Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 101 (Wednesday, July 16, 1997)

[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 101 (Wednesday, July 16, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5309-H5371]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1145
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). 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} 1145

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 on Tuesday, July
15, 1997, the amendment by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] had
been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 8, line 8.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

MEDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND MISCELLANEOUS OPERATING EXPENSES

For necessary expenses in the administration of the
medical, hospital, nursing home, domiciliary, construction,
supply, and research activities, as authorized by law;
administrative expenses in support of planning, design,
project management, architectural, engineering, real property
acquisition and disposition, construction and renovation of
any facility under the jurisdiction or for the use of the
Department of Veterans Affairs, including site acquisition;
engineering and architectural activities not charged to
project cost; and research and development in building
construction technology; $60,160,000, plus reimbursements.

GENERAL POST FUND, NATIONAL HOMES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

For the cost of direct loans, $7,000, as authorized by
Public Law 102-54, section 8, which shall be transferred from
the ``General post fund'': 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 $70,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct loan programs, $54,000, which shall be transferred
from the ``General post fund'', as authorized by Public Law
102-54, section 8.

Departmental Administration

GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES

For necessary operating expenses of the Department of
Veterans Affairs, not otherwise provided for, including
uniforms or allowances therefor; not to exceed $25,000 for
official reception and representation expenses; hire of
passenger motor vehicles; and reimbursement of the General
Services Administration for security guard services, and the
Department of Defense for the cost of overseas employee mail;
$853,385,000: Provided, That funds under this heading shall
be available to administer the Service Members Occupational
Conversion and Training Act: Provided further, That funds
under this heading shall be available for the conduct of
medical examinations requested by the Veterans Benefits
Administration in connection with claims for benefits under
title 38, United States Code: Provided further, That none of
the funds made available under this heading may be used for
the relocation of the loan guaranty divisions of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St.
Petersburg, Florida to the Department of Veterans Affairs
Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia.

NATIONAL CEMETERY SYSTEM

For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of
the National Cemetery System, not otherwise provided for,
including uniforms or allowances thereof; cemeterial expenses
as authorized by law; purchase of three passenger motor
vehicles for use in cemeterial operations; and hire of
passenger motor vehicles, $84,183,000.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, $31,013,000.

CONSTRUCTION, MAJOR PROJECTS

For constructing, altering, extending and improving any of
the facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the
Department of Veterans Affairs, or for any of the purposes
set forth in sections 316, 2404, 2406, 8102, 8103, 8106,
8108, 8109, 8110, and 8122 of title 38, United States Code,
including planning, architectural and engineering services,
maintenance or guarantee period services costs associated
with equipment guarantees provided under the project,
services of claims analysts, offsite utility and storm
drainage system construction costs, and site acquisition,
where the estimated cost of a project is $4,000,000 or more
or where funds for a project were made available in a
previous major project appropriation, $155,600,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That except for advance
planning of projects funded through the advance planning fund
and the design of projects funded through the design fund,
none of these funds shall be used for any project which has
not been considered and approved by the Congress in the
budgetary process: Provided further, That funds provided in
this appropriation for fiscal year 1998, for each approved
project shall be obligated (1) by the awarding of a
construction documents contract by September 30, 1998, and
(2) by the awarding of a construction contract by September
30, 1999: Provided further, That the Secretary shall promptly
report in writing to the Comptroller General and to the
Committees on Appropriations any approved major construction
project in which obligations are not incurred within the time
limitations established above; and the Comptroller General
shall review the report in accordance with the procedures
established by section 1015 of the Impoundment Control Act of
1974 (title X of Public Law 93-344): Provided further, That
no funds from any other account except the ``Parking
revolving fund'', may be obligated for constructing,
altering, extending, or improving a project which was
approved in the budget process and funded in this account
until one year after substantial completion and beneficial
occupancy by the Department of Veterans Affairs of the
project or any part thereof with respect to that part only.

Amendments Offered by Mr. Lewis of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments, and I
ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendments.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendments offered by Mr. Lewis of California:
On page 11, line 7, strike ``$155,600,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$159,600,000''.
On page 12, line 21, strike ``$175,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$176,500,000''.
On page 13, line 19, strike ``$60,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$54,500,000''.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate being recognized.
I will not take the entire 5 minutes. These two amendments are
noncontroversial and supported by the Members from the areas that are
affected.
The first amendment adds $4 million to VA's construction major
projects account for a columbarium at the National Memorial Cemetery in
Arizona.

[[Page H5310]]

The bill already includes the requested $9.1 million for grave site
development and improvements of this construction project at the
cemetery.
The second amendment adds $1.5 million to VA's construction minor
projects account for expansion of the existing National Cemetery at
Mobile, AL. This will permit the development of 10 acres of city-owned
land for burial of veterans in the Mobile area.
These two additions are offset by a reduction in the increase
recommended by the committee for the grants for construction of State
extended care facilities account. The committee recommended an increase
$19 million above the 1998 budget request for this account. The
amendment changes the increase in that appropriations to $13.5 million
above the request.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members to support the amendments.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] has discussed
these amendments with me, and we have no objection to them.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
The amendments were agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

construction, minor projects

For constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of
the facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the
Department of Veterans Affairs, including planning,
architectural and engineering services, maintenance or
guarantee period services costs associated with equipment
guarantees provided under the project, services of claims
analysts, offsite utility and storm drainage system
construction costs, and site acquisition, or for any of the
purposes set forth in sections 316, 2404, 2406, 8102, 8103,
8106, 8108, 8109, 8110, and 8122 of title 38, United States
Code, where the estimated cost of a project is less than
$4,000,000; $175,000,000, to remain available until expended,
along with unobligated balances of previous ``Construction,
minor projects'' appropriations which are hereby made
available for any project where the estimated cost is less
than $4,000,000: Provided, That funds in this account shall
be available for (1) repairs to any of the nonmedical
facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the
Department which are necessary because of loss or damage
caused by any natural disaster or catastrophe, and (2)
temporary measures necessary to prevent or to minimize
further loss by such causes.

parking revolving fund

For the parking revolving fund as authorized by 38 U.S.C.
8109, income from fees collected, to remain available until
expended, which shall be available for all authorized
expenses except operations and maintenance costs, which will
be funded from ``Medical care''.

grants for construction of state extended care facilities

For grants to assist States to acquire or construct State
nursing home and domiciliary facilities and to remodel,
modify or alter existing hospital, nursing home and
domiciliary facilities in State homes, for furnishing care to
veterans as authorized by 38 U.S.C. 8131-8137, $60,000,000,
to remain available until expended.

grants for the construction of state veteran cemeteries

For grants to aid States in establishing, expanding, or
improving State veteran cemeteries as authorized by 38 U.S.C.
2408, $10,000,000, to remain available until expended.

grants for the construction of state veteran cemeteries

For grants to aid States in establishing, expanding, or
improving State veteran cemeteries as authorized by 38 U.S.C.
2408, $10,000,000, to remain available until expended.

administrative provisions

(including transfer of funds)

Sec. 101. Any appropriation for fiscal year 1998 for
``Compensation and pensions'', ``Readjustment benefits'', and
``Veterans insurance and indemnities'' may be transferred to
any other of the mentioned appropriations.
Sec. 102. Appropriations available to the Department of
Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 1998 for salaries and
expenses shall be available for services authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109.
Sec. 103. No appropriations in this Act for the Department
of Veterans Affairs (except the appropriations for
``Construction, major projects'', ``Construction, minor
projects'', and the ``Parking revolving fund'') shall be
available for the purchase of any site for or toward the
construction of any new hospital or home.
Sec. 104. No appropriations in this Act for the Department
of Veterans Affairs shall be available for hospitalization or
examination of any persons (except beneficiaries entitled
under the laws bestowing such benefits to veterans, and
persons receiving such treatment under 5 U.S.C. 7901-7904 or
42 U.S.C. 5141-5204), unless reimbursement of cost is made to
the ``Medical care'' account at such rates as may be fixed by
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Sec. 105. Appropriations available to the Department of
Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 1998 for ``Compensation and
pensions'', ``Readjustment benefits'', and ``Veterans
insurance and indemnities'' shall be available for payment of
prior year accrued obligations required to be recorded by law
against the corresponding prior year accounts within the last
quarter of fiscal year 1997.
Sec. 106. Appropriations accounts available to the
Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 1998 shall be
available to pay prior year obligations of corresponding
prior year appropriations accounts resulting from title X of
the Competitive Equality Banking Act, Public Law 100-86,
except that if such obligations are from trust fund accounts
they shall be payable from ``Compensation and pensions''.
Sec. 107. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
during fiscal year 1998, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall, from the National Service Life Insurance Fund (38
U.S.C. 1920), the Veterans' Special Life Insurance Fund (38
U.S.C. 1923), and the United States Government Life Insurance
Fund (38 U.S.C. 1955), reimburse the ``General operating
expenses'' account for the cost of administration of the
insurance programs financed through those accounts: Provided,
That reimbursement shall be made only from the surplus
earnings accumulated in an insurance program in fiscal year
1998, that are available for dividends in that program after
claims have been paid and actuarially determined reserved
have been set aside: Provided further, That if the cost of
administration of an insurance program exceeds the amount of
surplus earnings accumulated in that program, reimbursement
shall be made only to the extent of such surplus earnings:
Provided further, That the Secretary shall determine the cost
of administration for fiscal year 1998, which is properly
allocable to the provision of each insurance program and to
the provision of any total disability income insurance
included in such insurance program.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Solomon

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment made in order under
the rule.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon:
Page 16, after line 12, insert the following new section:
Sec. 108. (a) This section is enacted contingent on the
enactment of legislation establishing the Medical Collections
Fund.
(b) If the Secretary of Veterans Affairs determines that
the total amount to be recovered for fiscal year 1998 for
deposit to the Medical Collections Fund under the provisions
of the legislation establishing such Fund will be less than
the amount contained in the latest Congressional Budget
Office baseline estimate (computed under section 257 of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985)
for the amount of such recoveries for that fiscal year by at
least $25,000,000, the Secretary shall promptly certify to
the Secretary of the Treasury the amount of the shortfall (as
estimated by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs) that is in
excess of $25,000,000. Upon receipt of such a certification,
the Secretary of the Treasury shall, not later than 30 days
after receiving the certification, deposit in the Medical
Collections Fund, from any unobligated amounts in the
Treasury, an amount equal to the amount certified by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
(c) If a deposit is made under subsection (b) and the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs subsequently determines that
the actual amount recovered for fiscal year 1998 for deposit
to the Medical Collections Fund--
(1) is greater than the amount estimated by the Secretary
that was used for purposes of the certification by the
Secretary under subsection (b), the Secretary shall pay into
the General Fund of the Treasury, from amounts available for
medical care, an amount equal to the difference between the
amount actually recovered and the amount so estimated (but
not in excess of the amount of the deposit under subsection
(b) pursuant to such certification); or
(2) is less than the amount estimated by the Secretary that
was used for purposes of the certification by the Secretary
under subsection (b), the Secretary shall promptly certify to
the Secretary of the Treasury the amount of the shortfall.
(d) Upon receipt of a certification from the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs under subsection (c)(2), the Secretary of
the Treasury shall, not later than 30 days after receiving
the certification, deposit in the Medical Collections Fund,
from any unobligated amounts in the Treasury, an amount equal
to the amount certified by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Page 48, line 2, insert ``(reduced by $27,000,000)'' after
``$656,223,000,''.

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I offer this
amendment on behalf of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] and
myself. And let me, from the bottom of my heart, Mr. Chairman, commend
the work of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the chairman,
and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the ranking member, and their
entire Subcommittee on

[[Page H5311]]

VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies and staff for carefully crafting a
great bill and attracting bipartisan support to it. These two
gentlemen, in particular, have long been strong supporters of the
veterans of this Nation and particularly of our veterans' medical care
delivery system, and I commend them for it. I hate to think where we
would be without the leadership of both of these gentlemen.
I rise simply to build on what they have done and to offer a
critically important amendment that protects the medical care dollars
for our Nation's veterans.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the resounding support of every
major veterans service organization in this country and the House
Committee on Veterans' Affairs for this amendment that will guarantee a
significant increase in VA health care funding, but more importantly,
keep that funding from being decreased.
The American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled
American Veterans, Vietnam Veterans of America, the Paralyzed Veterans
of America, and the Blinded Veterans Association all have made it very
clear that they are very uneasy about the existing appropriations for
VA medical care and support this amendment that I am offering today.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following:

The American Legion,

Washington, D.C., July 14, 1997.
Hon. Gerald Solomon,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Solomon: The American Legion fully
supports your amendment to the FY 1998 VA, HUD and
Independent Agencies appropriations bill which would ensure
supplemental funding for VA health care in the event VA's
efforts to collect and retain third-party receipts falls more
than $25 million short of the $604 million projected by the
Congressional Budget Office.
Under current VA rules, regulations and procedures, The
American Legion questions VA's ability to recover the
recommended $604 million in third-party reimbursements as
outlined in the 1997 Budget Resolution. Each year, service
connected veterans requiring medical care must fight to get
its shart of discretionary dollars. Your amendment will
greatly assist VA in meeting its obligation to provide
veterans the necessary medical services they need as a result
of injury or illness. Without this amendment, VA may be
forced to further scale back health care services and reduce
staffing levels; ultimately forcing VA to ration health care
to service-connected and other eligible veterans.
Once again, The American Legion fully supports your
amendment to provide supplemental funding for VA health care
in the event VA's efforts to collect and retain third-party
receipts falls more than $25 million short of the $604
million projected by the Congressional Budget Office. As
always, your continued leadership and commitment to veterans
and their families is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,

Steve A. Robertson,

Director,
National Legislative Commission.

Mr. Chairman, the necessary increase appropriated for VA hospitals is
entirely dependent on the collection of outside insurance payments. In
other words, VA health care is only directly funded at $16.9 billion,
and that is an actual decrease from last year, and depends on an
estimate by the CBO that the VA will collect and retain more than $600
million from veterans who pay for their care with private, third-party
insurance.
Mr. Chairman, I have supported the collection of those dollars for
the VA since my days as the ranking member of the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs. And I am very pleased now that we have this written
into the law and excited that we are finally providing this sort of
incentive to the VA to help fund these vital medical services.
And again, that is why I commend both the gentleman from California
[Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] because of their
limitations that they have with their 602(b) allocations spread over
all of these myriad of Departments like the Veterans Affairs
Department, the Housing and all of the independent agencies, that is
one of the most difficult jobs in this Congress. And that is why I
offer the amendment today, because we cannot leave to chance our solemn
commitment and vow to provide and maintain adequate health care for
those who have served our Nation in uniform.
We owe it to them to guarantee that the budget for the VA medical
care will be maintained even in the face of the inability of the VA to
collect such outside payments. That is why the amendment that I am
offering that was offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Neumann], sitting over here next to me, in the Committee on
Appropriations is so very, very important. It implements and it pays
for fail-safe language that will ensure the VA receives at least, and
this is the important part, at least $579 million on top of the $16.9
billion appropriated no matter what the VA collects. That means that
this amendment would guarantee nearly $17.6 billion for VA medical
care. And that is the level of funding that we needed to get.
If my colleagues do not think this guarantee is necessary, just
consider this: The VA collected outside payments of about $573 million
in fiscal year 1995, $573 million; $557 million in 1996, that was going
down; and $533 million is estimated for 1997, and that is going down.
So we can see what is happening, that these funds from third-party
collections are shrinking. That is right, their collections have
decreased over the last 3 years. And just to put this in more
perspective, the VA predicted that they would collect $736 million
initially for 1997, yet they only brought in $533 million. That is the
difference, and that is why the need for this amendment.
I ask my colleagues, how can we count on them to collect $604 million
next year? The truth is we just cannot.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Solomon was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, should we not insist on a guaranteed
amount that will not jeopardize the VA's ability to deliver at least
the same level of health care as last year?
This amendment I am proposing would quite simply direct the Treasury
to cover any shortfall in the VA's collection of payments of more than
$25 million. In other words, if the VA collects about what they have
over the last few years about $550 million on average, the Treasury
would transfer $29 million from unobligated funds to the VA medical
care account.
However, if the VA does collect more than this $579 million
threshold, let us say $590 million, then they quite simply keep it and
we pay nothing additionally out of the Treasury. This safeguard builds
on our willingness to try new reforms to enhance VA health care, but
provides much needed reassurances to our veterans that we are not going
to leave them high and dry should these reforms not live up to the
expectations.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Solomon-Neumann amendment and
send our veterans, the administration, and the Senate a very strong
message that the House is committed to guaranteeing these adequate
funding levels, at least what we have been spending over the last year.
That is terribly, terribly important.
And again, in closing, let me just again praise the work of the
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the chairman, and the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the ranking member, and their committee and
their staff, because they do great work for the veterans of this
Nation. And being a veteran myself, I commend them for it and I thank
the gentlemen for their time.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise to support this amendment. The amendment is really about the
third-party payor system, which under a bill passed previously through
the House, the veterans health care agencies would be allowed to
collect this money.
What this amendment does is it protects the veterans that in the
event the organization in Washington that estimated how much money is
going to come in, in the event that organization, albeit a very fine
organization, CBO, if they have made an error in the projections, this
would simply guarantee the veterans that they would get at least all
but $25 million of what was projected by CBO under this agreement.
That is really what this is all about. It is simply guaranteeing our
veterans organizations that health care will be available for them as
it has been in the past and guaranteeing the level of

[[Page H5312]]

funding to make sure that that can really happen.
I have with me some letters and I would just like to read a few of
the inserts out of these letters. The first one is from the American
Legion.

The American Legion fully supports your amendment to fiscal
year 1998 VA/HUD and Independent Agencies appropriations
bill, which would ensure supplemental funding for VA health
care.

It goes on to say,

The Legion fully supports your amendment to provide
supplemental funding for VA health care in the event the VA
efforts to collect and retain third party receipts falls more
than $25 million short of the $604 million projected by the
Congressional Budget Office.

And that really is what this is all about.

{time} 1200

It is simply a guarantee that in the event CBO has misestimated the
numbers, that they will still receive the funding necessary to provide
health care to our veterans.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NEUMANN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to commend the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] because, when he arrived here, joined forces
with people like me that have been fighting for the balanced budget
over all these years and he has been such a great help. One of the
reasons that we are on that glide path and we are going to get this
balanced budget is because of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Neumann]. I wanted everyone to know, especially the veterans' families
and population out there that the gentleman from Wisconsin at all times
has stood up for the veterans of this Nation because when we have to
balance the budget, it is not easy, we have to cut someplace. With his
help, we have been able to maintain that funding. I just wanted to
commend him for it. The gentleman truly is a friend of the veterans,
and veterans like me appreciate that.
Mr. NEUMANN. I thank the gentleman. I very much appreciate the work
of the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules as well as the
chairman of our committee and the ranking minority member for the
effort that has gone into this. I would add that in view of the overall
bill, this is a relatively minor adjustment, but it is very important
to the veterans of our Nation. That is why this amendment is being
proposed.
There are other groups of veterans that are supporting this, and it
is one right after the next, Disabled American Veterans; again I quote:

On behalf of the more than 1 million members of the
Disabled American Veterans, I wish to express our
appreciation and support for your amendment.

Veterans of Foreign Wars; again I quote:

This is written to express the strong support and
appreciation of the Veterans of Foreign Wars for the
amendment.
All our veterans are asking is to be guaranteed that the CBO numbers
are within reason, accurate so that they can plan accordingly to
provide appropriate health care.

Paralyzed Veterans of America; again I quote:

On behalf of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, I am
writing to express our strong support for your amendment.

Blinded Veterans Association:

On behalf of the Blinded Veterans Association, a federally
chartered veterans service, I just want to express our strong
support for your amendment.

Vietnam Veterans of America, I have got neighbors that are Vietnam
veterans where I live; again I quote:

On behalf of the membership of the Vietnam Veterans of
America, I am pleased to support your amendment to fiscal
year 1998 VA-HUD.

