 
we proceed when a large number of universities and many people in the 
scientific community have expressed their concern that they will not be 
able to use the simulator because of the costs associated with this 
contract?
  It has been suggested, for instance, that a number of insurance 
companies have gone bankrupt because of other disasters. Why then 
should the insurance industry not do as FEMA wants it to do, namely to 
share in the cost of producing this research facility? Certainly if 
they will gain millions of dollars in saved claims from its research, 
they should be willing to help finance it.
  I would simply say in very frank terms what this is is a nice 
arrangement by one State which has working arrangements with several 
other universities, but the taxpayers' interests are not protected 
because of the way this research project is being designed. It will be 
very convenient for Lockheed Martin, the contractor, but not for 
anybody else, as far as I know. And it seems to me under those 
circumstances, this ought not to proceed until we have the proper peer 
review processes built in.
  I would suggest also that with the veterans health budget being some 
$500 million short of current services, it is not even a close call as 
to where this money is needed the most.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Olver] has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Olver was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the House for yielding the 
additional minute.
  I think the answers to the ranking member's questions, the answers to 
those whys, is that they really should not proceed until all of those 
conditions are met. In truth, we do need to have that kind of research 
done. But it ought to be done in a case where it is clearly cofunded by 
industry as well as by the government, and in a situation where it is 
peer reviewed and where there can be a broad participation in that 
research.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, when Hurricane Fran swept across North Carolina, 
thousands of homes were severely damaged or destroyed. More than a 
million people lost their electricity for 5 days and many lives were 
lost in the process.
  Lost too by families in my State were dreams and memories. The 
devastation and suffering caused by the swath of destruction was 
tremendous.
  We must do more to protect citizens in advance of storms. We cannot 
afford to be reckless with the lives of our citizens and with their 
homes.
  In the last 2 years, four major hurricanes have caused 57 deaths and 
$40 billion in damage, but we do not have to sit back and let nature 
take its course. Today, we will vote on a measure to help protect both 
homes and lives from hurricanes.
  This measure will save billions in tax dollars and countless lives. 
Supporting the Partnership for Natural Disaster Reduction/HomeSaver 
Project is critical, Mr. Chairman, to saving American homes and lives. 
Our goal should be to prevent disasters, not just to manage them or 
respond to them.
  Hurricane season is beginning to approach, and this year it is 
predicted to be worse than ever. For us not to take preventive measures 
would be highly irresponsible.
  Before there is indeed another Hurricane Fran happening in some other 
State, I urge my colleagues to support the Partnership for Natural 
Disaster Reduction/HomeSaver Project. It is the right thing to do. It 
is the responsible thing to do and also, Mr. Chairman, it is the safe 
thing to do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I 
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 184, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       In addition, contingent on enactment of legislation 
     establishing the Medical Collections Fund, such sums as may 
     be derived pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1729(g) shall be deposited 
     to such Fund and may be transferred to this account, to 
     remain available until expended for the purposes of this 
     account.


                    medical and prosthetic research

       For necessary expenses in carrying out programs of medical 
     and prosthetic research and development as authorized by 38 
     U.S.C. chapter 73, to remain available until September 30, 
     1999, $267,000,000, plus reimbursements: Provided, That of 
     the funds made available under this heading, $20,000,000 
     shall be for medical research relating to Gulf War Illnesses 
     afflicting Persian Gulf Veterans.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Tiahrt

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Tiahrt:
       In the item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS--
     Veterans Health Administration--medical and prosthetic 
     research'', after the first dollar amount (the aggregate), 
     insert the following: ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
       In the item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS--
     Veterans Health Administration--medical and prosthetic 
     research'', after the second dollar amount (the Gulf War 
     illness research earmark), insert the following: ``(increased 
     by $5,000,000)''.
       In the item relating to ``INDEPENDENT AGENCIES--Corporation 
     for National and Community Service--national and community 
     service programs operating expenses'', after the first dollar 
     amount (the aggregate), insert the following: ``(reduced by 
     $200,000,000)''.

  Mr. TIAHRT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kansas?
  There was no objection.
  (Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I am here tonight to address the priorities 
within this bill. The amendment I offer would dedicate an additional 
$25 million to the Veterans Administration's Medical and Prosthetic 
Research Account to dramatically increase the level of research which 
the VA is doing on the illness which is affecting thousands of American 
veterans who served this country in the Persian Gulf war.
  This year the Veterans Administration is dedicating a mere $3.6 
million to the research of the illness which our gulf war veterans are 
suffering from. To pay for this very necessary research, the amendment 
would partially eliminate funding for the AmeriCorps program and direct 
it towards this much-needed research.
  First, let me address why this amendment is necessary. The fiscal 
year 1998 VA-HUD Appropriations Act contains $267 million for the VA's 
medical and prosthetic research account. In the Committee on 
Appropriations an earmark was added which directs $20 million of this 
current appropriation to be spent on gulf war research. This pays for 
and expands the current research into gulf war illness. However it 
comes at the expense of other important research being done by the VA, 
such as Diabetes Centers of Excellence, Centers for Rehabilitation 
Medicine, and the VA's ability to retain high quality physicians. It 
just takes from one pocket, cutting important research, to put in 
another. This solves one problem yet, unfortunately, creates many more.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would remedy the problem completely.

[[Page H5278]]

 This amendment presents a question of priorities. We should do what is 
more important, expanding the very minimal research which the VA is 
doing on the illnesses our gulf war vets are experiencing and living 
with daily, or continuing paying for healthy young people to volunteer 
for public service jobs.
  Before we make our decision, let us examine the facts. This is 
difficult when discussing the gulf war illness. The problem is we 
cannot define it conclusively, treat it, or explain exactly how it is 
caused. The VA itself has said, ``Currently, there is no evidence of a 
single unifying illness to explain the health problems of all gulf war 
veterans.'' Without much-needed research, these veterans will continue 
to suffer, and we do not have the answers to our gulf war illness 
questions.
  We do know that the Department of Defense has confirmed that 27,000 
American soldiers could have been exposed to chemical agents in the 
Persian Gulf. Separately, the CIA has estimated as many as 120,000 
could have been exposed.
  I can also tell my colleagues what some of our gulf war veterans are 
experiencing. Like U.S. Army Reserve Sgt. David Janda. He is a 35-year-
old father of three from Hutchinson, KS. He suffers from blinding 
headaches, a blistering rash which he has had for 6 months, chronic 
diarrhea and joint pain. Or Kenny Schwartz of Great Bend, KS, who 
endures stabbing pain in his left eye, stiffness in his joints which 
make him unable to walk, memory loss and scarring rashes. Their doctors 
can neither diagnose nor effectively treat these symptoms.
  To date, 90,000 Persian Gulf war veterans have contacted the VA's 
gulf war registry and reported symptoms which are consistent with how 
the Journal of the American Medical Association has described gulf war 
illness: fatigue, joint pain, gastrointestinal complaints, memory 
problems, emotional change, impotence, and insomnia.
  This is the Veterans' Administration current response: $3.6 million 
of research funding this year. That is $133 for every American veteran 
we know of that has been exposed to chemical agents in the gulf.
  On the other hand, we have AmeriCorps. This year we are spending $402 
million on the AmeriCorps program. That is $19,000 in Federal funding 
for every one of the over 20,000 AmeriCorps paid volunteers.
  This chart shows the discrepancy, Mr. Chairman; $133 per veteran 
being spent on research for gulf war illness versus $19,000 spent for 
every paid volunteer.
  AmeriCorps pays recruited volunteers to perform public service jobs. 
It also provides $7500 for living expenses and $4,725 for an 
educational award. They also get health coverage and child care. Our 
$19,000 a year paid volunteers have lobbied the government, worked as 
low level Federal bureaucrats, and built hornos, which are ovens built 
from dirt and grass that were originally used some 4,000 years ago.
  Two recent audits by the GAO and a report from AmeriCorps' own 
Inspector General have found serious inefficiencies and mismanagement. 
In addition, Arthur Andersen has tried to audit AmeriCorps twice, and 
found the books too much of a mess to even perform an audit, yet we are 
asking to continue funding AmeriCorps at the current level while 
ignoring the illness of our Gulf War veterans.
  I cannot go back to Kansas and tell David Janda and Kenny Schwartz 
that we can only muster $133 per veteran to investigate what is making 
them sick and how to treat it, yet we have $19,000 to pay a paid 
volunteer to offer a healthy youngster that lives next door to these 
veterans.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Tiahrt was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment. I ask 
every Member of the House to consider what they believe our priorities 
should be, and I am hopeful that we will place our highest priority on 
the current and future health of the men and women who fought and 
served for freedom in our country.
  Caring for veterans who fought for America's freedom and security is 
a necessary function of our Federal Government. Paying healthy 
AmeriCorps volunteers is simply not. I ask Members to please not turn 
their backs on the veterans who so faithfully served this country in 
the Persian Gulf.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record two reports on the subject of 
my amendment:

                  Time to End the Troubled AmeriCorps

       On April 27-29, 1997, with Independence Hall as a 
     picturesque backdrop, over 2,800 delegates from across the 
     country, including governors, mayors, private-sector leaders, 
     and representatives from leading foundations, gathered in 
     Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the Presidents' Summit for 
     America's Future. With President Bill Clinton and former 
     President George Bush as honorary co-chairmen, this gathering 
     was called to examine a topic that hardly could be more 
     important: the future of volunteerism in the United States, 
     and especially how the voluntary sector can aid America's 
     children.
       The great 19th century French observer of American 
     politics, Alexis de Tocqueville, noted that what made America 
     great was the tendency of its people to form voluntary 
     associations to meet community needs. Whereas Europeans 
     looked with docility to government to solve problems, 
     Americans learned self-reliance and the ability to look 
     beyond individual self-interest through cooperation in 
     voluntary organizations. In this century, however, as 
     government programs--particularly human services programs--
     have usurped much of America's traditionally voluntary 
     domain, both the country's civic fabric and the character of 
     its individual citizens have changed for the worse.
       The Presidents' Summit gave Americans a chance to pause and 
     reflect on how community needs could best be met. The 
     increasingly widespread appeal of the conservative message on 
     the need to re-limit government led President Clinton himself 
     to declare that the ``era of big government is over.'' Now 
     America's civil society and corporate community have been 
     called in to deal with the problems created by the failure of 
     federal programs. Over the past few months, Newsweek has 
     devoted a portion of its ``Periscope'' page to the many 
     corporations that have agreed to make major contributions of 
     goods or services as part of the effort to meet these needs. 
     LensCrafters, for example, has agreed to provide free eye 
     care for one million needy people, and the National 
     Restaurant Association has agreed to hire 250,000 youngsters 
     in the next five years.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       But for all the fanfare and national press attention 
     surrounding the Presidents' Summit--as well as the bipartisan 
     images and goodwill it generated--there is reason to believe 
     that it may serve less to foster a vision of a healthy 
     voluntary sector free of unwarranted government intervention 
     than to promote further charitable dependence on federal 
     resources. The Presidents' Summit was largely the brainchild 
     of former Senator Harris Wofford (D-PA), Chief Executive of 
     the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). In 
     congressional testimony, Wofford declared that the CNCS, 
     along with the Points of Light Foundation (another federally 
     funded entity designed to promote volunteerism \2\), ``is 
     working . . . in initiating and planning the Summit to 
     promote the goals of the National and Community Service Act, 
     the mission of the Corporation, and the vision set forth in 
     the Corporation's Strategic Plan.'' \3\
       The CNCS helps oversee administration of the AmeriCorps 
     program, President Clinton's ``domestic Peace Corps,'' the 
     largest extension of the federal government in recent years. 
     Ever since its creation in 1993, AmeriCorps has been mired in 
     controversy. Two recent independent audits of the program by 
     the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), the semiannual 
     report of the Corporation's own Inspector General, and two 
     audits by the nationally renowned Arthur Andersen accounting 
     firm all have found serious evidence of cost overruns and 
     mismanagement. Despite these problems, however, and despite a 
     continuing inability to correct them, the Corporation has 
     benefited from large amounts of good publicity, thanks in 
     part to what one critic has called the ``camera-ready smiles 
     of young `volunteers' '' whose efforts made good news 
     copy.\4\ In an era in which balancing the federal budget has 
     become a national priority, the CNCS has requested 
     $546,500,000 for fiscal year (FY) 1998--an increase of 36 
     percent over the $400 million appropriated in FY 1997.
       Not only was the Philadelphia summit choreographed in part 
     by AmeriCorps, but its proceedings offered a rousing 
     endorsement of this very troubled program. Despite the good 
     publicity for AmeriCorps that the Summit may generate, 
     Congress should view the request for increased AmeriCorps 
     funding with considerable skepticism. In this age or re-
     limiting government, the American public and its elected 
     representatives should reject the very premise upon which 
     AmeriCorps rests: that the federal government has an 
     important activist role to play in guiding the voluntary 
     sector in the United States.


                          what is americorps?

       One of Governor Bill Clinton's key platform stands in 1992 
     was a call to create a federal program that would help 
     individuals meet the high costs associated with acquiring a 
     college education in exchange for community service. As 
     President, Clinton saw

[[Page H5279]]

     his vision implemented through the National and Community 
     Service Trust Act of 1993. The Act created the CNCS, which 
     helps administer the ``largest national and community service 
     program since the Civilian Conservation Corps of the 1930s.'' 
     \5\
       Over the past four years, AmeriCorps has grown from a mere 
     pilot program to include more than 24,000 people 
     participating in more than 430 programs across the country.
       These programs focus primarily on four areas: education, 
     the environment, public safety, and human services. Since 
     1993, despite the fact that Washington spends $1.3 billion 
     annually to promote volunteerism through 23 other federal 
     programs, more than $800 million has been appropriated to pay 
     for 100,000 participants in CNCS's major program, 
     AmerCorps*USA.\6\ Full-time AmeriCorps participants work a 
     minimum of 1,700 hours per year, receiving in turn a $7,460 
     stipend and an education award of $4,725 in the form of a 
     college tuition voucher or credit to repay a past student 
     loan.
       In his 1995 State of the Union address, President Clinton 
     praised AmeriCorps as ``citizenship at its best.'' In 
     Philadelphia, the President announced his intention to expand 
     the program in two ways:
       First, he wants to create a ``citizen army'' of one million 
     volunteer literacy tutors to shore up the failed public 
     school system in the United States. Rather than hold public 
     schools accountable for teaching basic skills, his plan would 
     cost taxpayers at least $2.75 billion and rely heavily on 
     coordination and instruction by 10,000 new AmeriCorps ``tutor 
     coordinators.'' \7\
       Second, the President wants to expand AmeriCorps by 33,000 
     volunteers over the next five years by teaming with private 
     organizations that would be responsible for paying the paid 
     volunteers' living stipends while taxpayers still pay the 
     cost of their college scholarships.\8\


                     AMERICORPS' TROUBLED BEGINNING

       Early on, the Clinton Administration hailed AmeriCorps as 
     the ``paradigm of reinvented government.'' In truth, under 
     the leadership of CNCS's first CEO--Eli J. Segal, chief of 
     staff for the 1992 Clinton-Gore campaign--AmeriCorps offered 
     a case study of how not to run a federal agency. Although 
     AmeriCorps claimed that its mission was to promote the 
     voluntary sector, at least 2,800 of its first 20,000 
     ``volunteers'' were assigned directly to federal agencies and 
     departments, most notably the Departments of Agriculture and 
     Justice, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Legal 
     Services Corporation, and the National Endowment for the 
     Arts.
       Even though AmeriCorps claimed that its mission was 
     nonpartisan, it offered millions of dollars in grants to 
     numerous activist groups, including ACORN (the Association of 
     Community Organizations for Reform Now), the National Council 
     of La Raza, and the Council of Great City Schools, an 
     organization devoted to the ``advancement of education in 
     inner-city public schools through public and legislative 
     advocacy.'' \9\ Despite Segal's repeated denials that 
     AmeriCorps grant money helped subsidize ACORN's political 
     activities, the Corporation was forced to defund ACORN in 
     July 1995 after an Inspector General's report found 
     incontrovertible evidence that the supposedly independent 
     affiliate awarded a grant by AmeriCorps was, in fact, part 
     and parcel of ACORN's political operations. Another 
     AmeriCorps grantee in Denver also engaged in political 
     advocacy at taxpayers' expense and was stripped of its 
     federal funds.\10\
       But the most devastating news under Segal's tenure was not 
     the presence of ``volunteers'' in federal agencies, or the 
     use of federal tax dollars for political purposes: It was the 
     audit of 93 AmeriCorps programs released by the GAO in July 
     1995. Segal had promised that the ``cost [per AmeriCorps 
     volunteer] will be $17,600.'' \11\ The GAO revealed that the 
     cost to field a participant was $25,800 for non-federal 
     agency grantees and $31,000 for federal agency grantees. \12\ 
     In other words, although AmeriCorps promised that cost per 
     service hour by volunteers would total $6.43, the GAO found 
     that the real cost was $15.85 per hour--and up to $19.81 per 
     hour when time for non-service AmeriCorps activities was 
     included.\13\ Whereas President Clinton repeatedly had cited 
     AmeriCorps as evidence that the government could work in 
     partnership with the voluntary sector and private enterprise 
     to promote volunteerism,\14\ the GAO found that taxpayers 
     were paying 93 percent of the costs--79 percent directly from 
     the federal till.\15\


               NEW EVIDENCE THAT AMERICORPS DOES NOT WORK

       In summer 1995, Segal resigned as AmeriCorps' CEO, to be 
     replaced by Harris Wofford. Wofford began his tenure by 
     seeking bipartisan support for AmeriCorps. Partly because of 
     the July 1995 GAO audit, Wofford promised to end the policy 
     of ``paid volunteers'' in federal agencies, to reduce the 
     Washington-based bureaucracy, and to seek a direct private-
     sector match for each dollar contributed by the federal 
     government.
       Wofford's promises for reform and his affable style, 
     combined with President Clinton's newfound popularity in the 
     polls, saved the program from almost certain extinction. Yet 
     one and a half years into Wofford's tenure, AmeriCorps 
     still seems to be plagued by many of the same problems 
     that Segal faced. A new GAO report reveals that AmeriCorps 
     costs too much, has difficulty retaining problem 
     participants, and is not attracting the significant 
     private-sector involvement that program supporters had 
     sought.\16\
       The GAO sampled 25 AmeriCorps programs and uncovered some 
     disturbing trends:
       AmeriCorps fails to retain participants in its programs. 
     The dropout rate for paid volunteers is 39 percent, nearly 
     twice what the CNCS had predicted in November 1994.\17\
       AmeriCorps is failing to gain significant private-sector 
     resources for its programs. Officials at the Corporation for 
     National Service have boasted repeatedly that the presence of 
     government funding would help ``leverage'' private 
     contributions. Yet median private-sector support for 
     AmericCorps programs that were sampled was only 17 percent; 
     83 percent of the funding comes directly from the taxpayers. 
     This is not surprising when one considers that at least 180 
     of the Corporation's 430 projects in FY 1996 provided funding 
     to government programs.\18\
       Despite the CNCS's claim that 90 percent of participants 
     would use their educational awards, only 54 percent of those 
     eligible for these awards actually have used them. The low 
     percent of educational awards used suggests that many 
     AmeriCorps members either are not planning to attend college 
     or are not recent college graduates saddled with loans to 
     pay. The Des Moines Register, for example, reports that 
     ``nearly one in five AmeriCorps workers in Des Moines already 
     has a college degree, and more than half in the program are 
     26 or older.'' \19\ The presence of so many non-student age 
     AmeriCorps members led one observer to conclude that the 
     ``program that was sold as the domestic equivalent of the 
     Peace Corps has already turned out to more closely resemble 
     the abysmal failure of the Comprehensive Education and 
     Training Act.'' \20\ AmeriCorps was sold to Congress as a 
     program to help young people pay for college, not as another 
     federal jobs program in addition to the over 160 that already 
     exist.
       One AmeriCorps program, the Casa Verde Builders Program, 
     cost the taxpayers $2,448,053. Only 23 of the 64 individuals 
     enrolled as Casa Verde AmeriCorps members completed the 
     program; the cost of taxpayers: over $100,000 per 
     participant. Moreover, only four participants have used their 
     educational awards; to cost to taxpayers: more than $600,000 
     per award.
       Another AmeriCorps program examined by the GAO, the 
     Educational Conservation Corps, cost taxpayers $1,732,000. Of 
     the 97 participants, 58 earned an educational award. So far, 
     only 20 have used their awards; the cost of taxpayers: 
     $86,000 per award in administrative costs plus $4,725 per 
     award.
       The Appalachian Service Through Action and Resources 
     program cost taxpayers $632,240. Twenty-two participants 
     completed the program and earned educational awards. The cost 
     to taxpayers (assuming that 90 percent of Appalachian Service 
     members use their awards): $31,612 plus $4,725 per award.
       Local AmeriCorps programs are not the only problem. The 
     management techniques at CNCS headquarters are the focus of 
     continuing congressional scrutiny. An October 1995 audit of 
     CNCS books by Arthur Andersen indicated serious accounting 
     weaknesses, leading the firm to declare that the books were 
     ``unauditable.'' A follow-up study by Andersen concluded that 
     the Corporation's ``internal controls were not adequate for 
     an independent auditor to perform an effective and efficient 
     financial statement audit in accordance with generally 
     accepted auditing standards for fiscal years 1994 and 1995.'' 
     \2\ The same study concluded that these shortcomings 
     ``potentially preclude an audit'' of FY 1996 books. Most 
     shockingly, as of December 1996, the CNCS could not account 
     for $38 million in AmeriCorps funding. Despite repeated 
     requests by Representative Peter Hoeskstra (R-MI), Chairman 
     of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce, and Senator 
     Christopher Bond (R-MO), Chairman of the VA, HUD and 
     Independent Agencies Subcommittee of the Senate 
     Appropriations Committee, AmeriCorps has yet to provide 
     conclusive evidence that the Corporation's financial 
     statements for FY 1997 can be audited. What is particularly 
     disturbing about the financial fiasco at AmeriCorps is that 
     the program was created and administered entirely during the 
     ``reinventing government'' era.