The bottom line is the veterans groups want to be assured that the
health care that they have been promised is available to them. All we
are doing in this amendment is making sure that the funding level that
has been estimated by CBO actually comes to fruition. If there are more
funds available, that is fine; it does not cost the budget anything.
But if it would for some reason be that CBO has misestimated these
numbers, our veterans will still be cared for in an appropriate way.
To me, veterans should receive the highest priority in this Nation.
When we look at all the spending that this Government does, I think we
need to start with the veterans, who have served this country so well
when we consider where the dollars go.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, many Members probably do not realize it, but the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and I have a number of things in
common. Among them, before becoming involved in government, we were
insurance professionals. I can remember years ago spending a lot of
time in the health and life insurance field dealing with this very
question. A situation where veterans had private medical coverage, and
were getting services at hospitals; and the money was not directly
reimbursed for VA medical care purposes and they used it within that
pool of funding. To me, that process seemed a bit ridiculous. In the
time I have been in the Congress the question has been raised many
fold, but indeed it has never been raised quite so effectively as it
has been this year.
I must say that I do have some reservation about this amendment.
While I intend to support it, I nonetheless have some reservation. I
have a reservation only because we have language within the
reconciliation process where a conference is going on with the other
body right now that is likely to statutorily extend this reimbursement
process for a number of years. With that reconciliation opportunity, it
seems to me that it may be that the veterans service organizations are
a bit anxious here. Sometimes they ask their supporters to move a
little quicker than they really might like.
For example, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], who has done
such a fabulous job on this idea, got a commitment from the full
committee chairman that, if some way reconciliation fell apart on this
matter, that we would return to it in conference on our bill,
essentially to try to keep the pressure on those who are dealing with
reconciliation.
My concern that I would suggest to the VSO's is that they could be
taking pressure off of that reconciliation process by this amendment. I
hope that that is not the case but it could be. I think it would have
been smarter in many ways to wait until later in our process, but
frankly ofttimes we find that our friends out there who represent
organizations get very anxious and really do not totally have a handle
on this complicated process. In the meantime, the chairman of the
Committee on Rules, taking up their concern on behalf of the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], has indeed brought the issue to us in
this form.
I am not sure why the House would want to turn it down. It will cause
us to discuss it in conference. I would certainly suggest that, from my
point of view, no one who is involved in reconciliation presumed this
is the way to get off of that hook. We expect them to act positively,
and I am going to be strongly urging them to act positively.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise just to bring to the attention of the House a
little further discussion relative to the reservations that were just
expressed by the chairman of the subcommittee. By the same token, I
have reservations because this matter was discussed fully at the full
committee level. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] presented
the amendment at that time and I think did an excellent job of
presenting the problem that veterans have faced as a result of the
necessity for such a motion.
After a full discussion at the full committee level, assurance was
given that in the event that the reconciliation package did not provide
the type of fail-safe preservation that the veterans needed, that the
Committee on Appropriations would revisit this matter and see that the
veterans were made whole. Subsequently, and based upon the chairman's
representation in that respect, the full committee then voted down that
particular amendment at that time.
I think all of us have to realize that this problem would not have
arisen had we taken care of this matter in the budget agreement that
was passed here by the House. I voted against the budget agreement
which was passed by the House. One of the reasons I voted

[[Page H5313]]

against it was because all of those who voted for it knew that that
bill cut the veterans account by $2.2 billion. I think it was
recognized by anyone voting for it that at some time or other the
chickens would come home to roost and this matter would have to be
reconciled. Of course this amendment gives people the right to have it
both ways. They voted for the budget that cut veterans by $2.2 billion
and by this amendment they cover themselves to try and protect them in
the event that there is a shortfall.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STOKES. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. NEUMANN. In the full committee, our biggest problem that we had
after we left full committee and entered into further discussions on
it, if reconciliation passes and contains these provisions, I do not
think there is anyone that has a problem in conference with eliminating
this if it is already done in reconciliation at that point. But the
problem we had is that, if it was not in either the House bill or the
Senate bill and reconciliation failed, then the question would come up
as to whether or not it would be appropriate in the conference
committee to add something that was in neither the House version nor
the Senate version. That is the reason we brought it here to the floor.
Again I express my respect and support for the ranking minority
member of this committee.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I recognize and do not
quarrel with the fact that the gentleman was trying to arrive at a
solution to a potential problem in the future. I am just saying that I
think when this budget was passed by the House, with the cut being in
it, we should have all recognized, at least I recognized, that this
problem was going to come up at that time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
amendment being offered by my colleague from New York, the chairman of
the Rules Committee. This amendment would provide a much needed safety
net for veterans health care should the need arise in the future.
Under the current balanced budget agreement, VA health care
appropriations are frozen over the next several years rather than
increasing, as they have traditionally done. In return, the VA will be
allowed to collect and retain third party insurance and Medicare
payments.
The funds collected from these payments in theory will make up for
those funds that would have resulted from future budget increases. The
CBO estimates that $604 million would be collected in this manner.
This amendment would guarantee the VA an additional $579 million in
the event that the third party collection program is not as successful
as envisioned. It would take effect if the third party collections fell
more than $25 million short of the CBO projection.
In terms of cost, this amendment would require $14 million to
implement. The funds for this would come from the EPA budget, while
leaving the funding for that program well over the President's request.
Mr. Chairman, the health of our Nation's veterans is far too
important to rely on unproven and untested national programs. Veterans
benefits are true entitlements; they were earned by sacrifice and
blood. This amendment is supported by our Nation's veterans
organizations and is a welcome step toward correcting a dangerously low
health care appropriation.
Accordingly, I urge all of my colleagues to join in supporting
Representative Solomon's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE II

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Public and Indian Housing

housing certificate fund

For activities and assistance to prevent the involuntary
displacement of low-income families, the elderly and the
disabled because of the loss of affordable housing stock,
expiration of subsidy contracts (other than contracts for
which amounts are provided under the head ``Preserving
Existing Housing Investment'') or expiration of use
restrictions, or other changes in housing assistance
arrangements, and for other purposes, $10,393,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That of the total
amount provided under this heading, $9,200,000,000 shall be
for assistance under the United States Housing Act of 1937
(42 U.S.C. 1437) for use in connection with expiring or
terminating section 8 subsidy contracts: Provided further,
That the Secretary may determine not to apply section
8(o)(6)(B) of the Act to housing vouchers during fiscal year
1998: Provided further, That of the total amount provided
under this heading, $850,000,000 shall be for amendments to
section 8 contracts other than contracts for projects
developed under section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959, as
amended: Provided further, That of the total amount provided
under this heading, $343,000,000 shall be for section 8
rental assistance under the United States Housing Act
including assistance to relocate residents of properties (i)
that are owned by the Secretary and being disposed of or (ii)
that are discontinuing section 8 project-based assistance;
for the conversion of section 23 projects to assistance under
section 8; for funds to carry out the family unification
program; and for the relocation of witnesses in connection
with efforts to combat crime in public and assisted housing
pursuant to a request from a law enforcement or prosecution
agency: Provided further, That of the total amount made
available in the preceding proviso, $50,000,000 shall be made
available to nonelderly disabled families affected by the
designation of a public housing development under section 7
of such Act or the establishment of preferences in accordance
with section 651 of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 1361l).

annual contributions for assisted housing

(including rescission and transfer of funds)

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the amounts
recaptured under this heading during fiscal year 1998 and
prior years, $565,000,000, heretofore maintained as section 8
reserves made available to housing agencies for tenant-based
assistance under the section 8 existing housing certificate
and housing voucher programs, are rescinded.
All balances remaining in the Preserving Existing Housing
Investment Account for Preservation shall be transferred to
and merged with the amounts previously provided for those
purposes under this head.

public housing capital fund

(including transfers of funds)

For the Public Housing Capital Fund Program under the
United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended (42 U.S.C.
1437), $2,500,000,000, to remain available until expended for
modernization of existing public housing projects as
authorized under section 14 of such Act: Provided, That of
the total amount, $30,000,000 shall be for carrying out
activities under section 6(j) of such Act and technical
assistance for the inspection of public housing units,
contract expertise, and training and technical assistance
directly or indirectly, under grants, contracts, or
cooperative agreements, to assist in the oversight and
management of public housing (whether or not the housing is
being modernized with assistance under this proviso) or
tenant-based assistance, including, but not limited to, an
annual resident survey, data collection and analysis,
training and technical assistance by or to officials and
employees of the Department and of public housing agencies
and to residents in connection with the public housing
program and for lease adjustments to section 23 projects:
Provided further, That of the amount available under this
heading, $5,000,000 shall be for the Tenant Opportunity
Program: Provided further, That all balances, as of September
30, 1997, of funds heretofore provided (other than for Indian
families) for the development or acquisition costs of public
housing, for modernization of existing public housing
projects, for public housing amendments, for public housing
modernization and development technical assistance, for lease
adjustments under the section 23 program, and for the Family
Investment Centers program, shall be transferred to and
merged with amounts made available under this heading.

public housing operating fund

(including transfer of funds)

For payments to public housing agencies for operating
subsidies for low-income housing projects as authorized by
section 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 1437g), $2,900,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That all balances
outstanding, as of September 30, 1997, of funds heretofore
provided (other than for Indian families) for payments to
public housing agencies for operating subsidies for low-
income housing projects, shall be transferred to and merged
with amounts made available under this heading.

drug elimination grants for low-income housing

(including transfer of funds)

For grants to public and Indian housing agencies for use in
eliminating crime in public housing projects authorized by 42
U.S.C. 11901-11908, for grants for federally assisted low-
income housing authorized by 42 U.S.C. 11909, and for drug
information clearinghouse services authorized by 42 U.S.C.
11921-11925, $290,000,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $10,000,000 shall be for grants, technical
assistance, contracts and other assistance training, program
assessment, and execution for or on behalf of public housing
agencies, resident organizations, and Indian Tribes and their
Tribally designated housing entities (including the cost of
necessary travel for participants in such

[[Page H5314]]

training); $10,000,000 shall be used in connection with
efforts to combat violent crime in public and assisted
housing under the Operation Safe Home Program administered by
the Inspector General of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development; and $10,000,000 shall be provided to the Office
of Inspector General for Operation Safe Home: Provided, That
the term ``drug-related crime'', as defined in 42 U.S.C.
11905(2), shall also include other types of crime as
determined by the Secretary: Provided further, That
notwithstanding section 5130(c) of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of
1988 (42 U.S.C. 11909(c)), the Secretary may determine not to
use any such funds to provide public housing youth sports
grants.

revitalization of severely distressed public housing (hope vi)

For grants to public housing agencies for assisting in the
demolition of obsolete public housing projects or portions
thereof, the revitalization (where appropriate) of sites
(including remaining public housing units) on which such
projects are located, replacement housing which will avoid or
lessen concentrations of very low-income families, and
tenant-based assistance in accordance with section 8 of the
United States Housing Act of 1937; and for providing
replacement housing and assisting tenants to be displaced by
the demolition, $524,000,000, to remain available until
expended, of which the Secretary may use up to $5,000,000 for
technical assistance, to be provided directly or indirectly
by grants, contracts or cooperative agreements, including
training and cost of necessary travel for participants in
such training, by or to officials and employees of the
Department and of public housing agencies and to residents:
Provided, That no funds appropriated in this title shall be
used for any purpose that is not provided for herein, in the
Housing Act of 1937, in the Appropriations Acts for Veterans
Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies, for the fiscal years 1993, 1994, and 1995, and the
Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of
1996: Provided further, That none of such funds shall be used
directly or indirectly by granting competitive advantage in
awards to settle litigation or pay judgments, unless
expressly permitted herein.

native american housing block grants

(including transfers of funds)

For the Native American Housing Block Grants program, as
authorized under title I of the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (Public Law
104-330), $650,000,000, to remain available until expended,
of which $5,000,000 shall be used to support the inspection
of Indian housing units, contract expertise, training, and
technical assistance in the oversight and management of
Indian housing and tenant-based assistance, including up to
$200,000 for related travel: Provided, That all balances
outstanding as of September 30, 1997, previously appropriated
under the headings ``Annual Contributions for Assisted
Housing'', ``Development of Additional New Subsidized
Housing'', ``Preserving Existing Housing Development'',
``HOME Investment Partnerships Program'', ``Emergency Shelter
Grants Program'', and ``Homeless Assistance Funds'',
identified for Indian Housing Authorities and other agencies
primarily serving Indians or Indian areas, shall be
transferred to and merged with amounts made under this
heading.

indian housing loan guarantee fund program account

For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by section
184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (106
Stat. 3739) $3,000,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That such costs, including the costs 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 total
loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to
exceed $36,900,000.

Community Planning and Development

housing opportunities for persons with aIDS

For carrying out the Housing Opportunities for Persons with
AIDS program, as authorized by the AIDS Housing Opportunity
Act (42 U.S.C. 12901), $204,000,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That of the amount made available
under this heading for non-formula allocation, the Secretary
may designate, on a noncompetitive basis, one or more
nonprofit organizations that provide meals delivered to
homebound persons with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or
a related disease to receive grants, not exceeding $250,000
for any grant, and the Secretary shall assess the efficacy of
providing such assistance to such persons.

community development block grants

(including transfers of funds)

For grants to States and units of general local government
and for related expenses, not otherwise provided for, to
carry out a community development grants program as
authorized by title I of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, as amended (the ``Act'' herein) (42
U.S.C. 5301), $4,600,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2000: Provided, That $67,000,000 shall be for
grants to Indian tribes notwithstanding section 106(a)(1) of
the Act; $2,100,000 shall be available as a grant to the
Housing Assistance Council; $1,500,000 shall be available as
a grant to the National American Indian Housing Council;
$25,100,000 shall be for grants pursuant to section 107 of
such Act; $11,500,000 shall be for the Community Outreach
Partnership program; $16,700,000 shall be for grants pursuant
to section 11 of the Housing Opportunity Program Extension
Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-120): Provided further, That not
to exceed 20 percent of any grant made with funds
appropriated herein (other than a grant made available under
the preceding proviso to the Housing Assistance Council or
the National American Indian Housing Council, or a grant
using funds under section 107(b)(3) of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974, as amended) shall be
expended for ``Planning and Management Development'' and
``Administration'' as defined in regulations promulgated by
the Department.
Of the amount provided under this heading, the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development may use up to $50,000,000 for
grants to public housing agencies (including Indian housing
authorities), nonprofit corporations, and other appropriate
entities for a supportive services program to assist
residents of public and assisted housing, former residents of
such housing receiving tenant-based assistance under section
8 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1437f), and other low-income
families and individuals to become self-sufficient: Provided,
That the program shall provide supportive services,
principally for the benefit of public housing residents, to
the elderly and the disabled, and to families with children
where the head of household would benefit from the receipt of
supportive services and is working, seeking work, or is
preparing for work by participating in job training or
educational programs: Provided further, That the supportive
services may include congregate services for the elderly and
disabled, service coordinators, and coordinated educational,
training, and other supportive services, including academic
skills training, job search assistance, assistance related to
retaining employment, vocational and entrepreneurship
development and support programs, transportation, and child
care: Provided further, That the Secretary shall require
applications to demonstrate firm commitments of funding or
services from other sources: Provided further, That the
Secretary shall select public and Indian housing agencies to
receive assistance under this head on a competitive basis,
taking into account the quality of the proposed program,
including any innovative approaches, the extent of the
proposed coordination of supportive services, the extent of
commitments of funding or services from other sources, the
extent to which the proposed program includes reasonably
achievable, quantifiable goals for measuring performance
under the program over a three-year period, the extent of
success an agency has had in carrying out other comparable
initiatives, and other appropriate criteria established by
the Secretary.
Of the amount provided under this heading, $50,000,000
shall be for Economic Development Grants.
Of the amount made available under this heading,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, $30,000,000 shall
be available for youthbuild program activities authorized by
subtitle D of title IV of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act, as amended, and such activities shall
be an eligible activity with respect to any funds made
available under this heading.
Of the amount made available under this heading,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, $60,000,000 shall
be available for the lead-based paint hazard reduction
program as authorized under sections 1011 and 1053 of the
Residential Lead-Based Hazard Reduction Act of 1992.
For the cost of guaranteed loans, $29,000,000, as
authorized by section 108 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974: 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 total loan principal, any part of which is to be
guaranteed, not to exceed $1,261,000,000, notwithstanding any
aggregate limitation on outstanding obligations guaranteed in
section 108(k) of the Housing and Community Development Act.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
guaranteed loan program, $1,000,000, which shall be
transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
departmental salaries and expenses.

home investment partnerships program

For the HOME investment partnerships program, as authorized
under title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable
Housing Act (Public Law 101-625), as amended, $1,500,000,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That up to
$7,000,000 shall be available for the development and
operation of integrated community development management
information systems: Provided further, That $15,000,000 shall
be available for Housing Counseling under section 106 of the
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968: Provided further,
That up to $10,000,000 shall be available to carry out a
demonstration program in which the Secretary makes grants to
up to three non-profit community development financial
institutions (as defined in section 103(5) of the Community
Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994),
selected on a noncompetitive basis, to demonstrate methods of
expanding homeownership opportunities

[[Page H5315]]

for low-wealth borrowers, including expanding the secondary
market for non-conforming home mortgage loans to low-wealth
borrowers: Provided further, That grantees shall have
experience in working with lenders who make non-conforming
loans to low-income borrowers, have experience in expanding
the secondary market for such loans, have demonstrated
success in carrying out such activities with non-Federal
funds, and have demonstrated the ability to provide data on
the performance of such loans sufficient to allow analysis of
the investment risk of such loans.

supportive housing program

(rescission)

Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 102-389 and prior laws for the Supportive Housing
Demonstration Program, as authorized by the Stewart B.
McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, $6,000,000 of funds
recaptured during fiscal year 1998 shall be rescinded.

shelter plus care

(RESCISSION)

Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 102-389 and prior laws for the Shelter Plus Care program,
as authorized by the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance
Act, $4,000,000 of funds recaptured during fiscal year 1998
shall be rescinded.

homeless assistance grants

For the emergency shelter grants program (as authorized
under subtitle B of title IV of the Stewart B. McKinney
Homeless Assistance Act, as amended); the supportive housing
program (as authorized under subtitle C of title IV of such
Act); the section 8 moderate rehabilitation single room
occupancy program (as authorized under the United States
Housing Act of 1937, as amended) to assist homeless
individuals pursuant to section 441 of the Stewart B.
McKinney Homeless Assistance Act; and the shelter plus care
program (as authorized under subtitle F of title IV of such
Act), $823,000,000, to remain available until expended.

Housing Programs

housing for special populations

(including transfer of funds)

For assistance for the purchase, construction, acquisition,
or development of additional public and subsidized housing
units for low income families under the United States Housing
Act of 1937, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1437), not otherwise
provided for, $839,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That of the total amount provided under
this heading, $645,000,000 shall be for capital advances,
including amendments to capital advance contracts, for
housing for the elderly, as authorized by section 202 of the
Housing Act of 1959, as amended, and for project rental
assistance, and amendments to contracts for project rental
assistance, for supportive housing for the elderly under
section 202(c)(2) of the Housing Act of 1959; and
$194,000,000 shall be for capital advances, including
amendments to capital advance contracts, for supportive
housing for persons with disabilities, as authorized by
section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable
Housing Act, and for project rental assistance, and
amendments to contracts for project rental assistance, for
supportive housing for persons with disabilities as
authorized by section 811 of such Act: Provided further, That
the Secretary may designate up to 25 percent of the amounts
earmarked under this paragraph for section 811 of such Act
for tenant-based assistance, as authorized under that
section, including such authority as may be waived under the
next proviso, which assistance is five years in duration:
Provided further, That the Secretary may waive any provision
of section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 and section 811 of
the National Affordable Housing Act (including the provisions
governing the terms and conditions of project rental
assistance and tenant-based assistance) that the Secretary
determines is not necessary to achieve the objectives of
these programs, or that otherwise impedes the ability to
develop, operate or administer projects assisted under these
programs, and may make provision for alternative conditions
or terms where appropriate: Provided further, That all
obligated and unobligated balances remaining in either the
``Annual Contributions for Assisted Housing'' account or the
``Development of Additional New Subsidized Housing'' account
for capital advances, including amendments to capital
advances, for housing for the elderly, as authorized by
section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959, as amended, and for
project rental assistance, and amendments to contracts for
project rental assistance, for supportive housing for the
elderly, under section 202(c)(2) of such Act, shall be
transferred to and merged with the amounts for those purposes
under this heading; and, all obligated and unobligated
balances remaining in either the ``Annual Contributions for
Assisted Housing'' account or the ``Development of Additional
New Subsidized Housing'' account for capital advances,
including amendments to capital advances, for supportive
housing for persons with disabilities, as authorized by
section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable
Housing Act, and for project rental assistance, and
amendments to contracts for project rental assistance, for
supportive housing for persons with disabilities, as
authorized under section 811 of such Act, shall be
transferred to and merged with the amounts for those purposes
under this heading.

other assisted housing programs

rental housing assistance

(Rescission)

The limitation otherwise applicable to the maximum payments
that may be required in any fiscal year by all contracts
entered into under section 236 of the National Housing Act
(12 U.S.C. 1715z-1) is reduced in fiscal year 1998 by not
more than $7,350,000 in uncommitted balances of
authorizations provided for this purpose in appropriation
Acts: Provided, That up to $125,000,000 of recaptured budget
authority shall be canceled.

Flexible Subsidy Fund

(transfer of funds)

From the Rental Housing Assistance Fund, all uncommitted
balances of excess rental charges as of September 30, 1997,
and any collections made during fiscal year 1998, shall be
transferred to the Flexible Subsidy Fund, as authorized by
section 236(g) of the National Housing Act, as amended.

federal housing administration

fha--mutual mortgage insurance program account

(including transfers of funds)

During fiscal year 1998, commitments to guarantee loans to
carry out the purposes of section 203(b) of the National
Housing Act, as amended, shall not exceed a loan principal of
$110,000,000,000.
During fiscal year 1998, obligations to make direct loans
to carry out the purposes of section 204(g) of the National
Housing Act, as amended, shall not exceed $200,000,000:
Provided, That the foregoing amount shall be for loans to
nonprofit and governmental entities in connection with sales
of single family real properties owned by the Secretary and
formerly insured under the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund.
For administrative expenses necessary to carry out the
guaranteed and direct loan program, $333,421,000, to be
derived from the FHA-mutual mortgage insurance guaranteed
loans receipt account, of which not to exceed $326,309,000
shall be transferred to the appropriation for departmental
salaries and expenses; and of which not to exceed $7,112,000
shall be transferred to the appropriation for the Office of
Inspector General.

fha--general and special risk program account

(including transfers of funds)

For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by sections
238 and 519 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-3
and 1735c), including the cost of loan guarantee
modifications (as that term is defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended), $81,000,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That these
funds are available to subsidize total loan principal, any
part of which is to be guaranteed, of up to $17,400,000,000:
Provided further, That any amounts made available in any
prior appropriations Act for the cost (as such term is
defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974) of guaranteed loans that are obligations of the funds
established under section 238 or 519 of the National Housing
Act that have not been obligated or that are deobligated
shall be available to the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development in connection with the making of such guarantees
and shall remain available until expended, notwithstanding
the expiration of any period of availability otherwise
applicable to such amounts.
Gross obligations for the principal amount of direct loans,
as authorized by sections 204(g), 207(l), 238(a), and 519(a)
of the National Housing Act, shall not exceed $120,000,000;
of which not to exceed $100,000,000 shall be for bridge
financing in connection with the sale of multifamily real
properties owned by the Secretary and formerly insured under
such Act; and of which not to exceed $20,000,000 shall be for
loans to nonprofit and governmental entities in connection
with the sale of single-family real properties owned by the
Secretary and formerly insured under such Act.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the guaranteed and direct loan programs, $222,305,000, of
which $218,134,000, including $25,000,000 for the enforcement
of housing standards on FHA-insured multifamily projects,
shall be transferred to the appropriation for departmental
salaries and expenses; and of which $4,171,000 shall be
transferred to the appropriation for the Office of Inspector
General.

government national mortgage association

guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account

(including transfer of funds)

During fiscal year 1998, new commitments to issue
guarantees to carry out the purposes of section 306 of the
National Housing Act, as amended (12 U.S.C. 1721(g)), shall
not exceed $130,000,000,000.
For administrative expenses necessary to carry out the
guaranteed mortgage-backed securities program, $9,383,000, to
be derived from the Ginnie Mae-guarantees of mortgage-backed
securities guaranteed loan receipt account, of which not to
exceed $9,383,000 shall be transferred to the appropriation
for salaries and expenses.

Policy Development and Research

research and technology

For contracts, grants, and necessary expenses of programs
of research and studies relating to housing and urban
problems, not

[[Page H5316]]

otherwise provided for, as authorized by title V of the
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970, as amended (12
U.S.C. 1701z-1 et seq.), including carrying out the functions
of the Secretary under section 1(a)(1)(i) of Reorganization
Plan No. 2 of 1968, $39,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 1999.

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

fair housing activities

For contracts, grants, and other assistance, not otherwise
provided for, as authorized by title VIII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of
1988, and section 561 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1987, as amended, $30,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 1999, of which $15,000,000
shall be to carry out activities pursuant to such section
561. No funds made available under this heading shall be used
to lobby the executive or legislative branches of the Federal
Government in connection with a specific contract, grant or
loan.

Management and Administration

salaries and expenses

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary administrative and non-administrative
expenses of the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
not otherwise provided for, including not to exceed $7,000
for official reception and representation expenses,
$1,005,826,000, of which $544,443,000 shall be provided from
the various funds of the Federal Housing Administration,
$9,383,000 shall be provided from funds of the Government
National Mortgage Association, and $1,000,000 shall be
provided from the ``Community Development Grants Program''
account.

office of inspector general

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, $66,850,000, of which $11,283,000 shall be provided
from the various funds of the Federal Housing Administration
and $10,000,000 shall be provided from the amount earmarked
for Operation Safe Home in the ``Drug Elimination Grants for
Low Income Housing'' account.

Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight

salaries and expenses

(including transfer of funds)

For carrying out the Federal Housing Enterprise Financial
Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, $16,312,000, to remain
available until expended, to be derived from the Federal
Housing Enterprise Oversight Fund: Provided, That not to
exceed such amount shall be available from the General Fund
of the Treasury to the extent necessary to incur obligations
and make expenditures pending the receipt of collections to
the Fund: Provided further, That the General Fund amount
shall be reduced as collections are received during the
fiscal year so as to result in a final appropriation from the
General Fund estimated at not more than $0.

administrative provisions

Sec. 201. Delay Reissuance of Vouchers and Certificates.--
Section 403(c) of The Balanced Budget Downpayment Act, I is
amended--
(A) by striking ``fiscal years 1996 and 1997'' and
inserting ``fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998''; and
(B) by inserting before the semicolon the following: ``and
October 1, 1998 for assistance made available during fiscal
year 1998''.
Sec. 202. Section 8 Rent Adjustments.--Section 8(c)(2)(A)
of the United States Housing Act of 1937 is amended--
(1) in the third sentence, by striking ``fiscal year 1997''
and inserting ``fiscal years 1997 and 1998''; and
(2) in the last sentence, by striking ``fiscal year 1997''
and inserting ``fiscal years 1997 and 1998''.
Sec. 203. The part of the HUD 1996 Community Development
Block Grant to the State of Illinois which is administered by
the State of Illinois Department of Commerce and Community
Affairs (grant number B-96-DC-170001) and which, in turn, was
granted by the Illinois Department of Commerce and Community
Affairs to the city of Oglesby, Illinois, located in LaSalle
County, Illinois (State of Illinois Department of Commerce
and Community Affairs grant number 96-24104), for the purpose
of providing infrastructure for a warehouse in Oglesby,
Illinois, is exempt from the provisions of section 104(g)(2),
(g)(3), and (g)(4) of title I of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974 as amended.
Sec. 204. Annual Adjustment Factors.--Section 8(c)(2)(A) of
the United States Housing Act of 1937 is amended by inserting
the following new sentences at the end: ``In establishing
annual adjustment factors for units in new construction and
substantial rehabilitation projects, the Secretary shall take
into account the fact that debt service is a fixed expense.
The immediately foregoing sentence shall be effective only
during fiscal year 1998.''.
Sec. 205. Minimum Rents.--Section 402(a) of The Balanced
Budget Downpayment Act, I (Public Law 104-99; 110 Stat. 40)
is amended by inserting ``and fiscal year 1998'' after
``fiscal year 1997''.
Sec. 206. Home Program Formula.--The first sentence of
section 217(b)(3) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act is amended by striking ``only those
jurisdictions that are allocated an amount of $500,000 or
greater shall receive an allocation'' and inserting in lieu
thereof the following: ``jurisdictions that are allocated an
amount of $500,000 or more, and participating jurisdictions
(other than consortia that fail to renew the membership of
all of their member jurisdictions) that are allocated an
amount less than $500,000, shall receive an allocation''.

TITLE III--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

American Battle Monuments Commission

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the
American Battle Monuments Commission, including the
acquisition of land or interest in land in foreign countries;
purchases and repair of uniforms for caretakers of national
cemeteries and monuments outside of the United States and its
territories and possessions; rent of office and garage space
in foreign countries; purchase (one for replacement only) and
hire of passenger motor vehicles; and insurance of official
motor vehicles in foreign countries, when required by law of
such countries; $26,897,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That where station allowance has been
authorized by the Department of the Army for officers of the
Army serving the Army at certain foreign stations, the same
allowance shall be authorized for officers of the Armed
Forces assigned to the Commission while serving at the same
foreign stations, and this appropriation is hereby made
available for the payment of such allowance: Provided
further, That when traveling on business of the Commission,
officers of the Armed Forces serving as members or as
Secretary of the Commission may be reimbursed for expenses as
provided for civilian members of the Commission: Provided
further, That the Commission shall reimburse other Government
agencies, including the Armed Forces, for salary, pay, and
allowances of personnel assigned to it.

Department of the Treasury

Community Development Financial Institutions

community development financial institutions fund program account

For grants, loans, and technical assistance to qualifying
community development lenders, and administrative expenses of
the Fund, $125,000,000, to remain available until September
30, 1999, of which $20,000,000 may be used for the cost of
direct loans, and up to $1,000,000 may be used for
administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan program:
Provided, That the cost of direct loans, including the cost
of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further,
That these funds are available to subsidize gross obligations
for the principal amount of direct loans not to exceed
$53,000,000: Provided further, That not more than $40,000,000
of the funds made available under this heading may be used
for programs and activities authorized in section 114 of the
Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act
of 1994.

Consumer Product Safety Commission

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, including hire of passenger motor vehicles,
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for
individuals not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the
maximum rate payable under 5 U.S.C. 5376, purchase of nominal
awards to recognize non-Federal officials' contributions to
Commission activities, and not to exceed $500 for official
reception and representation expenses, $44,000,000.

Corporation for National and Community Service

national and community service programs operating expenses

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses for the Corporation for National and
Community Service (referred to in the matter under this
heading as the ``Corporation'') in carrying out programs,
activities, and initiatives under the National and Community
Service Act of 1990 (referred to in the matter under this
heading as the ``Act'') (42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.),
$400,500,000, to remain available until September 30, 1999:
Provided, That not more than $29,000,000 shall be available
for administrative expenses authorized under section
501(a)(4) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12671(a)(4)): Provided
further, That not more than $2,500 shall be for official
reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That
not more than $69,000,000, to remain available without fiscal
year limitation, shall be transferred to the National Service
Trust account for educational awards authorized under
subtitle D of title I of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12601 et seq.),
of which not to exceed $10,000,000 shall be available for
national service scholarships for high school students
performing community service: Provided further, That not more
than $201,000,000 of the amount provided under this heading
shall be available for grants under the National Service
Trust program authorized under subtitle C of title I of the
Act (42 U.S.C. 12571 et seq.) (relating to activities
including the Americorps program): Provided further, That not
more than $5,500,000 of the funds made available under this
heading shall be made available for the Points of Light
Foundation for activities authorized under title III of the
Act (42 U.S.C. 12661 et seq.): Provided further, That no
funds shall be available for national service programs run by
Federal agencies authorized

[[Page H5317]]

under section 121(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 12571(b)):
Provided further, That to the maximum extent feasible, funds
appropriated under subtitle C of title I of the Act shall be
provided in a manner that is consistent with the
recommendations of peer review panels in order to ensure that
priority is given to programs that demonstrate quality,
innovation, replicability, and sustainability: Provided
further, That not more than $18,000,000 of the funds made
available under this heading shall be available for the
Civilian Community Corps authorized under subtitle E of title
I of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12611 et seq.): Provided further,
That not more than $43,000,000 shall be available for school-
based and community-based service-learning programs
authorized under subtitle B of title I of the Act (42 U.S.C.
12521 et seq.): Provided further, That not more than
$30,000,000 shall be available for quality and innovation
activities authorized under subtitle H of title I of the Act
(42 U.S.C. 12853 et seq.): Provided further, That not more
than $5,000,000 shall be available for audits and other
evaluations authorized under section 179 of the Act (42
U.S.C. 12639): Provided further, That to the maximum extent
practicable, the Corporation shall increase significantly the
level of matching funds and in-kind contributions provided by
the private sector, shall expand significantly the number of
educational awards provided under subtitle D of title I, and
shall reduce the total Federal costs per participant in all
programs.

Office of Inspector General

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, $2,000,000.

Court of Veterans Appeals

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses for the operation of the United
States Court of Veterans Appeals as authorized by 38 U.S.C.
sections 7251-7298, $9,319,000, of which $790,000, shall be
available for the purpose of providing financial assistance
as described, and in accordance with the process and
reporting procedures set fourth, under this heading in Public
Law 102-229.

Department of Defense--Civil

Cemeterial Expenses, Army

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses, as authorized by law, for
maintenance, operation, and improvement of Arlington National
Cemetery and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery,
including the purchase of two passenger motor vehicles for
replacement only, and not to exceed $1,000 for official
reception and representation expenses, $11,815,000, to remain
available until expended.

Environmental Protection Agency

Science and Technology

(including transfer of funds)

For science and technology, including research and
development activities, which shall include research and
development activities under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA),
as amended; necessary expenses for personnel and related
costs and travel expenses, including uniforms, or allowances
therefore, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not
to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for GS-18;
procurement of laboratory equipment and supplies; other
operating expenses in support of research and development;
construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and
renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project,
$656,223,000, which shall remain available until September
30, 1999: Provided, That $35,000,000 of the funds
appropriated under this heading shall be transferred to the
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to
conduct and administer a comprehensive, peer-reviewed
particulate matter research program.

environmental programs and management

For environmental programs and management, including
necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for personnel
and related costs and travel expenses, including uniforms, or
allowances therefore, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902;
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for
individuals not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the
rate for GS-18; hire of passenger motor vehicles; hire,
maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchase of reprints;
library memberships in societies or associations which issue
publications to members only or at a price to members lower
than to subscribers who are not members; construction,
alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and renovation of
facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project; and not to
exceed $6,000 for official reception and representation
expenses, $1,763,352,000, which shall remain available until
September 30, 1999.

office of inspector general

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, and for construction, alteration,
repair, rehabilitation, and renovation of facilities, not to
exceed $75,000 per project, $28,501,000, to remain available
until September 30, 1999.

buildings and facilities

For construction, repair, improvement, extension,
alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of,
or for use by, the Environmental Protection Agency,
$182,120,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That the Environmental Protection Agency is authorized to
establish and construct a consolidated research facility at
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, at a maximum total
construction cost of $272,700,000, and to obligate such
monies as are made available by this Act for this purpose.

hazardous substance superfund

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses to carry out the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA), as amended, including sections 111 (c)(3),
(c)(5), (c)(6), and (e)(4) (42 U.S.C. 9611), and for
construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and
renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project;
not to exceed $1,500,699,000, to remain available until
expended, consisting of $1,250,699,000, as authorized by
section 517(a) of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), as amended by Public Law
101-508, and $250,000,000 as a payment from general revenues
to the Hazardous Substance Superfund as authorized by section
517(b) of SARA, as amended by Public Law 101-508: Provided,
That funds appropriated under this heading may be allocated
to other Federal agencies in accordance with section 111(a)
of CERCLA: Provided further, That $11,641,000 of the funds
appropriated under this heading shall be transferred to the
``Office of Inspector General'' appropriation to remain
available until September 30, 1999: Provided further, That
notwithstanding section 111(m) of CERCLA or any other
provision of law, $80,000,000 of the funds appropriated under
this heading shall be available to the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry to carry out activities
described in sections 104(i), 111(c)(4), and 111(c)(14) of
CERCLA and section 118(f) of SARA: Provided further, That
$35,000,000 of the funds appropriated under this heading
shall be transferred to the ``Science and Technology''
appropriation to remain available until September 30, 1999:
Provided further, That $85,000,000 of the funds appropriated
under this heading shall be for Brownfields assessments,
training and administrative expenses only: Provided further,
That none of the funds appropriated under this heading shall
be available for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry to issue in excess of 40 toxicological profiles
pursuant to section 104(i) of CERCLA during fiscal year 1998.

leaking underground storage tank program

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses to carry out leaking underground
storage tank cleanup activities authorized by section 205 of
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and
for construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and
renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project,
$60,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That no more than $9,100,000 shall be available for
administrative expenses.

oil spill response

(including transfer of funds)

For expenses necessary to carry out the Environmental
Protection Agency's responsibilities under the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990, $15,000,000, to be derived from the Oil Spill
Liability trust fund, and to remain available until expended:
Provided, That not more than $9,000,000 of these funds shall
be available for administrative expenses.

state and tribal assistance grants

For environmental programs and infrastructure assistance,
including capitalization grants for State revolving funds and
performance partnership grants, $3,026,182,000, to remain
available until expended, of which $1,250,000,000 shall be
for making capitalization grants for the Clean Water State
Revolving Funds under Title VI of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, and $750,000,000 shall be for
capitalization grants for the Drinking Water State Revolving
Funds under section 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as
amended; $50,000,000 for architectural, engineering,
planning, design, construction and related activities in
connection with the construction of high priority water and
wastewater facilities in the area of the United States-Mexico
Border, after consultation with the appropriate border
commission; $50,000,000 for grants to the State of Texas,
which shall be matched by an equal amount of State funds from
State resources, for the purpose of improving wastewater
treatment for colonias; $15,000,000 for grants to the State
of Alaska to address drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure needs of rural and Alaska Native Villages as
provided by section 303 of Public Law 104-182; $160,925,000
for making grants for the construction of wastewater and
water treatment facilities and the development of groundwater
in accordance with the terms and conditions specified for
such grants in the report accompanying this Act; and
$750,257,000 for grants to States, federally recognized
tribes, and air pollution control agencies for multi-media or
single media pollution prevention, control and abatement and
related activities pursuant to the provisions set forth under
this heading in Public Law 104-134 and for making grants
under section 103 of the Clean Air Act for particulate matter
monitoring and data collection activities: Provided, That,
beginning in fiscal year 1998 and thereafter

[[Page H5318]]

from funds appropriated under this heading, the Administrator
is authorized to make grants to federally recognized Indian
governments for the development of multi-media environmental
programs: Provided further, That, hereafter, the funds
available under this heading for grants to States, federally
recognized tribes, and air pollution control agencies for
multi-media or single media pollution prevention, control,
and abatement and related activities may also be used for the
direct implementation by the Federal Government of a program
required by law in the absence of an acceptable State or
tribal program.

working capital fund

Under this heading in Public Law 104-204, delete the
following: the phrases, ``franchise fund pilot to be known as
the''; ``as authorized by section 403 of Public Law 103-
356,''; and ``as provided in such section''; and the final
proviso. After the phrase, ``to be available'', insert
``without fiscal year limitation''.

Executive Office of the President

office of science and technology policy

For necessary expenses of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, in carrying out the purposes of the
National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and
Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6601 and 6671), hire of
passenger motor vehicles, and services as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109, not to exceed $2,500 for official reception and
representation expenses, and rental of conference rooms in
the District of Columbia, $4,932,000.

council on environmental quality and office of environmental quality

For necessary expenses to continue functions assigned to
the Council on Environmental Quality and Office of
Environmental Quality pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, the Environmental Quality Improvement Act
of 1970, and Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, $2,506,000:
Provided, That notwithstanding section 202 of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1970, the Council shall consist
of one member, appointed by the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, serving as Chairman and
exercising all powers, functions, and duties of the Council.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

office of inspector general

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $34,365,000, to be derived from the Bank
Insurance Fund, the Savings Association Insurance Fund, and
the FSLIC Resolution Fund.

Federal Emergency Management Agency

disaster relief

For necessary expenses in carrying out the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), $500,000,000, and, notwithstanding 42
U.S.C. 5203, to remain available until expended.

disaster assistance direct loan program account

For the cost of direct loans, $1,495,000, as authorized by
section 319 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act: 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 $25,000,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct loan program, $341,000.

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for,
including hire and purchase of motor vehicles as authorized
by 31 U.S.C. 1343; uniforms, or allowances therefor, as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not to exceed the
per diem rate equivalent to the rate for GS-18; expenses of
attendance of cooperating officials and individuals at
meetings concerned with the work of emergency preparedness;
transportation in connection with the continuity of
Government programs to the same extent and in the same manner
as permitted the Secretary of a Military Department under 10
U.S.C. 2632; and not to exceed $2,500 for official reception
and representation expenses, $171,773,000.

Office of Inspector General

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, $4,803,000.

emergency management planning and assistance

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, to
carry out activities under the National Flood Insurance Act
of 1968, as amended, and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of
1977, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the Federal Fire
Prevention and Control Act of 1974, as amended (15 U.S.C.
2201 et seq.), the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended
(50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), sections 107 and 303 of the
National Security Act of 1947, as amended (50 U.S.C. 404-
405), and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, $321,646,000:
Provided, That for purposes of pre-disaster mitigation
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5131 (b) and (c) and 42 U.S.C. 5196 (e)
and (i), $50,000,000 of the funds made available under this
heading shall be available until expended for project grants
for State and local governments, and $60,000,000 of the funds
made available under this heading shall be available until
expended for planning and construction costs of a full-scale
windstorm simulation center in conjunction with the
Partnership for Natural Disaster Reduction.

{time} 1215

Amendment Offered by Mr. Stokes

Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inquire of the gentleman, is it the
amendment originally suggested by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Vento]?
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, this would be the conforming amendment that
was referenced by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] last night
when he presented his other part of this particular amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Stokes:
On page 57, line 12, strike all after ``governments''
through ``Reduction'' on line 17.

Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues will recall that last night
when the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] presented his amendment
that he referenced the fact that in order to perfect it to the wind
tunnel that he would have to have a conforming amendment. This is a
conforming amendment in order to perfect the amendment which he
sponsored last night. At this time we would present the conforming
amendment in order to comply with the reference made by the gentleman
from Wisconsin last night relative to his original motion.
The amendment of Mr. Obey last night would remove the earmark of the
wind tunnel and the conforming amendment removes the appropriation
related to it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 184, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] will
be postponed.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that we be allowed to go back to title II. I am sorry, I was on my way
over when I got a phone call saying that we were moving through title
I. I was wondering if the Chairman would offer us that consideration.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

emergency food and shelter program

To carry out an emergency food and shelter program pursuant
to title III of Public Law 100-77, as amended, $100,000,000:
Provided, That total administrative costs shall not exceed
three and one-half percent of the total appropriation.

national flood insurance fund

(including transfer of funds)

For activities under the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968, the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, and the
National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994, not to exceed
$21,610,000 for salaries and expenses associated with flood
mitigation and flood insurance operations, and not to exceed
$78,464,000 for flood mitigation, including up to $20,000,000
for expenses under section 1366 of the National Flood
Insurance Act, which amount shall be available for transfer
to the National Flood Mitigation Fund until September 30,
1999. In fiscal year 1998, no funds in excess of (1)
$47,000,000 for operating expenses, (2) $375,165,000 for
agents' commissions and taxes, and (3) $50,000,000 for
interest on Treasury borrowings shall be available from the
National Flood Insurance Fund without prior notice to the
Committees on Appropriations. For fiscal year 1998, flood
insurance rates shall not exceed the level authorized by the
National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994.
Section 1309(a)(2) of the National Flood Insurance Act (42
U.S.C. 4016 (a)(2)), as amended by Public Law 104-208, is
further amended by striking the date ``1997'' and inserting
in lieu thereof the date ``1998''.

administrative provision

The Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
shall promulgate

[[Page H5319]]

through rulemaking a methodology for assessment and
collection of fees to be assessed and collected beginning in
fiscal year 1998 applicable to persons subject to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's radiological emergency
preparedness regulations. The aggregate charges assessed
pursuant to this section during fiscal year 1998 shall
approximate, but not be less than, 100 per centum of the
amounts anticipated by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency to be obligated for its radiological emergency
preparedness program for such fiscal year. The methodology
for assessment and collection of fees shall be fair and
equitable, and shall reflect the full amount of costs of
providing radiological emergency planning, preparedness,
response and associated services. Such fees shall be assessed
in a manner that reflect the use of agency resources for
classes of regulated persons and the administrative costs of
collecting such fees. Fees received pursuant to this section
shall be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as
offsetting receipts. Assessment and collection of such fees
are only authorized during fiscal year 1998.