                     why americorps is unnecessary

       Wholly aside from the numerous failures that have occurred 
     in the administration of AmeriCorps, there was no objective 
     reason to create the program in the first place. As one of 
     its supporters concedes, even ``AmeriCorps' friends aren't 
     sure exactly what it does.'' \22\ For several reasons, any 
     role for the federal government in the voluntary sector is 
     both unwise and counterproductive:
       The voluntary sector in the United States is fundamentally 
     healthy. According to Independent Sector, 89.2 million 
     Americans offered unpaid voluntary service in 1993. Since 
     1981, the number of hours that Americans volunteer has rise 
     dramatically from 12.7 billion to 19.5 billion.
       AmeriCorps' paid volunteerism has discouraged--and will 
     continue to discourage--real charitable involvement. Only 
     programs that cannot generate sufficient community support 
     need to look to Washington for funding. AmeriCorps already 
     turned many of the major charitable nonprofits in the United 
     States--Habitat for Humanity, the Red Cross, and the YMCA--
     away from the task of raising funds in the private sector 
     toward lobbying Congress for more AmeriCorps funding.

[[Page H5280]]

       Healthy charities with strong community support look to 
     their neighbors, not the federal government, for financial 
     support and volunteers. When genuine needs must be met, 
     Americans band together with their neighbors to achieve 
     common goals. AmeriCorps distorts the principle of local 
     accountability for charitable groups. The great strength of 
     America's philanthropic sector is its flexibility in 
     responding to the country's social needs. This flexibility 
     arises from a network of community-based voluntary 
     organizations, not from a federally sponsored make-work 
     administration. A far better way to help these organizations 
     to succeed would be to allow taxpayers themselves to take tax 
     credits for contributions to the charities of their 
     choice.\23\
       Like all government programs, AmeriCorps costs too much. 
     Considering its stipends and tuition awards, members receive 
     approximately $7.13 per hour, exclusive of the medical 
     benefits and child care available to certain eligible 
     participants. But the real cost per participant hour is far 
     higher, depending on the particular grantee program. The 
     total federal, state, and local costs of this program amount 
     to an average of $18.26 per hour--the equivalent of almost 
     $38,000 per year.
       AmeriCorps' record of achievement has come under question. 
     A 1997 Working Paper on AmeriCorps written for Independent 
     Sector, itself sympathetic to the program, notes that, for 70 
     percent of the AmeriCorps programs it studied, the presence 
     of AmeriCorps members did not produce quantitative results 
     ``over and above what the agencies were mandated and 
     ostensibly funded to provide.'' Among the ``reasons for 
     concern and reflection,'' AmeriCorps' vaunted ability to 
     leverage volunteers from local communities turned out to have 
     been overstated; researchers found only a ``modest 3.5 
     percent increase in hours volunteered by genuine 
     volunteers.'' \24\
       AmeriCorps is an extremely costly way to help families pay 
     for college. The $26,700 cost for a single participant 
     estimated by the 1995 GAO study would pay for Pell Grants for 
     approximately 18 students. Assuming the Casa Verde program's 
     cost of nearly $100,000 per participant, 67 low-income 
     students could have received Pell Grants.
       President Clinton has declared that AmeriCorps aims to help 
     young people who perform public service pay for college. In 
     his 1996 State of the Union address, the President boasted 
     that ``AmeriCorps has already helped 70,000 young people to 
     work their way through college as they serve America.'' \25\ 
     In fact, if only 54 percent of AmeriCorps' ``graduates'' are 
     using their educational awards, the program should have 
     helped approximately 37,800 with college tuition payments. By 
     the time of the Philadelphia summit, the President had 
     corrected his figure downward from 70,000 to 50,000.\26\
       AmeriCorps seeks to create a cadre of devoted liberal 
     activists. One of the reasons for creating national service, 
     according to the program's intellectual godfather, Professor 
     Charles Moskos of Northwestern University, was to revitalize 
     the Democratic Party. In its first few years, AmeriCorps has 
     offered grants to dozens of organizations like ASPIRA of New 
     York, the New Jersey Public Interest Research Foundation, the 
     North Carolina Low Income Housing Coalition, the Legal 
     Service Corporation, the National Council of La Raza, and the 
     Northern Virginia Urban League. Congressional investigators 
     also are examining why one high-ranking political appointee 
     at the Corporation for National Service--former Los Angeles 
     City Council Member Michael Woo--used Corporation 
     stationery and resources to set up a meeting between 
     Democratic Party fundraiser John Huang and Asian-American 
     business owners in Los Angeles.\27\
       When given the choice between cutting funding for 
     AmeriCorps or other programs such as veterans' benefits, even 
     the President's closest congressional allies--House Minority 
     Whip David Bonior (D-MI), Representative David Obey (D-WI), 
     and Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY)--had no choice but 
     to cut $206 million from AmeriCorps' funding for FY 1996.\28\
       The President's plan to expand AmeriCorps by 33,000 
     volunteers over the next five years by teaming with private 
     organizations that would be responsible for paying the 
     AmeriCorps living stipend while taxpayers covered the cost of 
     the college scholarship will increase federal involvement in 
     the philanthropic sector unnecessarily. Growing numbers of 
     charitable institutions will become dependent on the federal 
     government, designing programs to receive taxpayer-funded 
     subsidies through AmeriCorps.
       The President's planned literacy initiative will do little 
     to improve our failing public schools. An additional $2.75 
     billion on top of the nearly $302 billion the federal 
     government alone spends on education will not teach American 
     students the basic skills they are not learning now.\29\ 
     Pumping more money into a failed system or drawing on the 
     efforts of tens of thousands of well-intentioned volunteers 
     will not compensate for the inadequacy of the country's 
     schools.\30\


                               conclusion

       The Presidents' Summit in Philadelphia has drawn further 
     attention to one of the oldest traditions in the United 
     States: voluntary community service. Nearly 90 million 
     Americans volunteer annually, offering 19.7 billion hours of 
     service. These efforts are essential to rebuilding American 
     civil society now that the ``era of big government is over.''
       The end of the era of big government, however, should not 
     be seen as an excuse to boost President Clinton's 
     controversial AmeriCorps program. A recent General Accounting 
     Office study revealed that AmeriCorps continues to be plagued 
     by high dropout rates and high costs. In short, the federal 
     government has no business paying people to volunteer.
     Kenneth R. Weinstein,
       Director, Government Reform Project.
     August Stofferahn,
       Research Assistant.