General Services Administration

consumer information center fund

For necessary expenses of the Consumer Information Center,
including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $2,419,000,
to be deposited into the Consumer Information Center Fund:
Provided, That the appropriations, revenues and collections
deposited into the fund shall be available for necessary
expenses of Consumer Information Center activities in the
aggregate amount of $7,500,000. Appropriations, revenues, and
collections accruing to this fund during fiscal year 1998 in
excess of $7,500,000 shall remain in the fund and shall not
be available for expenditure except as authorized in
appropriations Acts: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Consumer
Information Center may accept and deposit to this account,
during fiscal year 1998 and hereafter, gifts for the
purpose of defraying its costs of printing, publishing,
and distributing consumer information and educational
materials and undertaking other consumer information
activities; may expend those gifts for those purposes, in
addition to amounts appropriated or otherwise made
available; and the balance shall remain available for
expenditure for such purpose.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

human space flight

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the
conduct and support of human space flight research and
development activities, including research, development,
operations, and services; maintenance; construction of
facilities including repair, rehabilitation, and modification
of real and personal property, and acquisition or
condemnation of real property, as authorized by law; space
flight, spacecraft control and communications activities
including operations, production, and services; and purchase,
lease, charter, maintenance and operation of mission and
administrative aircraft, $5,426,500,000, to remain available
until September 30, 1999.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Point of order is reserved. The Clerk will report the
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner:
Page 61, line 13, insert ``(reduced by $100,000,000)''
after ``$5,426,500,000''.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment reduces the amount
for human space flight by $100 million to eliminate the request that
has been made by someone for Russian program assurance in the Space
Station Program. The $100 million was not requested either by NASA or
by the administration, but suddenly appeared in the appropriation bill
as a result of some negotiations that I do not think we really have
gotten the full explanation for.
Let me say that if this amendment is adopted, NASA will get every
penny for the space station that it has requested. The amendment allows
for the full funding of the space station, and I think that NASA ought
to be held accountable for the request that it has made and to build
the space station according to the budget line that it has announced
for a number of years.
The real shame that has occurred during the debate on this
appropriation bill, in my opinion, is that some people have alleged
that reducing the line for Russian program assurance places the space
station in jeopardy.
Let me say that I have consistently supported fully funding the space
station since day one. That continues to be my position. I believe we
need a space station led by the United States and that the space
station design that NASA has been with for the last 3\1/2\ years is a
good one. We ought to fund it, we ought to build it, and we ought to
put it in orbit.
On the other hand, I am very concerned that money in the reserves for
the space station are being used to finance patching up failures of the
Russian Government to do what it agreed to do, and by having $100
million extra in the space station account we are just encouraging the
Russians to continue to delay and default because they know that the
American taxpayer will end up picking up the tab for it.
I am opposed to it. I think that the majority of the American people
are opposed to it. This is a question of accountability of NASA. NASA
should tell the Congress and tell the American public exactly how much
the agreement that they made with the Russians is costing the American
taxpayer. Giving them $100 million more in Russian program assurance
will just delay that day of reckoning.
I would urge the adoption of this amendment that just is a straight
reduction of the $100 million, will be used to reduce the deficit if
there is a lockbox amendment that ends up being approved. I think that
this is prudent policy, and it also will make NASA accountable for the
money that it spends.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, first let me withdraw my point
of order. This is a different amendment than I anticipated.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is withdrawn.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge Members as well as those in Members'
offices who might be watching this discussion to focus on this
amendment with great care. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Sensenbrenner] and I share in common a great interest in our work in
space. We also have had many a discussion and share both interest and
concern about international space station and that international
partnership that has been formed with the United States and a number of
our allies regarding our work in space. It is my concern that there are
economic difficulties relative to some in that partnership and
especially the Russian part of that partnership. Having expressed that
concern in many a forum, I nonetheless suggest that this amendment
which would affect $100 million relative to the Russian program for
assurance could very well have a serious impact upon that partnership.
Indeed, we are attempting to make sure that we continue with a
foundation of international partnership in a solid way that allows
space station to progress on a schedule and calendar that will assure,
indeed, its success. I am most concerned that this action could itself
impact dramatically the partnership and, in turn, could affect the
schedule for the station.
Mr. Chairman, I would love to hear from the Science Committee. If all
those things should occur, I would love to hear from the committee what
their game plan is at the other end in terms of assuring station
success.
Now further, it is my view that if this partnership should unravel
because of some untoward action, and indeed we could find ourself in a
circumstance where station is not just delayed, station could be
undermined itself, and that in turn could have a horrendous impact upon
NASA's work.
With all those things in mind, I know the membership is most
sensitive about just how successful we are being these days in space.
None of us would have asked for a Mir accident, the tragedy that we
have experienced there. At the same time, all of us who focused on that
accident know that as a result of that we have learned a great deal. We
could not have asked for a more productive and valuable experiment in
terms of that kind of difficulty and potential in space.

{time} 1230

None of us could be more excited than I am about the mission to Mars
and the tremendous message it sends to the world about America's future
in space. But, indeed, it is very important that we not unilaterally
take some untoward action that could indeed undermine the pathway we
are on at this point in time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

[[Page H5320]]

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, just a couple of questions. If the
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] can tell the membership of the
House, did the administration request this $100 million for NASA
program assurance?
Mr. LEWIS of California. President Clinton's administration did not.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Did NASA, which is part of the administration,
request the $100 million for Russian program assurance?
Mr. LEWIS of California. NASA does tell me that the administration
does support the $100 million in their statement of administration
policy on this bill. Frankly, I get different messages from different
locations. But NASA is supporting that policy position.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. So the President did not request it, but NASA is
supporting the $100 million. I think the administration ought to get
its act together and hope the amendment being adopted will help them do
that.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I might
suggest that the gentleman and I are in agreement on his last
statement. But frankly, where we do the coordinating is maybe the
disagreement here. I frankly have the highest level of confidence in
the work that is being done by NASA at this moment, and, indeed, it
seems to me if we find ourselves in a situation where we need to review
this further, we certainly could readdress the question at conference.
In the meantime, at this point I would urge the Members to be most
cautious about dealing with a small figure in the total circumstance of
our entire budget but a very sizeable figure in terms of flexibility we
need in dealing with space station, and the problems with this
partnership. Indeed, this is an item that is ahead of its time. I urge
the Members to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I intended to speak on my opposition to
the Rohrabacher-Roemer amendment. This amendment was promoted to the
members of this body in a letter headlined ``If You Won't Kill It,
Chill It.'' What the sponsors of this amendment fail to remember is
that earlier in this session, we had a referendum on the international
space station. It was proposed by my good friend from Indiana. His
amendment to kill the space station was soundly rejected. This body has
made a commitment to the space station. We have done so, I believe,
because we realize the space station is the next step for scientific
and technological discoveries.
While we debate this issue on the floor of the House today, the
Pathfinder is sending us new and valuable information about Mars. I am
sure we all agree the Pathfinder has been a complete success so far.
America's fascination with space has been rekindled. Internet sites
that posted pictures from the mission have been overwhelmed by people
who wanted to see them. That fascination encourages students to work
harder and scientists to be daring in finding the solutions that have
eluded mankind here on Earth.
And while we debate this issue on the floor of the House today, the
Space Shuttle Columbia orbits the Earth on a 16-day scientific mission.
Space is the future of research and development of new technologies.
We all know the problems of the Russian economy. We know why there
are delays on the delivery of their flight hardware. None of us like
having to make these contingency plans. But bear in mind, the delays
caused by Russia's inability to make good on their commitments cost us
money, as well. Our Russian Program Assurance funds are not a blank
check. They are, in fact, a prudent attempt to keep the project moving
forward at a point when over 200,000 pounds of flight hardware has
already been constructed. NASA tells us that waiting until the Russians
are able to deliver the Service Module will cost the U.S. $300 million.
That would be the result of the passage of this amendment--more costs
and longer delays.
We have an interim control module under development and other Step 1
contingency plans in the works. The passage of this amendment would end
production on the ICM and many of the contingencies, placing the space
station and our entire investment thus far on the fragile shoulders of
Russia.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not willing to do that. It doesn't make sense.
Finally, this amendment takes money from one NASA account and places
it into another--and does so against NASA's wishes. There is no budget
savings involved. This is a strike at the very heart of our commitment
to the international space station. That's what is on the line when you
cast your vote.
We didn't kill the space station back in April. In fact, we
demonstrated strong, bipartisan support. And now my colleagues ask us
to chill the space station? I would encourage my colleagues to keep
progress on the space station red hot.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that it is
appropriate to cut the funding of NASA. It is true that the members of
the Appropriations Committee saw the need to include additional funding
for NASA's Human Space Flight, $100 million, for Russian Program
Assurance [RPA], and Science, Aeronautics and Technology, $48 million
programs. We must keep in mind that even though this may seem to be a
significant addition, the budget of NASA over the last few years has
been systematically cut. However, NASA has been able to continue
forward with its involvement and leadership in the international space
station.
As a Step I contingency activity do to the Russian Service Module
delay, the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory is constructing the Interim
Control Module [ICM] of the space station. Without these funds for
fiscal year 1998, NASA would be forced to terminate the activity which
could jeopardize the entire international space station international
effort. It would place the entire international team in a position of
having to solely depend on the Russian delivery of the service module.
The valuable research that will result from the international space
station would be in seriously jeopardy.
Just think of the Space Shuttle Columbia that lifted off on the first
of this month and is currently flying over our heads even as we speak.
This is a good first step to the many scientific experiments that will
take place on the international space station. The experiments that are
currently taking place, right now, on the manned space shuttle will
benefit every single one of us here on Earth. The international space
station will allow for even greater breakthroughs via scientific
experiments in space. Human space flight if critical to performing
necessary and beneficial research experiments in space and should be
increasingly funded. When the Space Shuttle Columbia lands successfully
today, the crew will have completed valuable scientific experiments and
research that benefits everyone. The international space station
promises to be ever more valuable to each and every one of us here on
Earth.
By now, everyone is familiar with the successful landing of the
Pathfinder Explorer on Mars. We have all seen the fantastic pictures of
the geological feature and rocks on the red planet. Would this be
possible if we did not adequately fund NASA--no. The national and
international excitement that this mission has generated has been
phenomenal. It is estimated that NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory web
site, which displays pictures from Mars, will break the record for
numbers of individuals to log into a specific web site. Funding of NASA
is crucial to our continued leadership in space. Funding of the Russian
Program Assurance is crucial to the continued international efforts of
the international space station.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 184, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Sensenbrenner] will be postponed.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state the parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, on page 57, line 21, I have an amendment.
Have we read to that point in the bill yet?
The CHAIRMAN. The reading has progressed beyond that point.
Mr. VENTO. This is in the same title.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair was simply stating an answer to the
gentleman's question.
Mr. VENTO. Are we on page 61, line 13?
The CHAIRMAN. The human space flight paragraph is pending.
Mr. VENTO. I have an amendment at the desk that amends that as well
as a previous line in the bill. Is this amendment in order at this
time, Mr. Chairman? It has been printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Only by unanimous consent.
Mr. VENTO. I ask unanimous consent to offer this amendment in this
title, Mr. Chairman, in that it amends this particular provision.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Minnesota?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.

[[Page H5321]]

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] has the time
under his reservation to the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] controls the time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from California [Mr.
Lewis] yield?
The CHAIRMAN. There is a unanimous-consent request pending before the
House. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] can withdraw his
unanimous-consent request for the time being.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous-consent request.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit a
statement in support of the Solomon amendment that was taken up in
title I, and ask that my statement be made part of the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I renew my unanimous-consent request.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] reserves the
right to object, and controls the time.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I did submit this amendment for the Record
yesterday. What it seeks to do is to reduce funding for the manned
space program and transfer some money in the FEMA emergency food and
shelter program.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would
say to the gentleman that we have received encouragement on both sides
of the aisle from our leadership to proceed as rapidly as possible, and
indeed, we have proceeded very rapidly this morning. We have two other
bills that need to be completed by Thursday. Because of that, I would
have to object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS AND TECHNOLOGY

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the
conduct and support of science, aeronautics and technology
research and development activities, including research,
development, operations, and services; maintenance;
construction of facilities including repair, rehabilitation,
and modification of real and personal property, and
acquisition or condemnation of real property, as authorized
by law; space flight, spacecraft control and communications
activities including operations, production, and services;
and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance and operation of
mission and administrative aircraft, $5,690,000,000, to
remain available until September 30, 1999.

MISSION SUPPORT

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in
carrying out mission support for human space flight programs
and science, aeronautical, and technology programs, including
research operations and support; space communications
activities including operations, production and services;
maintenance; construction of facilities including repair,
rehabilitation, and modification of facilities, minor
construction of new facilities and additions to existing
facilities, facility planning and design, environmental
compliance and restoration, and acquisition or condemnation
of real property, as authorized by law; program management;
personnel and related costs, including uniforms or allowances
therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; travel
expenses; purchase, lease, charter, maintenance, and
operation of mission and administrative aircraft; not to
exceed $35,000 for official reception and representation
expenses; and purchase (not to exceed 33 for replacement
only) and hire of passenger motor vehicles; $2,513,200,000,
to remain available until September 30, 1999.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, $18,300,000.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds
appropriated for ``Human space flight'', ``Science,
aeronautics and technology'', or ``Mission support'' by this
appropriations Act, when any activity has been initiated by
the incurrence of obligations for construction of facilities
as authorized by law, such amount available for such activity
shall remain available until expended. This provision does
not apply to the amounts appropriated in ``Mission support''
pursuant to the authorization for repair, rehabilitation and
modification of facilities, minor construction of new
facilities and additions to existing facilities, and facility
planning and design.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman in a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and
Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations and I reached
an agreement on the NASA transfer authority contained in H.R. 2158 for
the International Space Station which allows the NASA administrator to
transfer up to $150 million from the science, aeronautics, and
technology account and the mission support account to the International
Space Station Program. This authority is contained on page 64, lines 8
through 22 of the Union Calendar bill.
I agreed not to raise a point of order against the transfer authority
in exchange for a commitment by the gentleman from California [Mr.
Lewis] that any conference report to H.R. 2158 containing transfer
authority language would require NASA to obtain approval from both the
House Committee on Science, in addition to approval from the Committee
on Appropriations.
This agreement is critical to protect the oversight responsibilities
of the authorization committee, and I thank the chairman of the
Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies for his assurances
that will require the NASA administrator to formally request, justify,
and obtain prior approval from the Committee on Science before
utilizing the transfer authority contained in this legislation.
In this way, the committees will be able to hold NASA accountable for
any decision to transfer funds into the space station account. Is it
the distinguished subcommittee chairman's commitment, based upon our
agreement, not to support any conference report for H.R. 2158 which
contains NASA transfer authority unless it also includes report
language requiring prior approval, on a case-by-case basis, by the
Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Science of any
transfers by NASA?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner]. Based upon our agreement,
it is my intention to encourage the conference to have report language
that involves such oversight of any transfer responsibility. I expect I
will be successful with that effort.
The gentleman has my assurances that the conference on H.R. 2158 will
contain the language, insofar as I can convince the entire conference.
I will be very surprised if they are not responsive.
In addition, I feel the gentleman should know that with this right
does go our responsibility to deal in an expeditious manner on any
agency request, and ask that the gentleman give me his assurance that
he will deal with any such transfer request quickly.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman does have my assurance
of that. I thank the gentleman from California. I appreciate the new
requirement that both the House appropriators and authorizers for NASA
must improve future transfers.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to indicate my own support for the position
that the gentleman has taken with regard to the transfer authority. I
also appreciate the fact that he has reached agreement with the
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], and I certainly will do
everything that I can to help implement the agreement that has been
reached.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to
me.
Mr. Chairman, there will be a vote on this floor on the amendment
offered by

[[Page H5322]]

the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] on the amendment that
he was kind enough to offer on my behalf a few moments ago. I hope my
colleagues would look at this very closely.
It is the hope where authorizers who have spent a lot of time trying
to determine priorities for America's space program were ignored, and
basically one appropriator was able to use his power to change the
priorities; where I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis], we have a disagreement on what that priority
should be in this particular case. I hope those people would stand up
for a system that works and a system that is responsible; that is, with
the authorizers as part of the process, and support the Rohrabacher
amendment when it comes to a vote.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows.

Nothwithstanding the limitation on the availability of
funds appropriated for ``Human space flight'', ``Science,
aeronautics and technology'', or ``Mission support'' by this
appropriations Act, the amounts appropriated for construction
of facilities shall remain available until September 30,
2000.
Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds
appropriated for ``Mission support'' and ``Office of
Inspector General'', amounts made available by this Act for
personnel and related costs and travel expenses of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall remain
available until September 30, 1998 and may be used to enter
into contracts for training, investigations, costs associated
with personnel relocation, and for other services, to be
provided during the next fiscal year.

Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I do this for the purpose of entering into a colloquy
with the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and
Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, if the
gentleman is willing.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I would be happy to, if the gentleman makes
sure I know the subjects.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, this has to do with the
funding which the bill provides for the United States-Mexico Foundation
for Science.
Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with
my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], and chairman
of the Appropriations subcommittee. I want to commend the chairman for
including in this legislation the small sum of $1 million each from the
National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and
NASA for the United States-Mexico Foundation for Science. The
foundation funds Mexican and American researchers on projects of mutual
interest and benefit, and has received support from the two governments
since 1991.
I might interject that the Mexican government has been very
supportive and has indicated the desire to contribute considerably more
money than the United States. Government has at this point.
I would like to further clarify the chairman's intent regarding the
interaction of these three agencies with the foundation. My experience
over the past 6 years has been that certain Federal agencies have been
more inclined to develop new programs for funding United States-Mexico
cooperation, rather than utilizing this existing foundation. I would
attribute these tendencies, I hope not unjustly, to typical
bureaucratic self-protection.
Is it the chairman's intention to encourage these agencies to provide
financial support to the foundation and to take advantage of the
foundation's proven track record for developing and supporting joint
research agendas between the United States and Mexico?
Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr.
Chairman, I appreciate my colleague having this colloquy regarding the
United States-Mexico Foundation and our attempt to provide some funding
flows for its work.
Mr. Chairman, $1 million is provided in the bill from each of the
areas of the bill's responsibility that the gentleman has mentioned:
EPA, NASA, and NSF. It is absolutely my intention to see that these
funds flow to the foundation in order to coordinate these efforts.
The gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] has been most effective in
encouraging this kind of work, helping us better to deal with problems
that we have along the United States-Mexican border. There is no
question that this sort of prioritization is long past due. It it is my
intention to work closely with the gentleman to make sure these
agencies work in a cooperative manner.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very
much for his clarification and continued support. I hope the message
will penetrate down to the lowest levels of the bureaucracy.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows.

Upon the determination by the Administrator that such
action is necesssary, the Administrator may, with the
approval of the Office of Management and Budget, transfer not
to exceed $150,000,000 of funds made available in this Act to
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for
``Science, aeronautics and technology'' and ``Mission
support'' to ``Human space flight'' for the International
Space Station program, to be merged with and to be available
for the same purposes, and for the same time period, as the
appropriation to which transferred: Provided, That such
authority may not be used unless for higher priority items
than those for which originally appropriated: Provided
further, That the Administrator shall notify the Congress
promptly of all transfers made pursuant to this authority.

National Credit Union Administration

central liquidity facility

During fiscal year 1998, gross obligations of the Central
Liquidity Facility for the principal amount of new direct
loans to member credit unions, as authorized by the National
Credit Union Central Liquidity Facility Act (12 U.S.C. 1795),
shall not exceed $600,000,000: Provided, That administrative
expenses of the Central Liquidity Facility in fiscal year
1998 shall not exceed $203,000.

National Science Foundation

research and related activities

For necessary expenses in carrying out the National Science
Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875), and
the Act to establish a National Medal of Science (42 U.S.C.
1880-1881); services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109;
maintenance and operation of aircraft and purchase of flight
services for research support; acquisition of aircraft;
$2,537,700,000, of which not to exceed $228,530,000 shall
remain available until expended for Polar research and
operations support, and for reimbursement to other Federal
agencies for operational and science support and logistical
and other related activities for the United States Antarctic
program; the balance to remain available until September 30,
1999: Provided, That receipts for scientific support services
and materials furnished by the National Research Centers and
other National Science Foundation supported research
facilities may be credited to this appropriation: Provided
further, That to the extent that the amount appropriated is
less than the total amount authorized to be appropriated for
included program activities, all amounts, including floors
and ceilings, specified in the authorizing Act for those
program activities or their subactivities shall be reduced
proportionally.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Lewis of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Lewis of California:
On page 65, line 18, after ``$2,537,700,000'' insert
``(reduced by $174,000)''.