                               Footnotes

     \1\ For a list of these and other commitments made by 
     corporations and nonprofit organizations in conjunction with 
     the President's Summit, see http://www.philanthropy.com/
volunt.dir/13commit.htm.
     \2\ The FY 1997 appropriation for the Points of Light 
     Foundation was $6,000,000.
     \3\ Harris Wofford, ``Testimony Regarding FY 1998 
     Appropriations for the Corporation for National Service,'' 
     Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, Committee 
     on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, March 11, 
     1997.
     \4\ John P. Walters, ``Five Questions for AmeriCorps' Board 
     of Directors,'' Memorandum to Conservative Reformers, New 
     Citizenship Project, February 24, 1995. The authors of this 
     report wish to acknowledge their intellectual debt to John 
     Walters's work.
     \5\ U.S. General Accounting Office, National Service 
     Programs: Role of State Commissions in Implementing the 
     AmeriCorps Program, February 1997, p. 1.
     \6\ Ibid. See also Mark Wilson, ``AmeriCorps,'' in Scott A. 
     Hodge, ed., Balancing America's Budget: Ending the Era of Big 
     Government (Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation, 1997), 
     pp. 302-304. Other federal programs designed to promote 
     volunteerism include the Service Corps of Retired Executive 
     Association and the IRS Tax Counseling for the Elderly 
     Program. Several federal programs designed to promote 
     volunteerism that pre-dated the creation of the CNCS were 
     incorporated into its ranks, including the Foster 
     Grandparents program, Literacy Corps, Retired Senior 
     Volunteer Program, and VISTA (Volunteers in Service to 
     America).
     \7\ Office of the Press Secretary, the White House, 
     ``Briefing by Bruce Reed, Director of Domestic Policy 
     Council,'' April 25, 19976; available at http://
docs.whitehouse.gov/white-house-publications/1997/04/1997-04-
25-bruce-reed-briefing-on-service-summit.text.
     \8\ Under the President's plan, no interest would accrue on 
     student loans during the period of service. The White House 
     estimates that the loan deferment program, which it wishes to 
     include in the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher 
     Education Act, would cost approximately $7 million per year 
     for 12,000 participants. See Office of the Press Secretary, 
     The White House, ``Press Briefing by Bruce Reed, Eli Segal 
     and Diane Fortuna,'' April 27, 1997; available at http://
docs.whitehouse.gov/white-house-publications/1997/04/1997-04-
27-reed-and-segal-briefing-at-volunteer-summit.text. See also 
     Warren P. Strobel, ``Clinton Makes a Pitch for Volunteers,'' 
     The Washington Times, April 29, 1997, pp. A1 and A12, and 
     President Bill Clinton, ``Remarks at Volunteer Summit,'' 
     April 28, 1997, available at http://docs.white-house.gov/
white-house-publications/1997/04/1997-04-28-remarks-of-
presidents-at-volunteer-celebration-event.text.
     \9\ John P. Walters, ``AmeriWaste,'' Memorandum to 
     Conservative Reformers, New Citizenship Project, September 
     26, 1995.
     \10\ See James F. Hirni, ``AmeriCorps: A $575 Million 
     Boondoggle,'' Heritage Foundation Issue Bulletin No. 212, 
     September 14, 1995, p. 5.
     \11\ MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour, March 27, 1995.
     \12\ Cornelia M. Blanchette, Associate Director, Education 
     and Employment Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office, 
     ``National Service Programs--AmeriCorps*USA--First-Year 
     Experience and Recent Program Initiatives,'' testimony before 
     Committee on Labor and Human Resources, U.S. Senate, May 21, 
     1996, p. 3.
     \13\ John P. Walters, ``A Devastating Audit of AmeriCorps: 
     The $23 Per Hour Per Hour `Paid' Volunteer,'' Memorandum to 
     Conservative Reformers, New Citizenship Project, July 12, 
     1995.
     \14\ president Bill Clinton, ``Remarks on Responsible 
     Citizenship and the American Community,'' July 6, 1995; 
     available at http://docs.whitehouse.gov/white-house-
publications/1995/07/1995-07-06-presidents-georgetown-speech-
on-responsibility.text.
     \15\ U.S. General Accounting Office, National Service 
     Programs-AmeriCorps*USA--Early Program Resource and Benefit 
     Information, GAO/HEHS-95-222, August 29, 1995, pp. 30-31; 
     cited in Wilson, ``AmeriCorps,'' p. 452.
     \16\ GAO, National Service Programs: Role of State 
     Commissions in Implementing the AmeriCorps Program.
     \17\ Letter from Representative Pete Hoekstra and Senators 
     Christopher Bond and Charles Grassley to the Honorable Harris 
     Wofford, March 13, 1997, p. 1.
     \18\ Corporation for National Service, AmeriCorps Program 
     Director, available at http://www.cns.gov/pro-dir.html.
     \19\ Mary Hill, ``Too many insiders getting AmeriCorps 
     jobs?'' Des Moines Register, February 2, 1996, p. 1.
     \20\ Jason Lewis, ``For the Good of Taxpayers, Unload Pricey 
     AmeriCorps `Volunteers,' '' Minneapolis Star-Tribune, August 
     7, 1996, p. A11.
     \21\ Corporation for National Service, Office of the 
     Inspector General, Report No. 97-09, December 9, 1996.
     \22\ William Raspberry, ``Invisible Volunteers,'' The 
     Washington Post, January 17, 1997, p. A21.
     \23\ On the charitable tax credits in the Talent-Watts-Flake 
     Community Renewal Act, see Christine Olson, ``The American 
     Community Renewal Act of 1997,'' Heritage Foundation Issue 
     Bulletin No. 229, March 19, 1997.
     \24\ John Messer, ``Disparities Between National Service 
     Outcome Measures and Goals: Core Susquehanna AmeriCorps: A 
     Case Study,'' 1997 Independent Sector Spring Research Forum, 
     Alexandria, Va., 1997.
     \25\ President Bill Clinton, State of the Union speech, 
     February 4, 1997; see also speech by President Clinton to the 
     American Council on Education, February 24, 1997.
     \26\ Clinton, ``Remarks at Volunteer Summit.'' April 28, 
     1997.
     \27\ James Rowley, ``AmeriCorps Questioned on Jobs,'' 
     Associated Press, April 28, 1997. Mr. Woo received a salary 
     of approximately $95,000 per year as Director of AmeriCorps' 
     Western Regional Cluster.
     \28\ John P. Walters, ``Pull the Plug Already,'' Memorandum 
     to Conservative Reformers, New Citizenship Project, October 
     20, 1995.
     \29\ Amy Call, ed., Budget Bulletin No. 6, Majority Staff, 
     Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, 105th Cong., 1st Sess, 
     March 3, 1997; cited in Nina H. Shokraii and Dorothy B. 
     Hanks, ``School Choice

[[Page H5281]]

     Programs: What's Happening in the States,'' Heritage 
     Foundation F.Y.I. No. 138, April 21, 1997, p. 1.
     \30\ See Robert W. Sweet, Jr., ``Don't Read, Don't Tell: 
     Clinton's Phony War on Illiteracy,'' Policy Review: The 
     Journal of American Citizenship, No. 83 (May-June 1997), pp. 
     38-42.

Impact of President's FY 1998 Budget Request for $28 Million Cut in VA 
                                Research

       The president's FY 1998 budget request proposes a 10.5% cut 
     in the VA research appropriation. If enacted by Congress, 
     this cut would reduce FY 1998 funding for VA research to $234 
     million, down from an FY 1997 appropriation of $262 million. 
     A cut of this magnitude--15% if the effect of inflation is 
     included--will require VA to make significant changes in the 
     program and future plans including:
       Reinvigoration of VA's Career Development Programs, as 
     recommended by the Research Realignment Advisory Committee 
     (RRAC), will be delayed indefinitely. For the third year, VA 
     will not be able to initiate any new Career Development 
     awards. See attached Graph 1. Cut: 15 career development 
     awards at a cost of $2.5 million.
       Plans for new research centers of excellence will be 
     terminated or delayed indefinitely. Cut: 9 centers at a cost 
     of $10 million. These include:
       Two Epidemiology Research and Information Centers designed 
     to provide VA with much needed epidemiology research capacity
       Three new competitively selected Diabetes Centers of 
     Excellence
       Two new Centers for Rehabilitation Medicine focusing on 
     sensory loss and traumatic brain injury
       A new, competitively selected Health Services Research and 
     Development Center of Excellence
       Phasing out one of four existing Environmental Hazards 
     Research Centers
       Three hallmark cooperative studies expected to have a far 
     reaching impact on medical care will not be funded. Cut: $3 
     million.
       A substance abuse research initiative related to nicotine 
     and smoking behavior
       Two cooperative studies comparing surgical and medical 
     treatments for heart disease
       Other steps required to accommodate the remaining $10 
     million of the $28 million cut:
       15-20 new health services research and development programs 
     will be delayed.
       VA will sharply decrease its investment in developing 
     medical practice guidelines, reducing its ability to 
     determine the most cost effective methods of delivering high 
     quality care in the network environment.
       Ten percent of existing investigator-initiated projects 
     will be terminated. The number of funded projects will 
     decrease from 1666 in FY 1997 to about 1400 in FY 1998. See 
     attached Graph 2 for the impact on the number of Medical 
     Research Service projects alone. This will lower funding 
     opportunity for VA researchers to an all time low of less 
     than 15%--only 1 out of 8-10 approved projects will be 
     funded.
       Administrative support for research offices located at VA 
     medical centers will be reduced by 10-15%.
       Reduced funding opportunity will affect VA's ability to 
     attract and retain high quality physician investigators for 
     careers in VA. Considering that 75% of VA researchers are 
     physicians who provide medical care for veterans, the 
     potential impact on VA's ability to provide the high quality 
     care associated with academic/research facilities may be 
     significant.
       FOVA recommends full restoration of the funds cut in the 
     president's request, plus $18 million in new funding for an 
     FY 1998 appropriation of $280 million.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  First, let me address the amendment of the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
Tiahrt] by way of the discussions that the gentleman and I have had 
both in the full committee as well as this evening on the floor.
  Initially, in the full committee, there was a good deal of discussion 
about the reality that there are some problems with some AmeriCorps 
programs operating in the country, but also there are portions of the 
AmeriCorps Program that are working very, very well. For example, the 
forestry services going on in my district. AmeriCorps volunteers have 
done a rather phenomenal job.
  Essentially, the gentleman from Kansas was saying to me, I think, 
that we need to raise a flag that says if there are programs here where 
taxpayers' dollars are not being spent well, then we either ought to 
stop that or, indeed, we should try to find a way to improve it. So his 
amendment essentially raises that flag by taking half of the AmeriCorps 
funding proposed in this bill and putting it in an area of funding 
within veterans medical research that is very, very critical.
  Now, beyond my comments about AmeriCorps, let me say this about the 
gentleman from Kansas, a new member of the Committee on Appropriations. 
There is not a member of our committee who has more effectively brought 
forward the importance of the Persian Gulf syndrome problem, the 
reality that literally tens of thousands of veterans are facing 
circumstances that the medical community seems to know a lot less about 
than they should know.
  As of this moment, as a direct result of his work, through a number 
of appropriation subcommittees, I am not sure exactly what the figure 
is, but we are pushing something close to $100 million that is directed 
along a channel that will have us evaluating in intensive form the 
Persian Gulf syndrome.

                              {time}  2145

  And that concern about those veterans who served is very well-taken 
and very, very important.
  Further, I want to say that while earlier I was personally going to 
consider just wiping out the AmeriCorps funding because we know at the 
other end of this, before we get through conference, before we get a 
signature from the President, AmeriCorps is going to be funded. The 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] is mixing the best of public policy 
with the best of reality around here in terms of his amendment. It is 
very helpful to the process, and because of that I would suggest to the 
Members that the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] has made a very 
good point and should get their support.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
Tiahrt], my good friend, and his amendment.
  This is really about priorities of spending in our government. It is 
about two programs. And the idea behind AmeriCorps, the idea of helping 
college students, is certainly an idea that most Americans would 
support. The idea of encouraging volunteerism is certainly an idea that 
most Americans would support. But when we start talking about the 
concept of paying people to volunteer, somehow we lose something in the 
translation. Once you receive a paycheck for doing something, you are 
no longer a volunteer.
  This program is currently costing $19,000 per student that it is 
attempting to help, and I would suggest that the cost is out of line. I 
would also suggest that the accountability is just plain not there in 
the program.
  We then look at a second program and we have to ask ourselves, which 
program is it more important that we spend the money on? We then look 
at our Persian Gulf war veterans and the illnesses that they are facing 
and how much research money is being spent to solve the problems facing 
our Persian Gulf war veterans.
  And we have to conclude, as I think this body will when we vote on 
this amendment, we have to conclude that our priorities here are wrong. 
Paying people to volunteer, even if the work that they are doing is 
good and important, is certainly not as important to our Nation as 
finding the root cause of the Gulf War syndrome that is affecting so 
many of our veterans in our Nation today.
  I rise to support the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt], my good 
friend; and I sincerely hope this body makes the right decision and 
passes this amendment.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment once again places an issue before 
Members of the House regarding two very important areas of concern, I 
think, of Members of the House. Certainly all of us support veterans' 
programs in a great respect and admiration for what veterans have done 
for this country. And many of us, such as myself, are veterans.
  At the same time, we recognize that there is a very real need for 
programs such as AmeriCorps, which happens to be a program that the 
President of the United States places a great deal of priority on. In 
fact, I have before me a statement of administration policy which was 
received by us today, in which the President states that ``the 
administration understands that an amendment may be offered to 
terminate the Corporation for National Community Service. The 
administration would oppose any amendment to terminate the corporation, 
as well as any amendment that would eliminate the corporation's 
AmeriCorps grant program. Were any of these actions be incorporated 
into the final bill presented to the President, the President's senior

[[Page H5282]]

advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.'' The President goes on 
to speak to other aspects of the national service program.
  This is a bill that, as we have already stated on the floor earlier 
today, has been a very difficult bill to craft. It is one that the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and myself and other members of 
the subcommittee spent a great deal of time putting together, and we 
hate to see it in any manner jeopardized by any type of threat of a 
veto.
  But I think it is important to look at what some of the 
accomplishments of the AmeriCorps Program have been. Just in the 1995-
1996 program year, AmeriCorps has trained, supervised or recruited more 
than 300,000 volunteers; they have taught or tutored more than 500,000 
children; built 1,200 houses; rehabilitated 4,700 houses and 
apartments; immunized 64,000 people; planted more than 200,000 trees; 
restored more than 3,000 miles of shoreline and river banks; cleaned up 
3,500 neighborhoods; enrolled 85,000 students in after-school programs. 
They have counseled more than 100,000 people in violence prevention; 
established more than 3,000 public safety patrols; provided 1,100,000 
people with health care information; provided 32,000 people with 
employment-related services.
  So AmeriCorps is not about volunteerism; it is really is about 
service. AmeriCorps has strengthened, not weakened, traditional 
volunteer activities. More than 3 out of 5, 61 percent of Americorps 
members have completed 1,700 hours of service and earned education 
awards. An additional 17 percent earned partial education awards. Only 
22 percent earned no award.
  One measure of success for the program is the percentage of 
AmeriCorps members who earned the education awards. Nearly 4 out of 5, 
70 percent of AmeriCorps members have earned education awards. Just 
recently the U.S. Conference of Mayors passed a resolution supporting 
AmeriCorps.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STOKES. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the ranking member's recitation 
of the accomplishments of Americorps. I think all of us recognize in 
the start-up cost it was high, and it was an important new program with 
this administration. Obviously, there is a high premium on it. I think 
the program is working.
  I would say that this amendment presents a dilemma for many of us. 
But I think the impetus is clear. I do not know, and I appreciate the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the chairman, has provided and 
pointed out that there is nearly $100 million for review and research 
of gulf war syndrome.
  Whether there is a program for the extra $50 million, I do not know. 
But, obviously, if there was, I would suspect that the Committee on 
Appropriations would have processed those requests and considered it. 
In fact, there are many quarters in this Federal Government, 
unfortunately, where they still seem to be in a state of denial with 
regard to that.
  And I appreciate our friend, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt], 
has taken the initiative to try and lead in providing adequate funding. 
But the bottom line is this: This takes $200 million from the program, 
a program that is working, a program where these funds are necessary, 
where they are helping in a variety of ways. I think it has met its 
promise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Stokes, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Vento was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
this eliminates and takes away the opportunity for young people to 
provide service. And I might say that while they get some modest 
compensation and recognition, that it is nowhere accorded the right.
  Now in a different era, a different time many could take off a year 
and volunteer for service and do a variety of things and get low 
compensation or no compensation. But that is not the era we are working 
in today, in terms of people maybe have the altruism but they do not 
have the economic wherewithal.
  And this program provides and lets people provide that type of 
volunteer service; and believe me, it is volunteer service when they 
postpone their vocational plans for those 2 years. So I rise in 
opposition to this amendment.
  I think it is the wrong way to go. I think if we need money for the 
gulf war vets and the syndrome and the problems there, I would be happy 
to stand up here with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], my 
colleague, the ranking member, and support it, but not on the basis 
that is being offered in this amendment.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. STOKES. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Vento].
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I would like to make a couple of comments, one in response to the 
statement of the ranking member with regard to the President of the 
United States. His comment was in regard to elimination of the program. 
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] is a 
reduction of the present program, so he is not offering the amendment 
to eliminate the present program.
  One is, you have to cross a threshold whether or not you eliminate 
the AmeriCorps as a program. I think the President gets himself in this 
oxymoron about paid volunteers. He ought to get away from the word 
``volunteers'' in the AmeriCorps program and just sign up and said, 
yes, he believes in service and we want to pay these individuals for 
these efforts and service which have normally gone to volunteers, and 
he should get himself away from this oxymoron and the attacks on the 
program.
  I really do not care for the particular program. In response to the 
comments of the gentleman about the type of program and all the good 
which it has done, I also have to think about from 1993 to 1994 it was 
reported that 1,200 of the paid AmeriCorps ``volunteers'' worked at the 
Department of Agriculture, 525 worked in the Department of Interior, 
210 worked in the Department of Justice, 135 in EPA, 60 at the National 
Endowment of the Arts; a total of 2,800 were working at Federal 
entities.
  So that was pretty stunning to me when I discovered that. Also to 
think that the AmeriCorps spent $1.7 million to a PR firm to work on 
their image. So when I think about priorities dealing within the 
restraints of a budget agreement, this is very disappointing in fact to 
me.
  The GAO recently, I know the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] 
referred to the $19,000 figure, the GAO estimates the total 
compensation given to each volunteer. I should not perhaps even call 
them volunteers because those that work in the AmeriCorps program do 
not want to be called volunteers, they want to be called members. So 
each member, it is $26,000. This figure has increased per cost to 
$33,000 when AmeriCorps' high dropout rate is factored in. That is a 
heavy price.
  So when the gentleman talks about the promise of AmeriCorps has been 
achieved, all right, at what cost? And then you say of this $33,000 
per, what could we spend those monies on better with regard to how many 
Pell Grants could you get out of that $33,000, or other things? And you 
are right, somebody mentioned this is about priorities.
  So when I think about the issue of the gulf war illness, I do want to 
entertain a question to the chairman if I could for a second. Earlier 
he mentioned about $100 million has now been appropriated for Gulf War 
illness. I am a little confused as to this amendment, if we are adding 
more moneys or replenishing accounts.
  If the gentleman would explain to me, I yield to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. And 
when the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] first raised this question 
effectively in our full committee, we were talking about $20 million; 
and it came to our attention that there was some $30 million within the 
Subcommittee on National Security, at least $10 million in Labor-HHS. 
If there is an add-on here, that is additional.
  But I must say, I do not know all the accounts because I have not had 
a chance to go through those in the last

[[Page H5283]]

few days. But there is a growing level of funding in which this issue 
and this problem is being recognized, and it is a direct result of the 
work that the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] is about.
  Mr. BUYER. Reclaiming my time, so what you have earmarked, these 
monies will help replenish accounts which take away from other funding 
requirements?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman would continue to yield, 
either they are earmarked funds out of research moneys, for example, 
there is already DOD money, a pool of money, and they designate some. 
We designated a portion out of research moneys in this bill, et cetera.
  Mr. BUYER. When you compare this year's budget compared to what the 
President sent you, did the President reduce his VA research budget?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman would yield further, yes, 
the President did. And as a result of our work, we have beefed it back 
up and there is significant adjustment upward in the research budget.
  Mr. BUYER. And you plused up the budget over and above last year's 
number even though the President reduced his VA research?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman would continue to yield, by 
$33 million over the President.
  Mr. BUYER. Let me thank the chairman for having done that.
  I would share with the Members with regard to the gulf war issue, 
whether it has been in the military health delivery systems or in the 
VA, it has been very difficult to focus them on this issue. We voted 
here not long ago on the issue of national defense. We spent millions 
and millions of dollars, whether it is to buy tanks, we can debate over 
B-2 bombers, we debate a lot of things about military equipment, 
hummers and a lot of other things, but when it comes time to taking 
care of those have borne the risk of battle, we need to also step up to 
the plate and take care of these veterans.
  There are many, in fact, who are suffering from multiple types of 
illnesses, multiple causations, which is very difficult for us to 
understand, for the family members. I applaud the gentleman for his 
amendment, and I ask that all the Members support this amendment.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in strong support of AmeriCorps and wonder in terms of the 
statement of the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt], who introduced the 
amendment, where he said that there was $3.6 million allocated, 
appropriated, in this bill with his chart for Persian Gulf veterans. 
Let me assure my colleagues that according to the report put together 
by the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], our distinguished 
chairman, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the ranking member, 
on page 16 it says, and I quote, ``The bill includes earmarking $20 
million,'' not $3.6 million.

                              {time}  2200

  ``The bill includes language earmarking $20 million of the funds made 
available for medical research relating to Gulf War illnesses 
afflicting Persian Gulf veterans.''
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly believe after reading even more on this 
topic that we need to make sure that we take care of our veterans, 
World War II and World War I, Korean, Vietnam veterans and also our 
Persian Gulf veterans.
  Dr. Kenneth Kizer, the VA's Undersecretary for Health, said in his 
testimony before Congress, ``More than 90 research projects are in 
progress or have been completed, and more than 30 individual projects 
are being carried out nationwide by the VA and university affiliated 
investigators.''
  If we need to do more, and we probably do, let us work together in a 
bipartisan way to make sure that our veterans are cared for, and I will 
strongly support that amendment. But let us not pit two very important 
programs, AmeriCorps and the care and concern and medical necessities 
for our Persian Gulf veterans, against one another in a very political 
way.
  AmeriCorps in my district is doing some great things. We have an 
Envirocorps in Elkhart, IN. It is one of the best AmeriCorps projects 
in the country. It is doing a number of things, to clean up streams and 
the environment, to revitalize city neighborhoods throughout our 
community, to test homes for radon gas, a host of things that would not 
be done. They are working with the private sector, they are working 
with volunteers in the community. They are leveraging the resources 
throughout the community to get things done and help other people.
  That is not just in Elkhart, IN. AmeriCorps has given 70,000 
Americans a greater opportunity for higher education, taught over 
380,000 students, mentored 93,000 youth, tutored 118,000 individuals. 
They are all across the country, spread out, helping others. I would 
think that a Republican wants people, as we do, not to just get 
something free but to do some work for it, that is the concept here, 
personal responsibility, work in the community and one gets an 
educational grant, a stipend to go to school. It leverages money, 
another good idea that we would hope to share in a bipartisan way, 
Republicans and Democrats.
  We leverage the public money with the private sector, helping people 
build better communities in the environment, education, tutoring, 
making sure children are inoculated, all kinds of great things going on 
because of the leverage here at the public level that is spreading out 
locally to each and every one of our communities. I do not know how one 
can be against that. I do not know how we can pit two programs that I 
strongly support against one another.
  I guess, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would say this. What are 
Republicans saying about this program that help young people, that help 
young people at a time when we really need them getting to college, 
when the college costs in this country are soaring, how are Republicans 
responding to this, most Republicans?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Roemer was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Gen. Colin Powell says, ``AmeriCorps is doing a lot of 
good things around this country. They are leveraging other volunteers 
who come in to work with AmeriCorps.''
  Gov. William Weld, a Republican from Massachusetts, and I quote, 
``Every taxpayer dollar we spend on AmeriCorps comes back threefold 
when we add up the value of your innovative ideas, your physical labor 
and all the skills you bring to the workforce when you finish your 
education. It is one of the most intelligent uses of taxpayer dollars 
ever.'' Ever.
  Now, I think that is where the mainstream of the country is. Support 
programs that insist on personal responsibility, that leverage dollars, 
that help our young people afford education and build better 
communities. This is a program, AmeriCorps, that I strongly support. I 
hope that we can work in a bipartisan way to support both AmeriCorps 
and our gulf veterans. I do not think that we should try to pit these 
programs against one another.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROEMER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding. I would just say that absolutely the gentleman is right. We 
do not want to pit programs like this against one another. 
Unfortunately throughout this bill, that is the challenge of the bill. 
We have program after program that are vital to people, whether it is 
the poorest of the poor in housing programs or otherwise. One person's 
mind's eye view of what is enough money for this program versus another 
creates the difficulty.
  I am not at all challenging what the gentleman suggests. I think he 
also knows full well that, before we get through this process with the 
other body, the conference, the AmeriCorps funding is going to be 
there. So indeed it is just a reflection of the discussion this evening 
that expresses people's viewpoint. It is helpful but it can be carried 
further than it need be.
  Mr. ROEMER. Reclaiming my time, and I respect the gentleman from 
California, we have all kinds of opportunities around here to make 
priorities. We had a priority to try to cut 0.7 percent of the 
intelligence budget the other day. This body did not do that. We had 
the opportunity to cut B-2 bombers