{time} 1245

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I believe my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle know that there are few Members who have more
support and admiration for the work of the National Science Foundation.
It is reflected not only in our work on the floor but in the work of
our subcommittee as well.
But from time to time even the best of our agencies find themselves
going astray. And it was not very long ago that just such a misstep or
misdirection took place at NSF in the application process for grants
that are part of their responsibility.
It was my colleague the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] from the
other side of the aisle who brought this matter to our attention. And
indeed this is not a partisan consideration but a concern by a number
of Members on both sides of the aisle.
The purpose of this amendment is to address a problem that developed
when a grant, as it went forward, caused a cross-section of academics
to address themselves to some 200 districts across the country,
essentially going into communities asking community leaders why they
had not considered running against the person who was in office,
regardless of party affiliation--Democrat or Republican--extending
probes that, to say the least, have

[[Page H5323]]

caused a great deal of consternation in districts around the Nation.
It is my view that use of dollars in this form, that cross lines,
that appear to be essentially almost anti-incumbent, are more than
disconcerting to the body. This amendment is designed to send a message
rather than anything else. It is my intention to discuss this matter
further as we go forward from here.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman
that this matter which he has raised here has been brought to my
attention very forcibly by a number of my friends and colleagues across
party lines here in the House. I have been torn by the need to make a
decision as to what is happening here.
Let me explain why. Generally speaking, I support good peer reviewed
social science research by the National Science Foundation.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman does.
Mr. BROWN of California. In this particular case, Mr. Chairman, I
think there was the most inept foresight with regard to the impact of a
research grant that I have ever seen. I think that we do need to send a
message to the National Science Foundation that on issues of great
delicacy, which they should have perceived this would be, there needs
to be some action to prepare the proper attitude within the Members of
Congress for this sort of thing. That was not done in this particular
case.
I hope that the action that the gentleman contemplates will convey
the message to the National Science Foundation that while we support
good research, including good social science research, we think there
should be some good judgment displayed over there in setting the
groundwork for such items that may turn out to be controversial with
the Members of Congress.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I believe the gentleman has capsulized my
intent. A message is really my intent.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's
amendment. I want to make it clear from the beginning that I have been
very supportive down through the years of the National Science
Foundation. But this particular kind of incident has caused me to have
some second thoughts about the wisdom of all of the grants that they
have been permitting.
If there is one thing we do not need in this country, that is more
Members, more people to run for Congress than presently run for
Congress. I think that if people wanted to determine whether or not a
person ought to run for Congress, then that is fine, but do not use the
taxpayers' money for it. These universities that these two individuals
work for certainly ought to sponsor a project such as this, if it is so
great and so needed in terms of research and study.
I will support the gentleman's amendment and encourage others to do
the same because to me it makes no sense to spend this kind of taxpayer
money when we are cutting budgets, when we are cutting out Pell grants
for worthy people who ought to be going to college, when we are cutting
food stamps, when we are cutting all other kinds of worthy programs. I
just think we are wasting the taxpayers' money in this instance, and I
thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I intend to not debate this
any further except to say that I hope that the Members would support
the amendment by way of a voice vote. It is our intention to send a
message here and hope that we can be effective in doing that.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I apologize for being late to address the Sensenbrenner
amendment. I would like to speak for a few minutes on the Sensenbrenner
amendment. I think it is an extremely important amendment for the body
to be informed of and to make a very, very calculated and careful
decision.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. ROEMER. The parliamentary inquiry is, Is this the foreign aid
bill that we are currently debating?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, the reason I ask that is, I think we are
going to get to that bill in a few minutes. The reason I ask that is,
in reading through the report language on the VA-HUD bill, on page 88
we have references to the Russian program assurance. We have had a
Russian contingency fund. We have had a Russian program assurance fund.
Here we are talking about $200 million because the Russians are delayed
and behind schedule.
It is completely opposite of the stellar success that we have had on
Mars Pathfinder. I met with the director of the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory this morning here in Washington and we discussed the
wonderful success of NASA in putting the Rover on Mars. They stayed
within a $267 million budget and they did phenomenal things for the
country and for science and technology. But with this bill, this
Russian assurance program, we are turning this bill more and more into
a foreign aid, a back door foreign aid program for Russia.
I do not mind helping out Russia. I do not mind making sure, Mr.
Chairman, that we keep Russian scientists from helping rogue countries
develop nuclear weapons. But let us deal with that in the foreign
relations and foreign affairs legislation that comes before this body.
Let us not continue to send $1 billion, now, between Mir, rents for
Mir, which is not working very well, between the Russian contingency
funds, the Russian assurance fund and to reward the Russians for
further delays that cost our taxpayers more and more money to put up
the space station.
I am very, very concerned that we continue to, one, go above the $2.1
billion cap on the space station that we have had bipartisan support
for; second, that we create more and more foreign aid in this
particular budget for the Russians for delaying their program and not
doing a good job in completing the space station on time and their
components of the space station.
And third, Mr. Chairman, I think that we continue to find ways in the
budget process to get around the authorizers; that the appropriators
sit down and they say, well, I know Congress has agreed to a $2.1
billion cap but we are going to create these new funds that somehow
finagle around that agreed-to, bipartisan, watchdog jurisdictional cap
that we put on before. I think that that really flies in the face of
what the authorizers are here to do and what Congress has been able to
achieve by putting a cap on the space station in terms of expenditures.
I would encourage my colleagues to vote for the Sensenbrenner
amendment to make sure that this $100 million does not get transferred
overseas, does not reward the Russians for bad, poor performance in
completing their segments of the international space station.
It is almost as if we have gone full cycle from the 1950's. In the
1950's, the United States and the Russians competed due to Sputnik. We
both had horse races to see who could put a man on the Moon first. We
have gone full cycle now to the United States taxpayers subsidizing the
Russian program, not based upon performance, not based upon trying to
keep the Russian scientists out of trouble but based upon poor
performance, based upon delays and with the intent to get around the
congressionally bipartisan, agreed-to $2.1 billion cap on the space
station.
My parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman, was, I think, an appropriate
though facetious one. We cannot continue to turn NASA into a back door
foreign aid program. They are doing too many good things with Mars
Pathfinder, with Galileo, with the repairs on the Hubbell, with the
demands that we must have on NASA to find ways to resurrect our manned
space program because men and women in space are important. I would
encourage my colleagues to voted for the Sensenbrenner amendment.

Announcement By The Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind Members that there is a pending

[[Page H5324]]

amendment before the Committee of the gentleman from California, and
would suggest to Members that that amendment be dealt with prior to
other discussions.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I do want to address this amendment and I want to
oppose it. A lot of my good friends are involved. I must say, I think
the heat may be penetrating this building. Maybe we ought to check the
air-conditioning.
Last night by a very large majority we involved ourselves in whether
or not there should be a nude beach at a particular location. Prior to
that I had always thought the expression a Member ``voting to cover his
rear'' was metaphoric. Last night we apparently decided to make that
literal.
We also passed an amendment yesterday in which I think we voted that
the Earth was flat. We told the United Nations to get out of here with
this biosphere stuff, and the black helicopter members scored a
victory. Today it seems to me we will err again.
The proponents have said we should send a message. The message we are
sending is that we have run out of things to legislate on that are of
serious waste, or that we cannot decide tough issues and we are going
to go off into a series of, I think, kind of silly byways.
Let me say first with regard to this National Science Foundation
amendment, obviously this is involved with a particular project, one
where someone presumed to study congressional elections. I must confess
that I know one of the authors and think highly of him, and he reminded
me that I taught him political science, so perhaps I have a real
conflict of interest here. But it was a very long time ago.
I say that because, having read the proposal, I think it is a
perfectly reasonable one. But that is not the point I want to make. The
point I want to make is that judging whether or not particular academic
research projects are good or bad is really not one of the things we
are best at. The notion that this body should set itself up as a kind
of appellate research council is, I think, one of the worst I have
heard in a long time.
We do some things very well. I think this body serves democracy in a
very, very impressive way. I think we meet a pretty strong standard as
we deal with the value questions, as we deal with resource allocations.
But I do not think that we make a very good set of academic censors.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the
gentleman for his statement. I tried to be somewhat statesmanlike in
addressing the problem, but I conceded that maybe a message needed to
be sent merely because so many Members have become upset. I have been
through this process many times in the past where Members would get
upset with a research study involving the sex habits of Eskimos or the
sex life of the screw worm or something like that, or just the title.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Has the subject of nude beaches for
Eskimos ever come before the body?
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I do not recall that it has.
But this body can get very excited about something and when they do,
using their awesome powers, they frequently make some major mistakes.
That may be the case in this situation. But all we can do is try to
help to educate the Members of the body that there may have been some
validity in this research and hope that in the future they will
scrutinize these more carefully.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
The point I want to make is that this is just not something we are
good at or should try to do. Even if Members think that in a particular
research project they made a mistake, we all understand that we are
legitimately motivated by politics and electoral considerations. If we
were not, we would not be serving democracy well. That is not a
criterion that has any place in the selection of research subjects.
I would hope we could maintain a distinction that we would get the
best people we can, give them their resources. I can understand an
argument that says political science, although it once nurtured me, is
not really a suitable subject for the National Science Foundation at
all. But once we have put them in that business, for us to say we will
pick and choose and if we are offended by a particular subject, even if
Members may think it was a poor choice of subjects, I think it is an
unwise power for us to get into exercising.
We then invite people who disagree with any choice of subject to come
to us and set us up, as I said, as a kind of ultimate academic appeal
council. I would hope that we would stop telling people what they have
to wear when they swim and we would not try to repudiate the roundness
of the Earth and that we would also refrain from intervening in the
selection of individual research projects.

{time} 1300

I do believe that on the whole the country will be worse off rather
than better if we become the ultimate academic council.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lewis amendment. I want to
start by commending the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] for having
brought this matter to the attention of Members of the House. I also
want to commend those members of the White House who have joined with
him in the number of letters that have come to both the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis] and myself relative to this particular issue.
I do not think that anyone in the House has given greater support to
the National Science Foundation than I have as the ranking member on
this subcommittee. Over a number of years I have had the pleasure and
privilege of giving strong support to the National Science Foundation.
I think they do an outstanding job. I think that those programs are
necessary programs. But I think in this case they overstep their
bounds.
They overreached and they funded something that would have been
better funded by private sources. I think they could have gone to the
Democratic Party and the Republican Party and asked for funding for
this project. It is also strange to me that, if the science that is
being promoted by these two professors is so good, why neither one of
their universities wanted to fund it.
It does not seem to me that this ought to fall within the category of
taxpayer funded research, and for that reason I think the gentleman has
a good amendment, I support the amendment, and ask Members to pass the
amendment.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, the argument just advanced, that this may not be a
proper subject matter for us to make inquiry, to me just is not
logical. Not only is it a poor choice of subject that has been decided
on by the National Science Foundation in awarding this grant for almost
$200,000, it is an affront to every Member of this Congress.
Because these two professors start with the premise that we are not
getting the best qualified people to serve in Congress, and that is
what this study is about. They are saying they are going to take
$200,000 of taxpayers' money, go out and find the best qualified people
to run for Congress and then encourage them to do just that. They even
talk about going back after they select who these individuals should
be, going back into the districts and taking them to lunch or to dinner
to ask them why they are not running for Congress.
So I think we have a legitimate and a perfect right to question
whether or not the taxpayers' money is being spent in this kind of an
abuse.
If I might, I will engage the chairman of the committee and the
ranking member of the committee in a brief colloquy.
In support of the gentleman's amendment from California, I would like
to inquire, would it be correct to say that in the context of the
balanced budget agreement that it has been more difficult to find
funding for many worthwhile projects, agencies and programs, including
the National Science Foundation?

[[Page H5325]]

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLAY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I believe my ranking member
and I both would very much agree with that.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, would it also be accurate
to say that the National Science Foundation, which has been very
instrumental in advancing the frontiers of scientific knowledge that
has enabled the United States to maintain its role as a preeminent
world leader in scientific knowledge and knowhow has, over the years,
received broad-based support from many Members of this body, including
myself?
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, we both know, that is the gentleman from
California and I, that the record will show that the gentleman from
Missouri has indeed been a strong advocate on behalf of scientific
research and the National Science Foundation.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, would the gentlemen
concur that as funding for programs becomes even more difficult, that
it is important that agencies be more sensitive to that reality and
that they exercise greater care in the types of activities they become
involved in and the kinds of projects they support, even though those
projects may technically be within their charters?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, I know the gentlemen from Missouri and the gentleman from
Ohio are the best of friends, but separate from that, I am sure my
ranking member and I absolutely agree with the gentleman's position.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, continuing with this dialog, are the
gentlemen aware of a project funded by the National Science Foundation
called the Candidate Emergence Study?
Mr. STOKES. Yes, that study has been brought to the attention of both
the gentleman from California and myself.
Mr. CLAY. Do the gentlemen join with me in questioning the wisdom of
the Federal Government spending money to determine why people do not
run for Congress, at the same time we are being forced to make painful
choices, such as reducing support for school lunches for hungry
children and reducing the amount of money available to provide shelter
for homeless people throughout this country?
Mr. STOKES. Yes, both the gentleman from California and I would
concur in the gentleman's judgment that such a study does not reflect
the critical needs and priorities currently confronting us. And even
though the amount of money used to fund the Candidate Emergence Study
may be relatively small, that $194,000 could have helped to address
more significant needs.
Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman will yield further, I would
follow up on the gentleman from Ohio's comments by saying that I have
had discussions with absolutely the highest level within the National
Science Foundation, and there is no question that there is
embarrassment at the highest level relative to the way this pattern
developed. And, indeed, not just the results but the format of the
study that came from this grant is considerably different than some
thought it would be.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words and I rise in support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that the National Science Foundation
has not been more careful with regard to its grant process and the
sensitivity and impact which a candidate recruitment topic would have
in this House. I must say, generally I think it is a good agency in our
Government supporting important programs.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to point out specifically, in taking a few
minutes here, I know that we are very concerned about moving forward
with the bill, and I thought we had had good cooperation, but I am
deeply disappointed that the previous request that I made for
consideration, even though we are in the same title, that title III was
not granted and that we had moved so quickly on the bill ahead that I
did not have a chance to talk about the program, the manned space
program, which is $100 million over the amount requested by the
administration, and an opportunity to transfer some of the money to the
emergency food and shelter program that FEMA operates.
Mr. Chairman, this is the 10th anniversary of the McKinney Homeless
Program, the emergency food and shelter program, since it was first
incorporated into a 1987 law. Actually, our former colleague,
Congressman Ed Boland, was the one that initiated the program in the
early 1980's and I worked to authorize a similar initiative at that
time.
Frankly, we should be celebrating the success of that program today
and providing some additional dollars to at least bring it back to the
1995 level. But we are not going to be able to even have a vote or a
debate, quite frankly, on that subject, other than the context in which
I am speaking at this point, because of the lack of consideration for
offering such amendment in the title.
It is a program, I think, that most of us recognize that has had good
success. Often I think there is a discussion about whether there is
compassion fatigue with regard to programs like the homeless. But I
would hasten to point out to my colleagues that this program is really
very successful in the sense that it has dealt with tens of thousands
of Americans that have found themselves economic and social casualties
in our society and, in fact, has brought them back into the mainstream
and given them the wherewithal to not fall between the cracks and fail
in our communities.
Furthermore, it is based on the private nonprofit efforts, which are
operating on overload these days, if we have paid attention, in our
cities and our rural byways, trying to respond to the desperate needs
of people that are without shelter and sometimes without a meal. This
program has been so effective, Mr. Chairman, in leveraging those
dollars, in not taking on the program as a Federal program, as so often
happens when the Federal Government gets involved, but in fact building
upon a solid framework of these private groups.
And who are these groups in terms of the charitable council that
manages these dollars? It is Catholic Charities, the Council of Jewish
Federations the Salvation Army, and the Church of Christ in the U.S.A.
These are the groups that are managing and using these dollars through
the charitable council. And it has been remarkably successful with a
very low administrative cost and bringing people along out of
homelessness and into self sufficiency.
Now, surely we have not solved the problems of homelessness, but we
have prevented and helped a lot of people move from beyond that
particular circumstance in our society.
Unhappily, because of the technical procedures on the floor today,
because I could not anticipate that we would not be considering the
other amendments, I have been refused the opportunity, the
consideration I think that is very reasonable, that I requested in the
same title to offer this particular amendment. So we are really denying
the opportunity to debate this, to consider the homeless out of order.
We have actually cut back these funds from 1995. The problems have
not gone away. Ironically, in a good economy, very often we find with
housing shortages that rents go up, so those that have these problems
have more severe problems; and those that have disabilities. And as
good as the programs work in terms of integrating people into our
communities, in terms of mainstreaming them, we find that people
sometimes make mistakes, sometimes oversights, and these programs are
really the safety net that undergirds our opportunity to treat people
in a responsible manner in terms of meeting their dignity food shelter
or health care needs.
These are remarkably successful programs. I think they reflect the
best of what we are about in terms of building on private sector,
nonprofit, religious organizations that have dealt with this problem
throughout its history. And it is too bad this House has not got the
time today to debate amendments of this nature which are so
fundamental.

[[Page H5326]]

We can authorize and make promises. These are promises that have been
kept, I might say, with FEMA and the emergency food and shelter
program. They were there when we needed them in floods or
catastrophies, and they have been there for many, many other reasons
but we need them for human catastrophies too. But it is too bad we
cannot take the time today to debate, that I have to do it under these
circumstances try under a different amendment. But I did not think that
this bill should go by without at least my comments with regard to the
homeless across this Nation. They need are help not a technical ruling
that doesn't permit their consideration.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the chairman in a colloquy for a
few moments.
As the chairman may know, as part of H.R. 1275, the Civilian Space
Authorization Act, which the House passed by voice vote, there was a
provision which authorized appropriations of $8 million for the
continued operation of the midcourse space experiment satellite within
the Mission to Planet Earth at National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
MSX was constructed for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
with a cryogenically cooled infrared sensor. As expected, the cryogen
expired in February of this year, thereby rendering that part of the
satellite inoperative. With the loss of the infrared sensor, BMDO's use
of MSX is now limited. However, there is the availability of a lot of
other sensor capability on the satellite, including the hyperspectral
imaging system, which shows great promise as part of the Mission to
Planet Earth.
While MSX would not replace any specific portion of the MTPE
constellation, it would give NASA the opportunity to utilize MSX's
unique hyperspectral imaging system at a relatively low cost. This
system is fully functional and could help address numerous scientific
and operational concerns NASA will have to resolve.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has discussed
this matter with me personally, and there is little question that MSX
represents an opportunity for NASA to incorporate an already
constructed spacecraft into the Mission to Planet Earth. I believe NASA
should pursue every opportunity available for cost savings in an area
of great budget difficulty, and MSX represents just that type of
opportunity.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank
the gentleman from California for his support.
Since the cryogenically cooled infrared sensor was operating until
February of this year and BMDO was utilizing the satellite, there was
not an opportunity for NASA to use this spacecraft. Given that NASA and
BMDO have already signed a memorandum of agreement for the cooperative
exploitation of environmental data from MSX, and that BMDO has
identified that there will be over 50 percent availability of MSX for
other users, the timing seems perfect for the utilization of MSX by
NASA.

{time} 1315

Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman will yield further, it is
clear that NASA needs to seize upon this opportunity to utilize this
important spacecraft. I will work this conference to include language
instructing NASA to incorporate the midcourse space experiment into the
Mission Planet Earth Program.
I must say further to the gentleman that I do not pretend to have the
expertise that the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett] has, let
alone NASA has, in this subject area. But, indeed, the gentleman has
piqued my attention, as well as my interest, and I look forward to
working with the gentleman.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I thank the gentleman from California [Mr.
Lewis] very much.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words to engage the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] in
a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to seek a clarification on the appropriations
for the EPA Clean Lakes Program which is made available under the State
and Tribal Assistance Grants. It is my understanding that moneys made
available under the Clean Lakes Program can be allocated to section 314
programs. Is that correct?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARR of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. That is correct, that moneys under the Clean
Lakes Program can be allocated to section 314 programs.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, it is my further
understanding that it may be the case that certain EPA regions are not
using the aforementioned moneys for section 314 programs. This raises
very serious concerns as to why the EPA in certain regions of the
country would refuse to fund 314 projects.
I would ask the gentleman, as chairman of the VA/HUD Subcommittee on
Appropriations, to request of EPA a report on what, if any, 314
programs have been funded in the past year. Further, I would ask that
the report be compiled by region. In other words, I would, with the
assistance of the chairman, request EPA to compile a report which
states region by region what section 314 projects have been funded
since June 1996. This report should be delivered to the Congress by
August 31, 1997.
Would the chairman lend his active support to our effort in this
regard?
Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman would continue to yield,
first let my say that I appreciate the gentleman bringing this matter
to my attention. I have a special appreciation for his concern about a
report that involves each region. Indeed, I appreciate his bringing it
to my attention, And I look forward to working with the gentleman.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I would further request that
if it is found that there are certain regions not performing section
314 projects, that the chairman would work with me in conference to
author report language which would specify a specific dollar amount for
section 314 projects.
Would the chairman assist in this regard, as well?
Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I
look forward to working with the gentleman further. And the answer is,
yes.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. I thank the gentleman. I appreciate the
chairman's assistance, and I yield back the balance my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
I thank the chairman very much, and I want to particularly thank the
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and certainly the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the ranking member, for what proves to be a very
unique set of appropriations and with special challenges.
Mr. Chairman, this is addressed to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Lewis], and I would certainly appreciate having an opportunity to enter
into a colloquy with him. But let me just say that issues dealing with
housing are very important, and there are many of us who have a great
deal of concern because in our districts we are shortchanged on public
housing, whether it is section 8 vouchers or public housing itself.
I appreciate the good work of this Committee on Appropriations, and
particularly appreciate the work of the Committee on Housing and Urban
Development, with the leadership of the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Kennedy] and the good work that he has done, disappointed that he
is not able, as I was not able, to offer an amendment, and I hope that
this will be cured.
But I wanted to offer an amendment dealing with increasing, in a
compromised fashion, HUD section 8 rental assistance, recognizing the
hard work of this committee to fund this for 19,580 new incremental
section 8 vouchers for low-income families at a funding level of $119.5
million.
This amendment would offset this increase only by cutting funds from
FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency, programs which would simply
remove this account to the levels requested by the President. As I
said, this is an effort to be fair.