[[Page H5284]]

that the Air Force does not want. This body did not do that.
  Let us not pit two good programs against one another that we should 
be funding when we have got some of these other programs that the 
Defense Department does not want, a space station that does not work, 
when we are finding the Mars Pathfinder does marvelous things up in 
space for $267 million as opposed to $100 billion for the Space 
Station. Let us get our priorities right. Let us support our gulf 
veterans. Let us support AmeriCorps.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROEMER. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. TIAHRT. I would suggest that this amendment does exactly what the 
gentleman is suggesting.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] has 
again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Tiahrt, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Roemer was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from 
Kansas.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment meets the criteria 
that he is establishing here. It allows AmeriCorps to move on.
  I would like to remind the gentleman from Indiana that AmeriCorps 
spends about 11 percent of their budget authority. They have been 
allocated $1.6 billion from this Congress since its conception. They 
have only spent about $300 million. With a reduced budget as suggested 
here, we are able to achieve both of the gentleman's goals, help the 
Gulf War veterans who are suffering from this illness and allow 
AmeriCorps to continue at a reduced size so that they can become more 
efficient.
  Mr. ROEMER. Reclaiming my time from the gentleman from Kansas, what I 
would say is there are plenty of things we can cut in this budget. 
Whether it is a Space Station, whether it is a wind tunnel, there are a 
lot of things that we have to make tough choices on to balance the 
budget, and we are making them.
  I am supportive of a balanced budget, and I voted for that in the 
historic bipartisan agreement that we brought to this floor. But let us 
not always go after the programs around here that help people go to 
school, that help people get a school lunch, that help people get fed 
that are falling through a safety net. Let us make sure that the Gulf 
veterans are taken care of, that AmeriCorps, which is working with 
personal responsibility, is funded, and that we go after some of these 
programs that are not working nearly as well as these other two good 
programs.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, in these difficult times when we are trying to balance 
the budget and establish the priorities that this body must adhere to 
because the American people adhere to certain priorities, those 
priorities will fall time and time again to our veterans, those people 
who marched off to war and many of them came back with gulf war 
syndrome. I have a number of them in my district, and my heart goes out 
to them. I honor them and I respect them, and my priority is with them, 
because America should keep its word to its veterans. They kept their 
word with us.
  It was Teddy Roosevelt that once said a man who is good enough to 
shed his blood for his country is good enough to be given a square 
deal. I think to increase research and development to $25 million for 
gulf war illness research is a top priority. I think it must be done. 
For too long this country ignored the ravages of gulf war syndrome and 
ignored that it was a bona fide problem that our soldiers came back 
home with. Our veterans have earned a square deal. They were promised a 
square deal. That is not what they are getting with this appropriations 
bill, unless we adopt the Tiahrt-Chenoweth amendment.
  How can we in good conscience spend even a penny on pet projects, as 
worthy as they may be, while our promises to veterans continue to be 
broken? AmeriCorps' paid volunteers may work on projects in exchange 
for pay and scholarships, but what is their contribution in comparison 
to the sacrifice of our veterans? Veterans who gave up freedom and 
endured the hardship and bore the separation from loved ones and all 
too often suffered terrible bodily injury in defense of our freedoms in 
the gulf war.
  I urge my colleagues to take this small step, keep our obligations 
and our promises to our veterans. Show our veterans that they are as 
important to us as we and a free America were to them when they gave so 
much to us. Please support the Tiahrt-Chenoweth amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, since the gentlewoman indicated that we ought 
to put support for veterans ahead of everything else, can I assume that 
she will vote for my amendment to eliminate the pork project in Idaho 
so we can add money to the veterans health care budget?
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. I am supporting my State and my commitment to my 
State.
  Mr. OBEY. So in that case the veterans will come second?
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, this is out of order because we are 
debating another amendment.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this debate is an appropriate kind of debate 
but not necessarily comparing AmeriCorps with the veterans. I think we 
all support both.
  The irony is that the gulf war veterans may have sons or daughters 
that are in AmeriCorps, and in fact gulf war veterans may qualify as 
AmeriCorps volunteers, because it is a totally different program. It 
has to do with contribution to the community for remuneration and a 
credit toward, whether it is vocational training or academic training. 
I happen to represent an area in California, Fort Ord, the former Fort 
Ord, which still has a military property on it; and in that property, 
we have the center for the gulf war syndrome calls. Anyone who has been 
in the gulf war who thinks they may be qualified for benefits, these 
medical benefits, all of those calls from everywhere they are made in 
the world come to that building. That building gets them registered and 
into the process. It is a good process and it is working.
  The problem I think we have with veterans and not just gulf war 
veterans but veterans in general is that we are not allowing for 
collaboration. If one goes to a veterans clinic, the veterans cannot 
take their family and children to that clinic. We ought to be able to 
let them do that. If one is over 65 in this country and he is a 
veteran, he cannot take himself or his spouse to a veterans clinic. 
They have to go out to a Medicare process.
  The problem for medical care in America for veterans is not just 
limited in here, and we do not do more by isolating these moneys, by 
taking them out of a good project and saying we are going to put it in 
just to research in an isolated area. If we really want to help 
veterans, gulf war veterans and all, we would do a much better job of 
collaboration.
  Let me tell my colleagues on that same military base are a whole 
bunch of AmeriCorps volunteers that are helping clean up that base, and 
they are working with the community based organizations and they are 
doing a very good job. Yes, they are getting paid. I was a Peace Corps 
volunteer and I got paid for being in the Peace Corps. There is no free 
lunch in this process. But they are not getting rich on this.
  In fact, the author of this amendment has had six AmeriCorps 
volunteers in his district, of which four finished. The Kansas 
Department of Wildlife and Parks who oversaw the program wrote a 
letter, and I would be glad to give it to the gentleman and submit it 
for the Record if he wants, that says,

       Without the assistance of AmeriCorps the Kansas Department 
     of Wildlife and Parks would not be able to hire these young 
     people lacking the funding to do so. The department can, 
     however, provide raw materials, tools and supervision.

  The letter goes on to say,

       The AmeriCorps and public would lose the benefits provided 
     to the natural resources and outdoor recreation projects, and 
     the individuals who would have been selected as members would 
     lose valuable opportunities.


[[Page H5285]]



                              {time}  2215

  It goes on to say: ``I hope you will find that you will be able to 
fully support the continuation of the AmeriCorps as a viable program 
important to the American people.''
  This is a letter to Senator Bond, and it is written by Bob Mayers, 
the Assistant to the Secretary of Operations, appointee of the 
Republican Governor of the State of Kansas.
  Lastly, I think what is very important here is that if we are going 
to make some tough choices, I think we made it last week, a week before 
that, when we had a very close vote, and I believe it was, as my 
colleagues know, half a dozen votes difference on the B-2 bomber, 
something that the Pentagon has not asked for, something that the Air 
Force does not want, and we voted to commit ourselves to building nine 
more. An estimated outlay or total cost in the end is about $18 
billion.
  Now if my colleagues want to make choices, and my veterans are just 
like my colleagues' veterans, they understand these choices. They do 
not want us to take away programs from their sons and daughters, from 
their colleagues who may be wanting to go into the AmeriCorps who want 
to pay off student loans, who want to pay off education. Robbing Peter 
to pay Paul is, I think, a very injurious proposition, and this is a 
bad amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague 
yielding. I think the point I am really trying to make here is to 
suggest to the House that we are all on the same side of this. The fact 
is my colleague knows and I know before we get through this process of 
the conference that AmeriCorps is going to have its funding restored, 
we know that. What has really happened though as a part of the full 
committee discussion and here, is suddenly there is a different 
attention being paid to the Persian Gulf syndrome, which the 
gentleman's district should be very pleased with as well.
  So at the end of the process we will raise that to a much higher 
level of attention; the gentleman's district will like that. But 
AmeriCorps will be funded at the other end, as my colleagues know. 
Frankly it is important that the public know that we are all on the 
same side really in this discussion. And as my colleagues know, we have 
a tendency to fill all the time that is available regardless of whether 
we agree or disagree.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's 
observations are very well made. I just disagree with the author of 
this amendment that the way of getting there is to rob Peter to pay 
Paul. I think when we rob an educational account to pay for a medical 
account we have no gain.
  Mrs. Chairman. I include the following for the Record.
                                                  State of Kansas,


                                Department of Wildlife & Parks

                                       Pratt, KS, October 4, 1996.
     Hon. Christopher Bond,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: I appreciate the efforts of yourself, 
     Senator Grassley, and Congressman Lewis to examine the 
     relationship between USDA and the Corporation for National 
     Service regarding the AmeriCorps program. At this time in 
     America, it is critical that government operate ethically and 
     above board, without the intent, act or perception of 
     wrongdoing.
       However, as I am certain you will find, the relationship 
     between USDA, CNS and the AmeriCorps projects administered at 
     the state level is reasonable and desirable. This partnership 
     allows rural Americans to perform needed community services 
     for an honest wage and broaden their potentials for the 
     future in the process. When these AmeriCorps members have 
     completed their educations, they will be ready to take their 
     places as productive members of society, with not only the 
     class work behind them, but also the experience earned in the 
     successful completion of their AmeriCorps projects.
       Without the assistance of the USDA and CNS, the Kansas 
     Department of Wildlife and Parks would not be able to hire 
     these young people, lacking the funding to do so. The 
     department can, however, provide raw materials, tools and 
     supervision. Important projects underway now, and others that 
     might be completed in the future, would die without being 
     completed. Rural communities would lose the employment 
     options provided by AmeriCorps, the public would lose the 
     benefits provided to the natural resources and outdoor 
     recreation projects, and the individuals who would have been 
     selected as members would lose valuable opportunities. The 
     language proposed by USDA correlates to previous agreements, 
     and fully supports the principles under which AmeriCorps was 
     conceived, while ending the transfer of operating funds from 
     CNS to USDA.
       No additional funding is needed to support the AmeriCorps 
     program, and the positive impact it makes is tremendous. I 
     hope that you will find that you are able to fully support 
     continuation of AmeriCorps as a viable program important to 
     the American people.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Rob Manes,
                               Assistant Secretary for Operations.

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. First of all, I 
want to just point out as the second ranking Democrat on the Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs I stand in a back seat to no one in terms of 
standing up for our Nation's veterans' needs, and while I appreciate 
the efforts that the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the 
chairman of this committee, has made in terms of standing up for our 
Nation's veterans in this budget, and I think the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Stokes] deserves credit as well, I would like to point out to 
those Republicans who are beating up on the AmeriCorps program today 
that according to their own budget agreement that they passed 
themselves earlier this year, they were $2,230,000,000 under what this 
budget does.
  So while I appreciate the fact that the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations went back and found $2 billion, for people to stand up 
here and make speeches on the floor of the House saying they want to 
stand up for our Nation's veterans, go look at their own rhetoric, go 
look at what their budget that they passed did to the veterans of this 
country. They are the ones who led the fight to cut the veterans 
programs, and now they stand up here on the House floor and pretend 
like they are standing up for our Nation's veterans. So in reality what 
they can do is beat up on AmeriCorps, because what they really want to 
do is go after President Clinton because he has a program that 
encourages voluntarism in America.
  And that is the truth of what this is all about. This is just plain 
rhetoric bashing, this is the same old, same old stuff that we hear too 
much of. In fact, if we are truthful and honest, I think we go back to 
the original statement of the chairman of the committee. He said some 
very nice things; I heard him when I was sitting in my office getting 
ready to offer a couple of amendments on the housing bill that is 
coming up, and he said some very nice things about the AmeriCorps 
program. The truth is that of course like every program, we have HUD 
programs that are well run, we have HUD programs that are not well run; 
we have programs in the Pentagon that are well run and some that are 
not so well run. We have some AmeriCorps that are well run and some 
that are not so well run.
  But the truth and the fundamental aspect of this is that there is 
broad bipartisan support, I believe, for both AmeriCorps as well as for 
our veterans' programs, and for us to sit here and gratuitously go out 
and find a way of offering an amendment that can just go and try to 
bash the AmeriCorps in order to pretend like we are standing up for our 
Nation's veterans is utter hogwash, and I hope the veterans of this 
country who are watching this debate listen to the fact that there is 
$2.230 billion, that is B's, not M's, billions of dollars that were 
proposed by the Republicans that were not included because of the work 
of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I too want to rise in opposition to this amendment, and 
really, I think, there has been a great deal of bipartisan effort on 
this whole issue of balancing the budget, and I think because of that I 
am very curious about what is not only represented to be an effort to 
cut the deficit, but also what I would call bashing and pitting one 
very deserving group against the other.
  Let us make it perfectly clear this amendment eliminates the 
AmeriCorps program, and for many who have debated it and discussed it, 
for some reason the involvement of the President

[[Page H5286]]

seems to color the value of this program, and I would simply take issue 
with great respect for the gentleman.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, would the gentlewoman yield on 
that point that she made?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. It may be that the gentlewoman was not given 
the information that the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] took up his 
second amendment rather than the first one. Because of that this 
amendment takes approximately half of the AmeriCorps funding and puts 
some of it into veterans programs, and the balance remains, which 
allows us effectively to go to conference where we know it is going to 
be restored.
  I do appreciate the gentlewoman's position, but I wanted the 
gentlewoman to know that.
  In the meantime, if my colleague will, I wanted to mention to her 
that we hope to get through this amendment by the time I have committed 
to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] that we will close down by 
10:30, and that is not just for the gentlewoman but for the other 
Members who are here.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, I hope I will be able 
to capture the time. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate it, and I did know 
the amendment that we were discussing, I consider the amendment an 
elimination of the AmeriCorps for the very reason that when we begin to 
juxtapose moneys against one other, we are bashing and we are 
eliminating.
  I recognize that this is a modified amendment, but this amendment, 
the purpose of it is to eliminate AmeriCorps. This has no intent to 
fund our veterans. This is a purpose of, in fact, causing anguish, 
causing ugliness in this debate.
  Let me simply argue on behalf of the AmeriCorps program and the very 
valuable things that it does. First, I want to take issue with those 
who say that there are individuals who are in the AmeriCorps program 
that do not do their job, that there should be volunteers, that they 
should not be paid. These are individuals who work very hard in our 
community and, in fact, are contributing in our community and receiving 
an education.
  I would venture to say that the young men and women who are in the 
gulf war would support the AmeriCorps, and why would they support it? 
Because they are the equals of these individuals who have come up to 
hard times and are now seeking to give to their country, but, as well, 
taking advantage of an opportunity to be educated and maybe be back in 
step with helping us to have more peace so that we send less of our 
veterans or less of our soldiers into places of war.
  For example, in Houston the LA Vets is sponsored by our AmeriCorps. 
What do they do? They help homeless vets. I would think that our 
veterans would support the AmeriCorps programs that do that. What else 
do they do in Houston? The Houston Read Commission, the literacy 
AmeriCorps that helps to bring about the opportunities for reading in 
our community; English as a Second Language, a program that is 
extremely important.
  But most of all, I think the dignity of the AmeriCorps participants 
have been attacked, and I take great offense in that, for these are 
young men and women who simply want an opportunity.
  Yes, this is the President's program and the President's opportunity. 
But it is not the President's vision. It is America's vision to give 
young people the opportunity to climb up the rough side of the mountain 
and, yes, stand on top of the mountain.
  I believe that this effort that is being offered to take a few 
pennies here and a few pennies there for two very good programs is, as 
I started out in my remarks, an attack on AmeriCorps and an attempt to 
eliminate AmeriCorps.
  I would simply ask the question, if it is going to be restored in 
conference, why do we not do the right thing and maintain the full 
funding of AmeriCorps, work in conference to increase the dollars for 
Persian Gulf research and Persian Gulf illnesses, because I think that 
is a very valid concern. Why do we not do it that way? The reason why 
we are not doing it that way is because the real intent of this 
amendment is to bash AmeriCorps, to eliminate AmeriCorps, and it has 
nothing to do with anyone's concern about the veterans.
  I support any effort to increase funding for veterans, and I would 
encourage my colleagues to go to the conference committee, work 
sincerely along with the Senate to increase those dollars, because we 
are moving along in a well-intentioned manner, which is to balance the 
budget. I see no reason whatsoever to eliminate these dollars on a very 
valid program that helps young people do the right thing and achieve 
their goals and aspirations.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to raise my strong opposition to Mr. 
Tiahrt's amendment to eliminate AmeriCorps by using the tragic 
situation created by gulf war illness. If the administration had not 
taken steps to address the need to recognize disabilities associated 
with the illness and extended the length of time veterans have to apply 
for benefits I could see a need to increase funding for that purpose.
  This amendment to H.R. 2158 will eliminate AmeriCorps, a much needed 
program and thus deny the opportunity for many deserving young people 
to attend college. The program is simple, but it has had a significant 
impact on the lives of people living in my Houston, TX, district.
  In the city of Houston, David Lopez, who was employed as an 
AmeriCorps member last year, worked to provide the inner city working 
parents of latch key kids with supervised activity and play. They are 
not left to their own devices, or worse, to the design of street 
predators who would lead these young lives in the wrong direction.
  For a year of volunteer service with Communities In Schools, David 
earned a $4,725 scholarship toward college.
  AmeriCorps is the one and only chance for many of its participants to 
obtain a college education. It has been under attack from the early 
days of the 104th Congress for being inefficient. The truth is that 
among the numerous independent studies in the past, including the one 
by conservative ``Chicago School'' economists sponsored by three 
private foundations, confirmed that investments in national service 
programs are sound, yielding from $1.54 to $3.90 for every dollar 
invested. In fact, a 1995 GAO report concluded that AmeriCorps almost 
tripled the $31 million amount Congress directed them to raise by 
raising $91 million.
  AmeriCorps has played a vital role in communities all over America. 
The 508,593 students taught, and the 42,381 families left homeless by 
natural disasters, and the 143,513 individuals provided health care 
screening at clinics, VA hospitals, and other health-related facilities 
and focus particularly on children and youth are testaments to the 
critical role this program plays in the lives of people in need.
  I would offer to my colleagues who are in a rush to cut AmeriCorps 
that if they looked around their districts they may find that 
AmeriCorps is doing some very amazing things for these few tax dollars.
  For example, in the city of Houston, the Collaboration to Help 
Homeless Veterans uses AmeriCorps members on areas of housing and 
employment readiness to perform case management activities and help 
homeless veterans in the Houston area move toward self-sufficiency.
  The Houston READ Commission/Literacy AmeriCorps provide literacy 
training and needed support services while developing community 
leadership in traditionally disadvantaged locations of the greater 
Houston area. Educational activities include GED tutoring, English as a 
second language training, homework assistance, and family literacy 
instruction.
  Teach for America--Houston is another program in the city of Houston 
which utilizes AmeriCorps members in a project designed to improve the 
educational achievement of underserved school-age youth by providing 
students with teachers having diverse backgrounds and strong knowledge 
of academic content. AmeriCorps members are assigned teaching and 
leadership roles in inner city and rural public schools.
  I strongly oppose any effort to end this program. I would ask that my 
colleague join me in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] on the VA, HUD and 
Independent Agencies bill, a job well done. There are lots of various 
issues that they have had to work out, and I think they are doing a 
tremendous job. My admiration goes out to both of them.
  I rise, however, in opposition, in strong opposition, to this 
amendment, a very sincere amendment on the part of the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] but one that I think is very wrong. And I feel so 
strongly about it I

[[Page H5287]]

was almost reluctant to get up because I am almost afraid of what I 
might say.
  I mean I hear people calling it the President's program, and yet the 
President worked very hard with Republicans to make it a bipartisan 
program. That is why, instead of it being a national program, one-third 
of the program is decided nationally, and two-thirds is decided by the 
States.
  Republicans really did a good one on the President, though, because 
when we allow States to do their programs, they are going to have good 
programs and bad programs. So instead of having a national program 
that, as my colleagues know, is pretty good, and no one can find any 
criticism, we allow States to be innovative. And so they have a number 
of good programs, but they have some that are not so good. And when 
AmeriCorps finds out what are the bad programs, they are eliminated. So 
what we have is some really excellent programs, and we have a few bad 
ones.
  I look in terms of where this money is going. I serve as the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Government 
Reform, and we oversee the Veterans Department along with HUD and the 
Education Department and HHS, and so on. We have had 10 hearings on 
gulf war syndrome, and I think I can say with some authority that the 
problem is not funding of illnesses. The problem is the VA and the DOD 
failed to recognize the problem in the first place. It was not a money 
issue.
  We are going to spend in the 1998 budget $20 million earmarked for 
medical research in the VA HUD bill. We are going to spend $78 million 
in DOD budgets. We are going to spend $10 million in HHS. One hundred 
eight million is going to be spent on gulf war illnesses in the budget 
that exists right now.