[[Page H5327]]

These additional units, however, Mr. Chairman, will be made available
for a highly targeted demonstration of using housing assistance to
support State welfare-to-work activities. This has been part of the
Republican agenda for welfare-to-work activities. This is a bipartisan
compromise that every Member of this House could have supported if we
had been allowed to bring this amendment forward.
The tenant-based housing assistance would support families in large
cities who are either already working or making substantial progress in
the transition from welfare to work. As I said, I applaud the work of
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and join him in the need
for this type of housing.
In Houston, for example, Harris County, there are approximately
15,000 families on the waiting list for section 8 assistance. Also, the
HUD housing office cites that there are 27,000 individuals on the
waiting list for privately owned assisted housing.
If I could engage the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] in a
colloquy, because we work together on these issues. In fact, 2 years
ago, I guess, I came to him on the placement question when I told him
that in Houston, even though I know HUD has looked at one-for-one
replacement, and I move from section 8 into that because it is
important, in cities that are rural or southern we find that we have
very low numbers of public housing from the beginning. Therefore, when
we demolish or we take away from section 8 housing and we do not get
one-for-one replacement, we are in trouble.
Might I inquire, first, the problem with us having the ability to
come back with this amendment, but I know I will get a certain answer,
but may I also inquire as to the gentleman continuing to work with me?
We got sort of stalled the last time because a lot of people did not
understand why does someone in Houston want to go back to one-for-one,
which seems outdated and old. I have my facts.
Can I engage the gentleman's assistance? And the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Stokes] has been so very gracious, because I appreciate his
position, and I would like to engage him as well on helping with the
one-for-one synopsis, it may not be called that, but getting more
housing in areas where the housing stock is low, like public housing
under 4,500 units for a city that has a million citizens.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to increase the bill's funding for
HUD section 8 rental assistance--with this increase to be used to fund
19,580 new incremental section 8 vouchers for low-income families at a
funding level of $119.5 million. This amendment will offset this
increase only by cutting funding from FEMA's--the Federal Emergency
Management Agency--programs which will simply remove this account to
the levels requested by the President. I applaud Mr. Kennedy for his
longstanding commitment for being an advocate for the poor and low-
income families not only in his district of Massachussets, but for the
Nation.
Unfortunately, I am unable to support Mr. Kennedy's amendment which
attempts to fund the new incremental section 8 vouchers for low-income
families, but he seeks to underfund the NASA space program. I do not
believe that it is appropriate to cut the funding of NASA. It is true
that the members of the Appropriations Committee saw the need to
include additional funding for NASA's human space flight--$100
million--and Science, aeronautics, and technology--$48 million--
programs. We must keep in mind that even though this may seem to be a
significant addition, the budget of NASA over the last few years has
been systematically cut.
Human space flight is critical to performing necessary and beneficial
research experiments in space should be increasingly funded. When the
Space Shuttle Columbia lands successfully tomorrow, the crew will have
completed valuable scientific experiments and research that benefits
everyone. Let's not take money away from NASA.
Mr. Chairman, these additional units of incremental section 8
assistance will be made available for a highly targeted demonstration
of using housing assistance to support State welfare-to-work
activities. This has been a part of the Republican agenda. Welfare-to-
work activities. The tenant-based housing assistance would support
families in large cities who are either already working or are making
substantial progress in the transition from welfare to work. In Texas,
this will allow for 1,200 additional section 8 vouchers for low-income
families. This assistance will offer security to families making this
difficult transition, and will allow them to choose housing in
locations that offer access to jobs, education, training, and other
services important to achieving long-term self-sufficiency. In the city
of Houston/Harris County, there are approximately 15,000 families on
the waiting list for section 8 assistance. Mr. Chairman, I revisit this
issue because this bill has not earmarked any funds for one-for-one
housing. This is the policy that establishes requirements that housing
authorities replace, on a one-for-one basis, every unit of public
housing the housing authority disposes of or demolishes. The public
housing authorizing bill H.R. 2 eliminated one-for-one housing. This
will thrust millions of American families into homelessness. The
housing demand and the problem of homelessness is so great that we must
provide as many options for affordable housing as possible. The Houston
HUD office cites that there are 27,170 individuals on the waiting list
for privately owned assisted housing.
Between 1978 and 1993, the number of families with worst-case needs
grew by 1.5 to 5.3 million families with incomes below 50 percent of
median who pay more than half of their incomes for rent and utilities
or live in severely substandard housing.
Between 1985 and 1993, the supply of rental housing affordable to
very low-low income families decreased. In 1993 there were only 6.9
million units affordable for the 8.6 million extremely low-income
renter families. More than half of these units were occupied by
families with higher incomes, thus making even fewer affordable units
available for extremely low-income families.
Among working poor families with children--those with incomes below
30 percent of median, which is roughly the equivalent of the poverty
level--67 percent of those not receiving housing assistance--675,000
households--have worst-case housing needs. Usually this means they are
paying over half their income for rent; sometimes they are also living
in severely substandard housing.
Families with this type of financial stress are in constant danger of
falling behind in the rent and either moving to avoid eviction or
actually being evicted. Tenant-based assistance can support welfare-to-
work efforts by providing families with a stable and secure place to
live while they get the training they need, seek employment, and make
the transition to self-sufficiency. With a housing certificate, a
family can either stay in a neighborhood where there are community
supports and the mother has access to a job, or move when that move is
in the family's interest and the family has been counseled about
opportunities linked to housing locations that offer better access to
jobs, schools, training, and other opportunities. This amendment is a
bipartisan compromise that every Member of this House should support. I
urge the adoption of this amendment to increase self-sufficiency of
low-income families by providing them with affordable housing.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am happy it enter into this
colloquy with the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] regarding a
very important matter.
Her discussion and concern goes to the heart of how we got to one-
for-one replacement in the first place, because there was a time in the
country where we absolutely needed, to make certain when any public
housing unit was taken out of the marketplace that it was replaced. A
combination of things have occurred over time involving the fact that
in some cases there was a shortage of capital, in other cases just
plain bureaucratic problems. We found ourselves not tearing down old
and dilapidated facilities and instead boarding up windows.
In the instance of my colleague, she has a special circumstance that
reflects that original difficulty. I very much appreciate her concern,
and indeed I am committed to trying to help her respond to the needs of
her community. So I appreciate the point very much, and I look forward
to working with my colleague.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes]. Let me thank him for always having a
sensitive ear.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-
Lee] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas was allowed to
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman
listening to me on this. And I wanted to bring to the attention of this
body again the great need for housing in the Houston area, but
particularly rural

[[Page H5328]]

and southern areas, where we have not had this large housing stock and
where we have an enormous waiting list, both homeless and section 8.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STOKES. I just wanted to join with the gentleman from California
[Mr. Lewis] in expressing to the gentlewoman that we appreciate the
fact that she has brought this matter to our attention both in last
year's bill and this year. And of course, we have stated to her, as we
state again, that we are certainly going to continue working with her
relative to the unique situation that she has in her city.
In my own case, representing a large urban center, I can understand
exactly the type of problem that she is encountering, and we are going
to try in every way to give her the kind of relief that she needs.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, I thank both the
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Stokes] for their kindness. I emphasize that we are in the midst now of
rebuilding Allen Parkway Villa. I know that would be refreshing news to
those of us, my colleagues, who are tenured in this Congress.
We still have the problem of having numbers under 4,000 and needing
to replace some of those that have been torn down. I welcome the input
and the creativity of my colleagues. Maybe this year, this session, I
can bring this to rest and have a solution for those needing housing in
the Houston area, but also impacting other southern and rural areas
that have the same problem.
The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] did tell me that, even
though I fought hard to get this amendment on the floor, that we will
not be handling the amendment at this time, but we will be working on
solving the problem.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. The Members will be having a voice vote
later on the amendment that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and I
support.

Announcement By The Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would once again remind Members that the
pending business before the Committee is the Lewis amendment.
If there is no further debate on the Lewis amendment, the question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I had contemplated, among others, in a bipartisan
fashion offering an amendment to this title of this bill, and have
decided not to do so but wanted to take this time to talk about the
recently issued regulations by EPA on clean air and particulate matter
in particular.
Having been involved with this since the first proposed standards
were issued, I have made it my concentrated goal to know everything I
could know and to read the scientific studies that have been put forth
in regard to these regulations.
The claim is that these regulations are put forward on the basis that
is the charge for the EPA to use the best available science. Well, in
fact, that is not the case. The EPA has done what I think is an
unconscionable wrong to this country. And what has exactly happened,
Mr. Chairman, is we have taken a planned change in the air regulations
and have gone to try and find science to support it.
The EPA claims that there are 67 studies that support their new
regulations, and that claim is absolutely false. There are five
studies, and it is generous to say that these are studies, but there
are five different collections of data that monitor fine particulate
matter. Only two of those actually measure 2.5 micron size particles.
The rest are extrapolated data.
It is like a physician telling a woman she is going to have a boy
child, a male child, because she has had three children before, all of
which were females. The fact is that one does not connect with the
other. The odds are still 50-50. In fact, the odds for having a healthy
baby are much greater than the odds for this, the data put forth by
EPA, to be inaccurate.
I want to discuss for a moment the studies because I think it is very
important that the American public know what went on with these
studies. The first is a Harvard six-city study that the data is not
available to the rest of the scientific community to look at and say
yes, their conclusions from this data are accurate.
As a matter of fact, the study that was correlated along with that,
that used humidity in consideration for lung disease and lung problems,
actually showed that the data put forth in the Harvard study was not
right when in fact the confounding variables were considered. The risk
of cigarette smoking was not considered in any of these studies. The
risk of preexisting lung disease was not considered.
Mr. Chairman, it concerns me greatly that the Government of the
United States has issued regulations that are going to cost the
American public, the taxpayers of this country, $60 to $80 billion
dollars a year under the claim that it is going to improve the quality
of life.
If that is the case and the science can be shown to show that, then I
will happily support it. But the truth is that there is not any science
to support what the EPA is doing at this time. The EPA admits that. By
the way, they have asked for additional money to study 2.5 micron
particulate matter.
So what concerns me is that we as a Government are moving toward new
regulations that are going to cost thousands of jobs, that are going to
eliminate new opportunities for advancement for individuals in their
employment opportunities in over 400 counties in the United States,
because we think we might be able to improve some health, when the
science will not show that we can.
Is it not a fact that we should know what we are doing? The greatest
example is asbestos. The medical community now agrees we should have
left asbestos where it was. We actually harmed more people, we actually
spent and wasted a ton of money because we did not have the science
before we acted.
Let not make that mistake again. Let us ask the EPA, let us ask the
President, not to do this until they know what they are doing and they
have the science that backs it up.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to bring forth this area
of interest. I am sorry that I did not have an opportunity to offer an
amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1330

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Along with the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], I had intended
on offering an amendment to this bill which would have provided EPA
with the necessary direction in pursuing a clean air strategy. Out of
respect for the appropriations process and the need to move this bill
forward without legislative provisions, we have decided not to offer
this amendment today. Instead, we will work through the authorizing
committees to ensure that we have a focused and rational clean air
policy. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to take this opportunity to
point out some of the flaws in EPA's approach to the decision to pursue
the new national ambient air quality standards. Although an examination
of the science behind the standards requires a great attention to
detail, it is well worth the Members' time to do so. It may be easy to
embrace a press release saying that we are protecting people but the
facts do not show that this is necessarily going to be the result of
these standards.
The Committee on Science held three hearings on the standards and has
issued a bipartisan report of its findings and recommendations. The
report is available on line at the committee's home page and I
encourage anyone who is interested in this issue to read that report.
Among the most telling of the findings is EPA's inconsistency of the
epidemiological studies, as it appears that EPA has placed greater
emphasis on studies that support their conclusion while ignoring others
that did not conform to their view of science. EPA has claimed that
particulate matter studies have shown a wavering picture of adverse
health effects. In testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy and

[[Page H5329]]

Environment, members of EPA's own clean air scientific advisory
committee have stated just the opposite.
In responses to follow-up questions submitted by the subcommittee,
Dr. George Wolff, the former head of the CASAC and Dr. Joseph Mauderly,
the current head of the CASAC asserted that EPA did not give the same
weight to the studies that were inconsistent with the conclusion drawn
by the agency.
Dr. Wolff's response stated, ``There are many examples where EPA
gives more weight to the studies that support their agenda, and they
are very skillful, but not always convincing, in providing reasons to
dismiss those studies that provide alternative explanations.''
Dr. Mauderly pointed out that EPA used a weight of evidence approach
in assessing PM epidemiological study but went on to say that ``while
this is not an inappropriate approach, it is true that EPA, and other
investigators, have not expended an equivalent amount of energy on
studies or data sets which show no relationship between PM and
health.''
This irresponsible approach to assessing the public good cannot be
condoned. How we go about maintaining air quality is too important an
issue to rely on findings reached only by looking at data that supports
a predetermined conclusion.
In the Committee on Science and in hearings before other committees,
we have heard that these standards are being moved in order to ensure
that monitoring data is collected and that needed research is
conducted. We endorse that goal but we cannot endorse EPA's method of
making it a reality.
Plain and simple, new standards are not needed to see that monitoring
and research are funded. Our amendment would have funded those
activities without the need of a presumptive standard.
Although we are not offering our amendment today due to the need to
move forward with the appropriations process, we will pursue this
approach through the authorizing committees. Specifically, it is our
intention to move H.R. 1984, bipartisan legislation introduced by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink] which would make sure that we
have adequate information about health effects of various pollutants
before we pursue a regulatory solution.
Mr. Chairman, the President and Administrator Browner have said that
they want to work with us on implementing the new standards so as to
minimize their economic impact. What they fail to recognize is that
even though these regulations will not come into force for many years,
these standards will influence the decisionmaking of businesses today.
Anyone in the private sector who is doing long-term planning will
have nothing to gain by doing business in areas that EPA says will not
be in attainment. We are already seeing this in western Pennsylvania
and are sure to see it throughout the country as more and more people
recognize the significance of the new standards.
Mr. Chairman, I am for clean air. I have four children of my own. If
I thought for 1 minute that delaying these standards would jeopardize
their health, I would not be up here making this speech. However, I
have taken the time to examine the evidence and all I am convinced of
is that we need to know more. I am committed to finding the funds to do
the monitoring and the research needed to develop consensus on policy
on air quality.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. McINTOSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, my Subcommittee on National Economic
Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs has also been looking
at these clean air standards and the process which EPA and the White
House have used to move forward on that. In developing its air quality
standards for ozone and particulate matter, EPA has made an end run
around good science, around common sense and around the real concerns
of the American people.
With the blessing of Vice President Gore and the President, the
agency is now finalizing these standards that may cost more than $60
billion but produce little or no health benefits and frankly put at
jeopardy hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country.
In fact a friend of mine said, ``If you think NAFTA created a sucking
sound to Mexico, wait till these clean air standards go into effect,''
because then we are going to see a lot of jobs move south of the border
and it is going to hurt our good working men and women in this country.
Moreover, Mr. Chairman, these standards may in fact undo the
considerable progress that our communities have already been making in
attaining high-quality air standards.
When my colleagues think about the young children who are affected by
asthma and other problems having to wait an additional 10 years because
these new standards put on hold the progress that is being made, that
is wrong and these standards are not good for those children.
EPA has ignored the widespread economic and scientific criticism that
these standards have provoked throughout the entire Clinton
administration and has done everything in its power to cover up those
concerns.
Mr. Chairman, those objecting to the rule include the President's
Council of Economic Advisers, the White House Science Adviser, the
Commerce Department, the Transportation Department, the Treasury
Department, the Agriculture Department, and the Small Business
Administration in this administration under President Bill Clinton. The
Office of Management and Budget staff found that the EPA rules, quote,
did not fully conform with the administration's own guidelines for
regulatory review.
The President's own Office of Science and Technology Policy objected
that the standards are not based on adequate scientific information.
Alicia Munnell of the President's Council of Economic Advisers observed
that ``the incremental health risk reduction from more stringent
standards is small, while costs are high.''

In fact, CEA estimated that the cost of fully complying with EPA's
approach could reach $60 billion a year, not $8 billion that EPA has
reported.
According to the Small Business Administration, these are the most
expensive regulations faced by small businesses in over 10 years. A
Department of Transportation analysis on the impact of EPA's standards
on States and localities showed that the areas in noncompliance will
face economically strangling restrictions to daily operations. However,
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, known as OIRA, the
office in OMB in charge of supervising this interagency review of
regulations, has made sure that the consideration of these regulations
never addressed the concerns or heard those from the agencies who
disagreed with EPA.
First OIRA, at the request of EPA, helped whitewash a report to
Congress drafted by the career staff that was very critical of this
regulation. Later OIRA imposed an unprecedented gag order on agency
written comments so that these agency concerns were never fully
submitted to the public record. As a result, the courts could decide
that those concerns may not be taken into account when they review the
regulatory process.
Mr. Chairman, this is not how OIRA is supposed to function. OIRA does
not handle other rules this way. They are a neutral body in which every
concern in the administration can be raised. I want to know who and
what directed OIRA to make these questionable decisions. We have been
asking to interview the staff to find out what went on, but OIRA has
been working to cover up these efforts. They have refused and
stonewalled my subcommittee's repeated attempts at oversight to request
the facts behind this unprecedented gag order. OIRA has refused to
produce documents. Moreover, they have refused to allow their staff to
be interviewed by our subcommittee. OIRA has apparently decided that
there is too much at stake in their coverup efforts to allow a trusted
career employee to tell us candidly what happened.
I am convinced that this rulemaking will eventually be overturned by
the courts because it was done under an illegal process. Apparently
OIRA agrees that this is likely or at least probable and is doing
everything in its power to keep that process under wraps.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion I would have supported the amendment of
my

[[Page H5330]]

colleagues. We need to do something about these regulations.
In developing its air quality standard for ozone and particulate
matter, EPA has certainly made an end run around science, common sense,
and the real concerns of the American public. With Vice President Gore
and the President's endorsement, the Agency is now finalizing these
standards that may cost more than $60 billion, but may produce little
or no health benefits. Moreover, these standards may, in fact, undo the
considerable progress that our communities have made in attaining the
current air quality standards and implementing Clean Air Act programs.
However, nothing in the law requires the Agency to proceed blindly
with standards that will have a multibillion dollar impact and that may
not improve and may even degrade human health and the environment.
Nothing in the Clean Air Act requires EPA to abrogate its
responsibility to take a reasonable approach to regulation when the
scientific data is uncertain.
Yet, EPA has ignored the very legitimate concerns raised all around
about the wisdom of proceeding to issue very onerous standards in the
face of inconclusive science:
EPA has ignored the advice of its own scientific advisory committee.
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee indicated that there is no
proof that EPA's standards will measurably improve public health. In
the case of ozone, they concluded that the proposed standard was not
significantly more protective of public health than the current one. In
the case of PM, they found significant uncertainty surrounding the
health effects of fine particles. In their view, there is no compelling
reason to set more restrictive standards at this time.
EPA has ignored the widespread economic and scientific criticism
these standards have provoked throughout the Clinton administration,
and has done in its power to coverup this dissention. Mr. Speaker,
those objecting to the rules include the President's Council of
Economic Advisers; the White House Science Adviser; the Commerce,
Transportation, Treasury and Agriculture Departments; and the Small
Business Administration.
For example, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy Frank
Kruesi commented that it was ``incomprehensible that the administration
would commit to a new set of standards without much greater
understanding of the problem and its solutions.''
The Office of Management and Budget found that the EPA rules ``did
not fully conform'' with the administration's own guidelines for
regulatory review.
The President's Office of Science and Technology Policy objected that
these standards are not based on adequate scientific information.
Alicia Munnell of the President's Council of Economic Advisers
observed that, ``the incremental health-risk reduction from more
stringent standards is small, while costs are high.'' In fact, CEA
estimated that the costs of fully complying with just EPA's new ozone
standards could reach $60 billion a year.

According to the Small Business Administration, these are ``the most
expensive regulations faced by small business in 10 or more years.''
A Department of Transportation analysis of the impact of EPA's
standards on States and localities showed that areas in noncompliance
will face ``economically strangling restrictions to daily operations.''
However, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, known as
OIRA, has made sure that consideration of these concerns are never
heard or remains behind closed doors. First, OIRA, at the request of
EPA, helped whitewash a report to Congress drafted by OIRA career staff
that was critical of the rule. Later, OIRA imposed an unprecedented gag
order on agency written comments so that these agency concerns were
never formally submitted for the public record. As a result, the courts
may not take these agency concerns into accounting in reviewing the
rules. Instead, OIRA imposed a highly questionable and unusual
``alternative interagency review process'' to deal with the standards.
This is now how OIRA handles other rules. What and who directed OIRA to
make these questionable decision.
Finally, the President's decision to back EPA was reached before the
Agency's final rules were sent to OIRA for review, despite the
requirements of the President's own Executive Order. Therefore, one of
the most complex and expensive regulations were subjected to
meaningless internal review.
Despite the serious evidence of improper conduct, OIRA has refused or
stonewalled my repeated oversight requests to uncover the facts behind
OIRA's unprecedented behavior. OIRA has refused to produce documents to
my subcommittee, including even a copy of the very rule they are
supposed to be reviewing. More significantly, OIRA has refused to allow
my subcommittee to interview key senior OIRA officials, including the
Branch Chief of the Natural Resources Division who drafted internal
reports critical of the rule. OIRA has apparently decided that there is
too much at stake in its current coverup efforts to allow this trusted
career officer to be interviewed by my staff. I am convinced that this
rulemaking will eventually be overturned by the courts due to the
illegal rulemaking procedures. Apparently, OIRA agrees this is likely
and is doing everything in its power to hide the truth from Congress
and the courts.
EPA also has ignored the protests of numerous Governors and thousands
of mayors that these standards will have an enormous impact on small
businesses and will become one of the largest unfunded mandates ever
faced by State and local governments. The era of ``big government'' is
by no means over. These new standards will force onerous new control
measures and unnecessary lifestyle changes on hundreds of counties that
will not be able to comply. The costs of doing business will rise
considerably, causing massive layoffs. As Assistant Secretary Kruesi
noted, these standards will ``bring a significantly larger proportion
of the population and more jurisdictions under Federal oversight and
procedural burdens.'' Areas in non-attainment will have to adhere to
stringent requirements regarding building permits and uses,
transportation plans, industrial uses, and the like. In short, States
and localities will face onerous constraints on their constitutional
freedom to determine how to run their own communities.

Finally, EPA has ignored the thousands of comments by the general
public that these standards may to more harm than good. EPA has
completely failed to evaluate the potential negative health effects
that might result from its standards. For example, setting a generic
fine particle standard may result in controlling particles that don't
significantly harm the public health, and not controlling ones that do.
Reducing ground-level ozone may cause an increase in malignant and
nonmelanoma skin cancers and cataracts, as well as other health risks
from ultraviolet B rays. Moreover, the regulatory costs that will be
transmitted throughout the economy will increase poverty levels.
Workers and consumers will have less disposable income to spend on
safety devices, on medical checkups and procedures, and on clean and
safe housing.
In this rulemaking proceeding, EPA has openly and blatantly defied
the laws passed by Congress that require the Agency to weigh all of
these factors in determining how to put our scarce resources to the
greatest social good. EPA has refused to comply with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act [SBREFA], and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. These laws require
agencies to determine the ``real costs and benefits'' to our society of
regulations. They represent the only democratically acceptable approach
to weigh uncertain scientific evidence and to properly evaluate
potential adverse consequences to public health, environment, and the
economy.
Once again, the President has bowed to the demands of special
interests and the regulatory bureaucracy to increase EPA's authority
and budget. EPA's standards represent an irresponsible and illegal rush
to judgement that may undermine our Nation's efforts to clean the air.
With these standards, we are getting a ``Yugo'' at Rolls Royce prices.
No one in Congress should stand for this.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am a firm believer in good science and common sense,
and I am also a firm believer in believing my eyes and what I see and
what I breathe. People across this country today are fully aware of the
consequences of the ozone problems. Just go outside across this
country. Temperatures over 100, in the 90's, in the 80's. People are
experiencing trouble breathing. This is not just my opinion. On the
front page of USA Today, ``Breathing No Fun In The Ozone,'' and it has
a picture of, of all places Washington, our Nation's Capital, as seen
through a haze of smog. The Capitol barely shows through the ozone haze
in Washington, DC.
The American people understand. There is a serious problem with smog
in this country, and the American people appreciate the work that the
EPA has done in addressing the pollution issues. We are talking about a
practical matter here. How many of us today will walk through the
tunnels instead of going outside because of the oppressive quality of
the air? We are experiencing this. We have to consider the reality of
what we are faced with rather than abstract ideas about what the effect
of this law may have in the future, when we know right now we need
strong air quality standards in order to protect the health of the
American people. Do not take my word for it. Just go outside and take a
breath of air.
In trying to clear the air here today on behalf of those who are
concerned

[[Page H5331]]

about the EPA regulations, I also offer for submission into the Record
the USA Today's article where they talk about ozone danger, ``What You
Can't See Can Hurt You.'' Listen to what they describe as some of the
problems of dangerous ozone levels, particularly in connection with
these very high temperatures, soaring smog levels and stagnant high-
pressure systems. They talk about ground level ozone, and it is the
main ingredient in urban smog. Naturally occurring ozone in the upper
atmosphere protects life by filtering the ultraviolet radiation from
the Sun and ground level ozone is produced by vehicle or industrial
emissions combining with sunlight and high heat during times of little
or no wind.

{time} 1345

And they have some of the effects and the health hazards. For
example, and people know this, anyone who has experienced the problem
of air pollution knows that we can get headaches from it, can irritate
our eyes, nasal discharge, shortness of breath, lung damage, sore
throat. These are all factors which the EPA actually took into account
when they drew up the standards. They did it to protect the American
people. The health hazards, high concentrations of ozone can cause
inflammation and irritation of the respiratory tract. Ozone can
increase asthma and allergy problems and susceptibility to lung
infections. Ozone damage to lungs can continue days after exposure has
ended.
Mr. Chairman, people know this from their own experience. This is why
the EPA has stepped forward.
USA Today goes on to talk about who are the most vulnerable people.
Mr. Chairman, we know. We know people in our family are vulnerable to
it. They say the most likely to suffer ozone pollution effects are
people with lung diseases, the elderly, children, and healthy adults
who exercise outside. Children are especially vulnerable because they
often play outside and in muggy heat, breathe more rapidly and inhale
more air pollution.
Mr. Chairman, is it any wonder then that according to a recent poll
an overwhelming 84 percent of voters believe that the current levels of
air pollution are dangerous and pose a threat to the health of senior
citizens, children, and others? People just have to look outside, and
that is why they agree.
Now when informed the EPA is putting in place stricter air quality
standards that would strengthen regulations on particulate pollution
and ground level ozone, 70 percent of Americans favor those standards.
Fully two-thirds of the voters agree with scientists from EPA and the
American Lung Association that the best available science indicates the
current levels of air pollution can create serious health problems.
That is current levels.
Now we need to have standards in place over the next decade so that
we can protect many more Americans from experiencing the adverse
effects of increase in ozone and particulate matter. Two-thirds of the
people agree with statements that certain businesses have tried for
decades to scare people by saying that environmental regulations will
hurt the economy and will cost jobs. But the regulations always ended
up costing less when businesses have made a profit.
Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, my dear colleague from Ohio [Mr. Kucinich] just made
the point of those of us that are concerned about these new regulations
that are being signed by Director Browner and being proposed by this
administration. He is right. We are concerned when we go outside to
Washington, DC, and other metropolitan areas around this Nation in hot
weather like this and we can breathe the oppressive air. And we think
that after sitting in many days of hearings, and understanding that
there is not a scientific consensus surrounding these regulations, that
money is better spent on making sure that areas like Washington, DC,
comply by 1999, by a date certain.
And so if we are concerned about that 10-year-old child who is
playing on a playground in Washington, DC, today, why would we want to
implement questionable new standards before we have complied with the
standards that we have currently? Why would we want to wait another 10
or 12 years until that 10-year-old child is in college before we take
action?
What the administration has done today and what Carol Browner has
proposed will put off the tough decisions for a later day, will allow
the air and the immediate future to stay dirtier longer. The EPA has
been saying that they are in favor of taking a wait-and-see attitude
and the administration, with a wink and a nod, have said, ``Look at our
compliance schedule. We're not going to change these things overnight.
We're going to wait.''
Well, if they really wanted to wait until we had PM-2.5 monitors
deployed around this Nation, if they wanted to wait until we actually
analyze that data, then they would have sat and talked to those of us
who have raised these concerns, the dozens of Members, of Democrats and
Republicans in this House and in the other body, who have asked the
President to sit down, to have a discussion with us. Not only did they
refuse to sit and talk to us, they would not even acknowledge our
letters.
In my previous life I was a journalist. We always know when someone
is evading the question, when someone is filibustering when they are
trying to give an answer that they are not happy about and that they
are not really in their heart sure that their position is a strong one,
and I think that is the reason that EPA has not wanted to sit and talk
to us about this. It is why the administration has ignored even those
of us from the President's same party who wanted to sit down and talk
about a commonsense approach where we can achieve good commonsense
clean air standards at the same time that we allow the State
implementation plans to move forward, that we allow industry to
continue to take the steps necessary that they need to make, the
investments they need to make, to continue to clean the air.
I agree with Carol Browner and Al Gore and President Clinton that the
Clean Air Act has been working. We have cleaned the air. We have made
dramatic steps. I am afraid that what they are doing today will stop
and will impede the progress that we are making and that we continue to
make.
And that is why I would thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
LaHood] and many of my colleagues on the Republican side as well as my
friends here on the Democratic side who have joined us on H.R. 1984. It
is a bill that brings a commonsense approach, that says let us build
the monitors, let us collect the data, let us do the science, let us
authorize $75 million a year to make sure that this country is headed
in the correct direction. Let us not stand in the way of meeting these
deadlines, of meeting the targets, that the current Clean Air Act and
the current regulations would have us meet.
As Carol Browner testified before our subcommittee for 8 hours in the
Committee on Commerce, she talked about the problem of having two sets
of regulation at one time, and how are we to believe with a wink and a
nod that we are going to promulgate these new regulations but it is not
going to have an impact when we know that under the Clean Air Act one
citizen's lawsuit could change all of that and that the captains of
industry that are out there making decisions as to what areas they are
going to locate in, where they are going to be expanding industries,
where they are going to be investing millions of dollars; those
decisions are being made today, not 10 years from now, and they will
not be building in areas that are going to be thrown out of attainment
by these new regulations.
Four hundred counties across this Nation will not have a chance to
see new jobs, neither an investment of new businesses or of an
expansion of the businesses that are there. I have talked to businesses
in southwestern Pennsylvania that have said, ``We're not going to make
those expenditures in your region.'' They are going to go elsewhere,
and I am talking about coming from an area where we have seen the loss
of 155,000 manufacturing jobs over the last 2 decades.
I think that H.R. 1984 makes all the sense. I thank the gentleman for
cosponsoring the bill and would propose that my colleagues also join us
on that legislation.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)

[[Page H5332]]

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, in April of this year I, along with 10
other Members of the Illinois delegation, sent a letter to Carol
Browner, the Administrator of the EPA, urging her to suspend
promulgation of those proposed regulations so that further study and
analysis could be completed.
In light of the Environmental Protection Agency's own recent
acknowledgment that health benefits for those proposed regulations were
overstated, I thought it was important that the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee attempt to reach a consensus on the health-related
data that underlies the proposed regulations by doing further study and
investigation.
Earlier on I had considered offering an amendment, but due to other
considerations and other deliberations that will be taking place later
on, I am not going to do that, but I do believe that asking an
independent agency such as the National Science Foundation to conduct
an impartial cost-benefit analysis is important, and I would like to
ask the chairman of the subcommittee if there would be funds available
for an independent agency to look at these standards that now today
have been promulgated and will be printed in the Federal Register.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. The gentleman from Illinois is correct.
There is a need for this sort of continued and ongoing careful
research, and further, I can say that there are additional funds
available above and beyond the Presidential request. There are some $40
million, $35 million of those for PM standard evaluation and the
balance for ozone. My concerns are very similar to the gentleman's and,
if he would continue to yield, let me say that by way of background the
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] and I share one of the most
heavily impacted areas in the country in terms of problems with air
quality. We have spent considerable time attempting to implement past
regulations and, indeed, are having an effect upon air quality in the
southland. I cannot tell my colleague whether we need additional, more
difficult regulations or not, but I am very much convinced that there
is a need for a better base of scientific work, and thereby I very much
appreciate the gentleman's comments.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman of the
subcommittee on this important matter setting aside or making available
or having available some funds for this study, and I look forward,
hopefully, to the opportunity.
I would like to finish my prepared statement because I want to be on
record with the statement that I had prepared earlier.
According to published reports, the Department of Agriculture and the
Small Business Administration raised serious concerns when the new
regulations were first proposed. Chief among those concerns was the
tremendously high cost that farmers and small business would have to
pay in order to be in compliance with the new regulations.
The regulatory consequences for nonattainment would include bans on
economic development, mandatory car pooling, sanctions on existing
agricultural practices, and a greatly expanded vehicle inspection and
maintenance program, the cost of which would probably lead to a motor
vehicle fuel tax increase and/or regulations or outright bans on items
of existing consumer convenience and choice, such as snow blowers, lawn
mowers, powerboats, and charcoal grills.
In addition, the new regulations would increase my State's
nonattainment areas from 11 counties to 23 counties. The present
nonattainment areas are the eight-county Chicago and suburban Chicago
area, and the three-county Metro East St. Louis area. New areas would
include my hometown of Peoria, Champaign-Urbana, LaSalle-Peru,
Effingham, Decatur, the Quad Cities, and a much larger Metro East area,
and Jo Daviess County.
Illinois and the Nation has already paid a high price for existing
Clean Air Act requirements. Our Nation's energy and industrial strength
could be imperiled needlessly by new regulations, and it has been
estimated that the Chicago area alone could face compliance costs of $5
billion. Other parts of the State and country could also have to incur
the loss of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in compliance
costs.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. The expression of concern by the gentleman
is very important, and I know a concern is felt on both sides of the
aisle. If there is a classic illustration of important public policy
decisions having little to do with partisan politics, this is one of
them.
While we have provided funding for additional scientific research, as
I have suggested, monitoring and collection of data is very important
as well, and the gentleman should know that there is an additional $25
million to help those States, especially the rural States, to
participate in that work as well.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's commitment to
the further study of this.
I think common sense dictates that all Americans want clean air, but
common sense also dictates that Americans want reasonable and
commonsense approaches to the way that we deal with these matters, and
I hope that further study will enable us to reach an agreement and
compromise in how we go about doing that.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, having worked on the Clean Air Act for over 22 years, I
want to point out something that has happened in this body every 6 or 7
years. The industry gets people stirred up with predictions that we
have to choose between a clean environment on the one hand and a
thriving economy with jobs for our people on the other, and that is a
choice that is a false one. Mr. Chairman, it is a false one that has
been offered to us in the past, and the record has proved that it was a
false choice.
The 1990 Clean Air Act was adopted overwhelmingly by a Democratic
controlled Congress and heartily endorsed and signed by a Republican
President. At that time we set in place a law that has worked
successfully, not just as an environmental bill, but one of the most
successful Government programs that we have ever had. Air pollution has
been reduced dramatically in some places, and at a fraction of the
costs that were predicted when we held all those hearings in
preparation for that legislation.

{time} 1400

I want to cite some examples. In August 1990 there was a group called
the Clean Air Working Group. It was the principal business group
fighting the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. They came in and
estimated that the 1990 amendments would cost industry between $51
billion and $91 billion a year. In fact, compliance costs are now
estimated to have been just $22 billion annually upon full
implementation of the law in the year 2005, 57 to 75 percent lower than
the industry calculated, nearly 10 percent lower than the Bush
administration even estimated in 1990.
We passed a law, it took a long time to do it, to control the
pollutants that cause acid rain. When we were discussing that, the
electric utilities came in and said this is a terrible idea, even
though we were going to use market mechanisms to reduce the cost of the
compliance to get these pollutants down. They said, it is going to cost
between $1,000 and $1,500 for every 1 ton of sulfur dioxide emissions
that we reduce.
We went ahead and adopted the law, especially at the urging of
President Bush. We had in fact an allowance of now under $100 a ton of
SO2 emissions. There are other examples I can go through.
But the essential point that I want to make to the Members is that the
choice that we are being told by some people, that we are going to have
to choose between protecting the environment or with extraordinary
costs protecting the health of our kids, asthmatics, the elderly that
live in our communities, on the one hand, or protecting jobs on the
other, is an absolute false choice.
There was the issue before the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency. She had recommendations from her scientific advisory
board

[[Page H5333]]

as to what is the standard to protect the public health. The Clean Air
Act calls for her to set that standard. She set it based on good
science. The President has said that those standards are to go into
place. It is going to take maybe as much as a decade to reach those
standards.
In the meantime, we can evaluate the science as more information
might come up. We can develop implementation plans that are commonsense
plans.
We were told in 1990, no more power lawnmowers, no more backyard
barbecues. You cannot have a strong Clean Air Act. It will drive people
out of business. People will lose their jobs. It is just not true. That
has not been the reality. The dire consequences that industry has
predicted have not and will not come to pass.
Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that the law was adopted in 1990,
and we are now in the seventh year of an economic boom. We can show
Members the statements made by some of these same people that are
making these statements today, that our economy is going to be lost. So
I want to put a little sense of perspective in this debate when Members
come here with a great deal of anguish about the Clean Air Act.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my
colleague yielding. He and I have worked together regarding clean air
matters for many a decade, and indeed, in the California Legislature we
worked on the establishment of what is the toughest air quality
management district in the country.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Waxman was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, upon arriving in Congress, I
was privileged to join my colleague in sponsoring legislation that
would lead to the development of alternative fuel sources for
automobiles. Indeed, we are both committed to this subject area.
However, I would say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman]
that I think he knows that I am among those who now are concerned that
we make absolutely certain that we move along a pathway that is based
upon sound science, particularly as it relates to people's health. That
has to be our priority. But indeed, at this moment I am concerned about
the kind of information flows that are coming between the Environmental
Protection Agency, the administration, and the Congress.
The gentleman has taken some steps, I believe, to help improve that
communication. Some of those channels opened just recently. I
appreciate that. But it is most important to me that we not take steps
without sound science if those steps would lead to undermining the
credibility our past clean air efforts have developed.
It is a very delicate moment. I certainly do not join those who are
bringing the entire roof down as a result of every proposal, but in the
meantime, that is why we have this funding in here for outside research
by NIEHS to develop sound science and continued scientific work. So I
appreciate continuing to work with the gentleman.
Mr. WAXMAN. Let me say to my good friend, the gentleman from
California, that I know of his work in this area. We have collaborated
together for a strong Clean Air Act. I know he has a strong commitment
to cleaning up the environment and protecting the public health. I join
the gentleman in wanting to be sure that we have good science upon
which we make our determinations.
I think that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
did get good science. Science is never definitive. We are always
learning. That is why I do appreciate the fact that the gentleman is
calling for more money to continue to review the scientific
information.
If there is more information that comes about, an adjustment should
be made and I think that is appropriate. We do not want anything frozen
in any incorrect way. We have to respond to new information and new
circumstances.
But the Clean Air Act, as the gentleman knows, has been a success
because it is based on protecting the public health and based on a
standard that is set, given the latest scientific information we have.
Let us continue to review it, but I think that the standards that are
being promulgated are worthy of going into effect because the science,
I feel, is sufficient for the Administrator to making the
determination.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I look forward to working with the
gentleman.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
(Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and to include extraneous matter).
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding and the
points being made on this act. I appreciate especially the forbearance
of Members who had planned to undo the work. I hope we can work with
the EPA. This is an important issue. I happen to support the position
of the gentleman from California on this, and I urge Members to
continue to review this and monitor it.
Mr. Chairman, I opposed the amendment offered by Representative
Tiahrt to reduce and or defund AmeriCorps but not because I do not care
about our U.S. veterans as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
might have you think. On the contrary, I have nothing but great respect
for the men and women that served our great Nation. It is because of
this very respect for service that I must oppose the Tiahrt amendment.
It goes without saying that we need to research the causes of gulf war
illness, but this is not the appropriate funding with which to conduct
that research. Furthermore, approximately $100 million are provided to
research this illness which too many in positions of authority have
denied even exists.
Last year, more than 25,000 AmeriCorps members served across the
United States. AmeriCorps members assisted more than 11.5 million
people, collected almost 1 million pounds of food, and distributed
5,000 pounds of clothes. Participants in the AmeriCorps program ran
violence-prevention after school programs for nearly 50,000 youth and
developed and distributed almost 40,000 packets of information on drug
abuse, health care, and street safety.
AmeriCorps volunteers immunized almost 65,000 children and adults,
cleaned up over 3,000 neighborhoods, rehabilitated nearly 5,000 housing
units, tutored over 500,000 children, and the list goes on. And let me
not fail to mention the fact that the AmeriCorps Service Program
leveraged almost 700,000 hours of service by unstipened volunteers last
year.
My point is that AmeriCorps works. No matter what my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle may tell you or what groups they may try to
pit against each other--AmeriCorps works and is needed. The stipend
paid AmeriCorps participants is needed by the degreed student graduate
with tens of thousands of loan dollars owed. Graduates today don't have
the financial ability not to respond to this in a modest way with a
stipend.
This spring as all of you I am certain will recall, the Midwest was
ravaged by the most horrible flooding in over 500 years. The floods
were of truly Biblical proportions. People lost their homes, their
belongings, and sometimes even the Main Street in their hometowns.
Volunteers from the AmeriCorps Program did the State of Minnesota and
the entire Midwest an invaluable service--they helped save the
Heartland. AmeriCorps volunteers pitched sandbags, helped displaced
families find emergency shelter, coordinated emergency food and medical
deliveries in addition to leading other volunteers in one of the
toughest battles against nature in five centuries. These teams of
AmeriCorps workers were Red Cross trained and certified and they stayed
with those Midwestern families until the end, and in fact some are
still there working.
So you ask yourself if AmeriCorps is a necessary program and if you
hesitate in your response, I can introduce you to tens of thousands of
people from the flood ravaged plains of the Heartland who could make
you certain that yes, indeed AmeriCorps is a necessary program.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Tiahrt amendment and to
truly defend service. I have an editorial from the St. Paul Pioneer
Press outlining the merits of the AmeriCorps Program which I would like
to submit for the Record.
The material referred to is as follows:

[[Page H5334]]

[From the St. Paul Pioneer Press, June 29, 1997]

AmeriCorps Winning Congress to Its Side

(By Bill Salisbury)