                              {time}  2230

  We have the money there to do the work. The question is, is the VA 
and the DOD going to spend the money the right way? There we might have 
debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent the cities of Stamford, Norwalk, and 
Bridgeport. I have kids who are hungering to be of service to this 
country. They are also hungering to get an education. A great 
Republican principle, I thought, was to not give them something, make 
them earn it. They earn it. They work at a minimum wage.
  Yes, we call them volunteers, even though we call it AmeriCorps. I am 
a Peace Corps volunteer. I got paid. I was given a stipend at the end, 
just like these volunteers who are doing service. They are 
participants, no different than Peace Corps volunteers, but they are 
working at basically $4 an hour. When they are done, unlike me in the 
Peace Corps, when I had money set aside that I could spend on anything, 
all these individuals can do is spend it on education.
  So for me, Mr. Chairman, this was a program that the President 
reached out to our side of the aisle, made two-thirds of it funded and 
decided by States, and therefore brought in the possibility that we 
could have some bad programs, which we are quick to criticize, and did 
not make it a national program.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not going to be asking for a rollcall vote on this 
issue. I accept the fact that our chairman of this committee is going 
to try to work it out in conference, and I accept the fact that his 
logic said that, better to keep some of the program there to be funded 
and argued with the Senate.
  But I just strongly, strongly oppose those on my side of the aisle 
and maybe a few on the other side of the aisle who have targeted 
AmeriCorps, because I think they are dead wrong. It has been a 
tremendous program for my cities in Bridgeport and Stamford and 
Norwalk. I have kids who are being of service. They are so grateful to 
be of service, and to know that they can get an education in the 
process.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will make a very brief comment. There are two or 
three Members who plan to speak this evening but who are going to be 
asking for unanimous consent requests regarding their position, so that 
we can finish this amendment this evening and go to a vote on the item, 
and then we will take the balance of Title I up tomorrow.
  (Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. I rise in opposition to the Tiahrt amendment. My colleague's 
amendment gives us terrible options. I support veterans and additional 
funding for Gulf war syndrome. We should be engaged in expanding 
AmeriCorps, not in its elimination.
  Almost 4 years ago, when Congress created the AmeriCorps program, we 
expected great things from national service. The Congress expected 
AmeriCorps to help communities meet their public service needs with 
real results. We expected AmeriCorps to unite individuals from 
different backgrounds in the common effort to improve our communities. 
We expected AmeriCorps to encourage its members to explore and exercise 
their responsibilities to their communities, their families, and 
themselves.
  Today, almost 3 years after the first 20,000 AmeriCorps members hit 
the field in over 1,000 communities across the country, the Corporation 
for National Service and its AmeriCorps program has met every one of 
these expectations. And in many cases, it's exceeded them.
  In my hometown of Houston, TX, 120 AmeriCorps members in the SERVE 
HOUSTON program serve 1,500 school children daily in partnership with 
the Houston Independent School District and the YMCA of Greater Houston 
by providing in-school tutors and after-school programs in 24 title I 
schools.
  Our daily Club Learn and Serve after-school program provides safe and 
structured activities for 1,000 children who would otherwise leave 
school for an empty home or the streets. The program provides reading 
and homework assistance, cultural activities, and service learning 
projects where school children learn to serve their own communities.
  SERVE HOUSTON receives cash matching support for its AmeriCorps 
funding from leading corporations including: Shell Oil Co. Foundation, 
Exxon, Enron Corp., Duke Energy, Arthur Anderson, and El Paso Energy. 
In addition, it receives strong support from private foundations and 
individuals. SERVE HOUSTON is truly a public-private partnership.
  SERVE HOUSTON generates non-AmeriCorps volunteers to serve the 
community through its outreach to churches and synagogues, college 
campuses, and public schools. Nationally, each AmeriCorps member 
leverages about 12 volunteers and generates 246 volunteer hours.
  But AmeriCorps' service in my community does not stop there. The 
Collaboration to Help Homeless Veterans is involved in several 
aggressive outreach programs. The AmeriCorps members not only go to 
shelters and get veterans signed up for services from the Department of 
Veterans Affairs, but they also go out with mobile units and service 
those homeless individuals that are under bridges and in the woods. 
These AmeriCorps members assist our homeless veterans to become self-
sufficient by providing educational and vocational support; they help 
our veterans access medical and social services, and they build working 
relationships with other service providers.
  The decision on whether or not to continue national service will tell 
us a lot about ourselves. We should put partisan politics aside. Let's 
work together to continue to provide young people an opportunity to 
help themselves, as they help our communities and learn service as a 
way of life.
  AmeriCorps has kept its promise to the American people. The Congress 
should, too.
  (Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Tiahrt amendment. That notwithstanding, I want to thank the sponsor for 
the opportunity to clarify the administration's work on AmeriCorps.
  Early in the last Congress, there were many Members expressing 
concerns about AmeriCorps. The critics said that AmeriCorps was plagued 
by cost overruns. So, AmeriCorps and the Corporation for National 
Service took the criticisms seriously. They took immediate steps to 
alleviate the problems. Former Senator Harris Wofford, now CEO of the 
Corporation for National Service, and Senator Charles Grassley 
announced a 10 point agreement to reform the AmeriCorps program.
  That effort made clear, enforceable commitments to contain costs. It 
also resulted in an increase in the AmeriCorps' private sector match 
from 25 to 33 percent of program costs.
  Then, critics said that AmeriCorps was not fulfilling its commitment 
to service and voluntarism. As the 10 point agreement included 
increased collaboration with national non-profits, special scholarships 
to reward voluntarism and other efforts to increase occasional, or 
``weekend'' voluntarism nationwide, in addition to long-term 
commitments to service. And in this way, AmeriCorps responded to its 
critics by increasing its volunteer and service efforts.

[[Page H5288]]

  Then critics said that the Corporation for National Service was 
lacking in its financial management standard and quality controls. The 
Corporation responded by committing to work with its Inspector General 
and Corporation's auditors, Arthur Anderson LLP and Williams, Adley & 
Co. to correct its financial weaknesses. Ted Sheridan of the Financial 
Executive Institute also worked with the Corporation to deal with these 
problems.
  A year later, the Corporation is on the track to be a model of 
responsible governmental structure. It has hired a full-time Chief 
Financial Officer and it is in the process of installing a new 
financial management system. By 1998, it expects to have regular fully 
auditable financial statements and strict business controls.
  Two years ago, critics rallied behind the cry that AmeriCorps was a 
government program fraught with management and financial problems. But 
AmeriCorps and the Corporation for National Service responded, and 
today AmeriCorps is a program of which I believe we can all be proud, 
critics and supporters alike. Unless of course, fixing the program was 
never the real goal.
  You see, despite its successes, we are still having the debate over 
funding. That leads me to believe that the motives behind the criticism 
was never constructive, intended to produce a model government program. 
Instead, the critics' real goal was simply to defund or at least 
cripple a program that has been a target of theirs for years, no matter 
how well it is working today.
  If that is the case, and I can hardly see how it could be otherwise, 
I urge my colleagues to reject this unfortunate amendment and to 
support a government program that helps to leverage private funds to 
tackle the difficult problems that face our youth, our communities, and 
our nation, neighborhood by neighborhood, where real effort can make a 
real difference in real peoples' lives.
  In closing, let me thank Mr. Stokes and Chairman Lewis for their work 
on this bill. I take at face value his commitment to restore funding in 
conference and for this opportunity to clarify the constructive work by 
so many at AmeriCorps over the past several years.

                              Auditability


    the corporation is strengthening its management control systems

       The Corporation is unique in that it is a new entity 
     comprised of pre-existing federal agencies and commissions 
     and their outdated systems. The Corporation is methodically 
     strengthening its financial management systems to reach full 
     auditability in compliance with the new requirements of the 
     Corporation Control Act, with action completed or in the 
     process of implementation on 97 out of 99 points raised by 
     Arthur Andersen by May 1, 1997. Once that goal is reached, 
     the Chief Financial Officer will move forward on auditing 
     current financial statements.


         the corporation is strengthening its trust fund system

       A subsequent report by Peat Marwick, LLP (KPMG) will guide 
     our efforts to strengthen the Trust Fund systems. It 
     pinpoints several weaknesses in the current system--and we've 
     already taken significant steps to begin to address them.


       the trust fund system mirrors our decentralized structure

       Local program directors are directly responsible for 
     certifying Trust Fund eligibility within guidelines set by 
     Congress. Our experience and the KPMG findings indicate that 
     this reliance on local control requires stepped-up federal 
     oversight to ensure accurate Trust fund records.


   the corporation has taken significant steps to address trust fund 
                                 issues

       The Corporation generally concurs with and is committed to 
     a methodical resolution of the issues raised by the KPMG 
     report. To strengthen our Trust Fund systems, the Corporation 
     has already taken several major steps, such as: updating the 
     certification process and incorporated an automatic system 
     rejection process to ensure all documents have been properly 
     approved before Trust Fund accounts are established; freezing 
     grant renewals until accurate certification forms are filed 
     with the Trust Fund; developing systems to improve 
     transactions registers and maintain supporting data; bringing 
     accounting records to a current period; implementing a number 
     of major changes to our segregation of duties within the 
     Trust Fund operation; developing and implementing a revised 
     payment system and an automated interface of those payments 
     to our existing ledger system.


                 it's not unusual, but that's no excuse

       Many federal agencies are struggling to meet the new 
     financial management auditability standards. The Departments 
     of Defense, GSA, IRS, even the U.S. Congress. The Corporation 
     is making every effort to meet the new challenges--and has 
     made significant progress.

  (Mr. HOEKSTRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do 
now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Gilchrest) 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, 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.

                          ____________________