Instead of holding traditional graduation ceremonies, about
350 Youth Works/AmeriCorps members from across Minnesota
traveled to East Grand Forks and Crookston on Thursday and
Friday to help in the ongoing cleanup after this spring's
devastating floods.
To mark completion of their year of community service, the
young volunteers helped child-care providers repair their
homes, unloaded truckloads of donated supplies and removed
sandbags.
While they were toiling in the Red River Valley,
congressional budget-writers here were deliberating over the
fate of AmeriCorps, President Clinton's 4-year-old pet
program that gives students financial aid in exchange for a
year of paid service.
The program is a favorite target of Republican critics, who
see it as a political boondoggle and argue government has no
business promoting volunteerism. They say the 24,000
AmeriCorps members are a drop in the ocean compared to the
estimated 80 million Americans who do charity work of their
own accord.
Critics question whether spending tax dollars on paid
volunteers--each receives a $7,600 living allowance plus a
$4,725 scholarship--should be a high priority in a time of
tight budgets.
Last year, the House voted to zero out AmeriCorps' budget.
It was restored later in negotiations with the Senate.
Former Sen. Harris Wofford, CEO of the Corporation for
National Service, which runs AmeriCorps, answers the critics
by measuring the results of the programs to show that they
``get things done.''
Last week, he trotted out a study of AmeriCorps
accomplishments in 1995-96. In all, the study concluded, more
than 9 million individuals benefited from AmeriCorps service.
Hardly anyone disputes that AmeriCorps volunteers do good
work. The question is: Why do we need full-time, paid
volunteers?
Answers Wofford: ``You can't put part-time volunteers to
use unless full-time people are there to set up the projects
they're working on.'' He believes the AmeriCorps response to
the Red River flood makes the case for full-time
volunteers. At the request of the Red Cross, 15 members of
the program were sent to Grand Forks on April 12.
Other teams followed. They pitched sandbags, rescued flood
victims, helped displaced families, assisted at temporary
shelters, coordinated emergency food delivery and conducted
damage assessments. More than 70 AmeriCorps members were in
the flood region, and teams are still working there.
Trained by the Red Cross in first aid, CPR and other skills
needed in natural disasters, the teams ``provided a cadre of
leaders who organized other volunteers,'' Wofford said.
``They came in fast, and they're staying to the end.''
AmeriCorps volunteer Sheila Slemp, 24, of Big Stone Gap,
Va., just finished a four-week stint in Grand Forks. She
didn't provide much leadership; she did back-breaking work on
a ``mud-out'' crew. They cleaned sludge out of basements.
``Every time you went into a different house, you just
prayed for the drains to work,'' Slemp said. Most didn't, so
the volunteers shoveled the muck into buckets and hauled it
upstairs by hand, all day long. They slept on a college gym
floor at night.
``No matter how tired you were, meeting the people we were
helping made it all worthwhile,'' Slemp said. The homeowners
appreciated the help. Many cried in gratitude, she said.
``Other people told us that we gave them hope not only for
their own future, but hope for the next generation.
``Seeing the expressions on their faces and realizing we
can make such a difference makes it more than worthwhile,''
she said. ``You don't get that kind of satisfaction many
places.''
Slemp is finishing her year of service and preparing to use
her scholarship to attend Case Western Reserve University,
where she plans to get a graduate degree in social program
administration.
It's volunteers like Slemp who seem to have persuaded
Congress that AmeriCorps is worth keeping around after all.
Last week, a House appropriations subcommittee voted to
continue funding AmeriCorps at its current level. That was
just the first hurdle in the budget process, but it probably
was AmeriCorps' biggest obstacle.
It signaled that the biggest program that Clinton has added
to the federal bureaucracy is likely to stick around for a
while.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, whenever we have done clean air legislation
we have done it on a bipartisan basis. It has never been a partisan
issue. It should not be. We have always done it by trying to get all
the very best information, but we should never give in to those who
want to give us that false choice of an economy that is thriving and
jobs on the one hand and protecting the environment on the other. We do
not need to make that choice and history has borne out that we can have
both.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. My fellow
Californian and my close and good friend, the gentleman from
California, Mr. Jerry Lewis, should be commended for crafting a very
responsible bill which will help us lead to cleaner air in the future.
Among its other strengths, it protects veterans, improves housing
programs, and ensures a cleaner environment.
I want to highlight a particularly important provision of the bill,
as we have been discussing. As we know, the President has thrown his
support behind EPA's proposed air quality standards for particulate
matter and ozone. Whether Members support these standards or oppose
them, one thing we should all agree on is that we need to do more
research if we are to guarantee adequate protection for our children
and the elderly.
As the chairman of the subcommittee that authorizes EPA's Office of
Research and Development, I introduced a bill which passed through
Congress and through our committee on a bipartisan basis unanimously to
provide research money above the administration's request.
In three hearings we held on the matter, the scientific experts all
concluded that the science was inadequate at this time. They said we
needed additional funding to get at the very basic questions about the
health effects of ozone, and particularly small particulates at the
2.5-micron-and-below size.
I am pleased that the gentleman from San Bernardino worked closely
with me to provide the funds in this bill, and it is further evidence
of his dedication to a cleaner environment. I congratulate the
gentleman and thank him for his work.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to this discussion of these clean
air standards promulgated by EPA with some interest. I am very glad
that EPA has promulgated these standards. There has been increasing
scientific evidence for a long time, and in particular with respect to
the very small particulate matter which previously was thought not to
have deleterious impacts on health and now we know has the most severe
impact on health.
I think it noteworthy that it was the scientific people in EPA who
said to promulgate these standards. Where did the questioning come
from? Not from the scientific people, the health people, but from
people in the Office of Management and Budget, from people concerned
with budgets and economics.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from California [Mr.
Waxman]. History shows us that it is a false choice to say the
environment or jobs. We have had much more stringent environmental
regulations than previously and we have had the greatest boom in recent
history. What history shows us is that far from being an economic
detriment, stronger compliance with clean air standards, stronger clean
air standards, leads to the creation of jobs in attaining the clean air
standards.
Yes, companies have to spend money. Local governments have to spend
money in attaining clean air, higher clean air standards, in cleaning
up emissions. But what do they spend money on? They spend money on more
equipment, on scrubbers, which someone must manufacture. They spend
money. They spend money on technology or on different means of waste
disposal, all of which creates jobs. So I do not think that there is a
conflict here.
But even if there were a conflict, how do you say to a mother of a
child dying from asthma, or a middle-aged person in severe respiratory
distress, ``That is too bad, it would have cost an extra penny
cigarette tax or an extra 2 cents gasoline tax to save your life and
the lives of several thousand people like you''? I do not see how we
make that equation. I would not want to be in the position of having to
explain that to people in health difficulties.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, it is a good point the
gentleman is making. The fact is, we hear a lot about this questioning
of scientific data on this issue. The fact is, we can talk to any
pulmonary physician, any doctor that takes care of people with asthma,
emphysema, any kind

[[Page H5335]]

of pulmonary disorder, and they will tell us, when any region of the
country is in noncompliance they see a correlation between that region
of the country being in noncompliance and a higher rate of incidence of
asthma and hospitalizations due to pulmonary disorders.
So there is not a lot of confusion. There should not be any confusion
on this floor about the health effects of air pollution, and most
particularly on a day like today, when we are seeing a red alert here
in the District of Columbia and in my region in New England. We are
seeing higher hospitalizations as a result of this poor air quality.
Woe be on us if we do not do something to improve the air quality by
moving forward with these EPA recommended standards.
Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
He is entirely right. Any doctor will tell us that, especially with the
ozone and the small particulate matter these regulations will for the
first time deal with.
The gentlemen say that these new regulations will put 400 counties
into noncompliance. That may be so. But that does not tell us that that
is a terrible thing. That is a good thing. It means that we will start
bringing up the breathability of the air in those 400 counties so
people do not die or suffer health effects from breathing bad air in
those 400 counties.
My own county of New York County is in noncompliance with current
regulations. I wish the enforcement of EPA were stronger so we could
get our city and State governments to take stronger action that some of
us have been fighting for for years. So the fact that lots of areas
will not be in compliance says we have now discovered that they are not
in compliance, it is a fact of physics, it is a fact of health, it is
not a thing to be deplored, and that we will now start curing that
problem.
Again, there is no economic problem. We are told always that there is
an economic problem. History does not bear that out. The science is
good science. Those who oppose this science, we hear every time when we
come to this, the industry says it is bad science. It is like the
tobacco companies saying that the Surgeon General and EPA had bad
science. I trust the professionals and EPA to make those decisions more
than I trust people in industry with a vested interest, or for that
matter, people in this House who have political and other interests.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Nadler was allowed to proceed for 30
additional seconds.)
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, these decisions ought to be made on the
basis of the health and scientific evidence. That is why the Clean Air
Act asks the EPA to update this data every 5 years. They have done
that. We should not interpose a political judgment. If we need help for
governments, local governments, for industries to attain these clean
air standards, let us legislate that. Let us appropriate money if
necessary. But let the science be the science. Let the health of our
citizens be paramount. Let us protect our people.
Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I realize we are on title III, but since title II
passed so fast, I did not get the chance to offer my amendment. For 5
years I have struggled with the Department of Housing and Urban
Development to help the citizens of my district in Houston.
Houston is a city with a growing population, and with this growth
there is a definite need to address the issues of more affordable
housing and access to HUD programs.

{time} 1415

Over the past 5 years I have tried to work with HUD and have received
various verbal commitments and assurances that Houston, the fourth
largest city in the Nation, would receive the necessary HUD staff and
programs to be an effective agency for the citizens of Houston.
I have written numerous letters to HUD about this request. In fact,
in a 1994 HUD memo from the Secretary's office, it suggested that the
Houston field office be upgraded and receive all the available
programs. Again, Houston is the fourth largest city in the country, and
out of the 10 largest metropolitan areas, Houston is the only one
without a fully serviceable HUD office.
With this amendment, I was going to send a message, realizing that on
an appropriations bill we cannot legislate, but I was going to send a
message to HUD that the citizens of Houston need an office of community
planning and development and also an Office of Inspector General,
making all HUD programs available in our Nation's fourth largest city.
The office of community planning and development provides technical
assistance and the monitoring of State and local entities receiving
Federal funds to assist with elderly and disabled housing loans, CDBG
and funds for Houston's enhanced enterprise community.
When I go back to my district and I talk to seniors and families and
local elected officials from Houston and from Pasadena, they all have
some concerns about housing for the elderly. An office of community
planning and development would aid the citizens in my district and the
district of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen] to gain access and
administer funds to renovate, locate, and build elderly housing. This
office also oversees the funding and provides technical assistance to
Houston's enhanced enterprise community.
HUD came up with a great idea to provide funds to local governments
to help their economically disadvantaged areas. These areas are called
Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Communities. Through tax breaks to
businesses and access to Federal funds, HUD hoped to revitalize
disadvantaged areas. Houston has an enhanced enterprise community. We
have access to almost $200 million to help revitalize parts of Houston.
It would be a shame not to have a local HUD office that could work with
us.
Another program office that we do not have and is very needed is the
office of inspector general. An office of inspector general has the
mission to locate fraud, waste, and abuse in HUD programs. The most
recent and blatant misuse of taxpayers' dollars is the dealer portion
of the title I program. The title I program is designed to give people
an opportunity to fix and improve their homes.
Unfortunately, there are some people who took advantage of this
program for their own gains. The dealer portion of title I allowed a
contractor to solicit homeowners into applying for a loan. Then the
contractor would receive the money directly, do partial improvements,
and keep the rest of the money while the homeowner had to foot the
bill.
KTKR-TV in Houston investigated this abuse and they reported a
whopping $50 million was stolen by corrupt dealers in Texas alone. They
confronted contractors and even went to the HUD office here in
Washington looking for answers. HUD's response was to eliminate the
dealer portion of title I, which helped us, but again we could have
caught this long before. If we had had an inspector general in Houston
instead of being in the nearest office which is Fort Worth. Fort Worth,
which is 200 miles from us, and with their budget crunch we could not
get people to travel from Fort Worth to Houston to do the
investigation. Again, this happened in the fourth largest city in the
Nation.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GREEN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to echo the gentleman's
comments. This is very important. I am sorry that the gentleman was not
able to offer his amendment. But we are talking about the fourth
largest city in the Nation, the third largest county in the Nation.
The fact is that there are other offices in smaller areas, smaller
cities such as Miami, Albuquerque, where HUD has put the resources. We
are not asking necessarily for additional staff but we are asking for
the powers to address these problems, to ensure that the HUD programs
are carried out properly and that we do not have the abuses like we
have had with the title I program.
I commend the gentleman for offering his amendment or speaking on it.

[[Page H5336]]

Mr. GREEN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, again the amendment was
not germane because we cannot legislate on this appropriations bill.
Again, the purpose of this amendment was to give us an opportunity to
talk about Houston's situation. I appreciate both the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the
ranking member, for their assistance in working on this issue.
This did not just came up yesterday. We have a chronology of letters
starting in 1995, but also personal visits for 5 years with HUD
officials to talk about upgrading the office and needs of Houston. HUD,
plain and simple, has been unresponsive to the needs of the citizens of
Houston. Because of this, those of us who share Houston, Mr. Chairman,
will be back and looking to see that the citizens of Houston get the
service they deserve.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GREEN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Green] has
expired.
(On request of Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, and by unanimous consent,
Mr. Green was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud the
gentleman for his foresight on this amendment. I am sorry that his
amendment was not offered. I wanted to join him in the great concern
for an enhanced HUD office in the Houston area serving all of our
districts.
Particularly I want to emphasize the need for an inspector general,
and, as well, the gentleman is right with the enterprise zone money. We
want the best utilization of those enterprise zone moneys, and a
planning component would be vital. I hope HUD will listen to us. I hope
that we can again have another meeting, this time with Secretary Cuomo,
on this very important issue that would help enhance this area.
Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, again, I thank the chairman for the
commitment to work with us over the next year, and we will be looking
for other opportunities to address the needs of Houston.
Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the chairman in a brief colloquy
regarding the Center for Space Power. The Center for Space Power is
located at Texas A&M University in College Station, TX, in the Eighth
District which I represent. The center provides many positive benefits
to the space industry, such as developing technologies for space power,
commercial ventures, and conducting research and development for space
power with NASA.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to work with the gentleman to request
inclusion of language from last year's appropriation legislation which
recognizes the very positive contributions of the Center for Space
Power and urges NASA to continue to support this activity, and hope
that the chairman agrees with me.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BRADY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the
gentleman bringing this to my attention one more time and in doing so
representing his district so well. I thank the gentleman for his
remarks and pledge to work with him on the issue as we move through the
conference with the Senate.
I might add further, for the Members, the amendment pending is
supported by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and me. It will be
passed by a voice vote, and following that I believe we will get to the
end of the title and have a series of votes at that point in time.
Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

major research equipment

For necessary expenses of major construction projects
pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as
amended, $175,000,000, to remain available until expended.

education and human resources

For necessary expenses in carrying out science and
engineering education and human resources programs and
activities pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act of
1950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875), including services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and rental of conference rooms in
the District of Columbia, $632,500,000, to remain available
until September 30, 1999: Provided, That to the extent that
the amount of this appropriation is less than the total
amount authorized to be appropriated for included program
activities, all amounts including floors and ceilings,
specified in the authorizing Act for those program activities
or their subactivities shall be reduced proportionally.

salaries and expenses

For salaries and expenses necessary in carrying out the
National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42
U.S.C. 1861-1875); services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire
of passenger motor vehicles, not to exceed $9,000 for
official reception and representation expenses; uniforms or
allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902;
rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia;
reimbursement of the General Services Administration for
security guard services and headquarters relocation;
$136,950,000: Provided, That contracts may be entered into
under ``Salaries and expenses'' in fiscal year 1998 for
maintenance and operation of facilities, and for other
services, to be provided during the next fiscal year.

office of inspector general

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
as authorized by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, $4,850,000, to remain available until September 30,
1999.

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

payment to the neighborhood reinvestment corporation

For payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
for use in neighborhood reinvestment activities, as
authorized by the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act
(42 U.S.C. 8101-8107), $70,000,000.

Selective Service System

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Selective Service System,
including expenses of attendance at meetings and of training
for uniformed personnel assigned to the Selective Service
System, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 4101-4118 for civilian
employees; and not to exceed $1,000 for official reception
and representation expenses; $23,413,000: Provided, That
during the current fiscal year, the President may exempt this
appropriation from the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 1341, whenever
he deems such action to be necessary in the interest of
national defense: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated by this Act may be expended for or in connection
with the induction of any person into the Armed Forces of the
United States.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Wise

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Wise:
At the end of title III, insert the following:

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (Including Transfer of
Funds)

For necessary expenses of the Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board, as authorized by section 112(r)(6) of
the Clean Air Act, $3,000,000 which shall be derived by
transfer from amounts made available in the account for
``ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY--Environmental Programs and
Management''.

Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, following the discussion I believe there are
several Members that wish to discuss this. The agreement I had with our
chairman and ranking member was that we would then move to or ask
permission to withdraw the amendment.
It is important to have this amendment up for discussion. What this
amendment does is to remove, to transfer, not to remove but to transfer
$3 million from the EPA Environmental Programs and Management Fund to
the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. What is the
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board? A very good question.
It is a board that was created by this Congress in 1990. And it was
directed that there be five appointees by the President in creating
this board that is similar to the National Transportation Safety Board.
The Chemical Safety Board was established as an independent agency
modeled after the Transportation Safety Board and charged with
investigating and reporting findings concerning chemical-related
accidents.
In 1994 the Senate actually confirmed three of the President's
nominees as board members. Three of the five have been confirmed by the
Senate. However, since then the administration, and particularly the
Office of Management and Budget, have refused to submit the board's
budget to the Congress of the United States.

[[Page H5337]]

What we are doing is asking in this amendment that the Congress take
some of the money that is necessary for the operation of this board and
actually give it to the board.
You might ask, why is it the administration has refused to act upon
and mandate a directive of the Congress? The administration says that
in the investigation of chemical accidents, that the EPA and OSHA can
do the same job. But that is not what the Congress thought in 1990. In
fact, the Congress directed that in creating the Chemical Safety Board
in the same manner as the National Transportation Safety Board, that it
would be able to have enhanced ability to investigate the root causes
of chemical accidents and chemical incidents.
The purpose is to create a board similar to the National
Transportation Safety Board, a board which would have authority to
investigate and report on root causes of chemical accidents, a board
that would not assign blame for specific accidents, and indeed a board
in which the information presented to it could not be used for
prosecution or litigation; in other words, a board that all parties
could feel comfortable working with.
Does this take away the very important powers of the EPA and OSHA?
No, it does not. They still have their regulatory powers. They still
have their prosecutorial powers. They still have their investigative
powers. But this board would be able to get at the root causes in ways
that the EPA and OSHA never could.
The administration claims that there is a memorandum of understanding
fully functional between EPA and OSHA that makes it unnecessary to have
this board. Not the case. In the roughly two years that OSHA and EPA
have operated under the board's function, they have produced no joint
reports on accidents, sometimes in violation of their own deadlines.
Perhaps they do not work as well together as they should.
At any rate, this board is directed to do exactly what EPA and OSHA
are not doing so well together. This board is the only entity that has
the solid statutory and legal authority to investigate accidents. The
root causes of accidents are what we are trying to get at. Is there a
pattern? How can you avert that pattern? That is what this board is
about.
The board commands community support. It has industrial support. It
has union support. Indeed, much as the National Transportation Safety
Board has provided the necessary credibility and the necessary research
into the cause of aviation and railroad and other accidents, so the
Chemical Safety Board would do the same. It has a chairman, Paul Hill,
who has a great deal of respect. He is presently chair and president of
the National Institute of Chemical Studies created in my State of West
Virginia following the Bhopal tragedy.
What he has done there in some ways, in many ways is what is trying
to be done on a national level. It has two other board members. They
are called upon to go out and investigate accidents. The only problem
is they have no money to get there. They have nothing that they can do
once they are there.
So what this amendment would seek to do is to send a clear statement
to the administration that what Congress has directed that you create,
namely, the Chemical Safety Board, that a board in which there are
already three presidential appointees, not only appointees nominated
but appointees confirmed by the Senate, indeed a board that has powers
unique to itself and very important to the true investigation of
chemical-related accidents, that this board be adequately funded.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WISE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me. I thank him very much for offering this amendment and
for the committee's indulgence in our consideration of this amendment.
I believe that this is a terribly important amendment. Like the
gentleman from West Virginia, I represent a constituency that has many
petrochemical industries within the boundaries of my congressional
district. We have refineries and we have manufacturers of chemicals and
users of those chemicals.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise]
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Miller of California, and by unanimous consent,
Mr. Wise was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)

{time} 1430

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman makes
an important point that this board holds out the prospect of allowing
the communities and the industries to cohabitate, because the industry
knows that it can invite this board in to look at the root causes of
these serious accidents and explosions and other incidents and not
suffer the concern about liability; that this evidence or this
discussion or this investigation can be used in litigation. And then
they can share that with others in the industry in similarly situated
facilities and hopefully reduce and improve their efficiency, reduce
the accidents and have some confidence of the community that, in fact,
an effort is made to get to the root causes.
In my own community we have suffered a number of accidents in this
recent year, but the problem is that the community has lost its faith
in the regulatory agencies. They are in a confrontation with the
regulator, with the industries. They have lost their faith in the
industry. I believe this board can provide a circuit breaker so we can
get back to a discussion of the problems that confront these
industries.
I just wondered if the gentleman knows, my understanding is this
memorandum of understanding has not been completed, and EPA itself has
some serious questions about whether or not they have the authority to
conduct their part that has been assigned to them by the
administration.
Mr. WISE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the memorandum is truly
nonfunctional at this point, is my understanding, and the two agencies
simply are not working together, either under it or in any other
context, as they should be.
And, indeed, as the gentleman points out, they will never be able to
perform the purpose of this board because they do bring the
prosecutorial side to it and the regulatory side.
Mr. MILLER of California. If the gentleman will continue to yield,
the industry has got to be reluctant to allow EPA in because EPA has
another function. OSHA has another function. That is, in fact, they
have to fine them or deal with the industries in a regulatory sense if
they see these flaws. And yet those are the same agencies we are asking
to come in and do an impartial discussion, investigation of the root
causes.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, this is like if someone knows they have a
problem and they want to clean it up but the only person they can
invite in is the policeman and the prosecuting attorney.
Mr. MILLER of California. Exactly. That is the importance. And I
would hope that the committee, in further deliberations, would consider
funding this board.
I think this board that was arrived at is an answer that was arrived
at by industry, by concerned citizens, by professional organizations so
that we could, in fact, get to the root causes of some tragic, tragic
accidents, that I will go into in a moment here that have happened not
only in my district but elsewhere in the country; and, again, I thank
the gentleman for offering his amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise]
has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Wise was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say that, for those who
would feel that it is hard to make progress sometimes when there is
only an option of more prosecution or more regulation, then this board,
I think, meets those concerns because the information derived from its
findings cannot be used in prosecution or litigation. For those who
believe from an environmental standpoint that we need more
investigation of chemical accidents, this board also meets those
concerns.
That is why I am grateful for the bipartisan support, such as the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox],

[[Page H5338]]

the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller], and others who have been so active in
promoting this.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment.
I first want to thank the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise],
the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] and the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Boehlert] for their leadership on this issue.
I rise with my colleagues to offer the amendment. In offering the
amendment we wish to raise awareness on an environmental and safety
issue which is nonregulatory in nature. We are asking the House to act
and appropriate funds for the chemical safety and hazard investigation
board. It is our belief this board has the potential to save lives
through its findings and to enhance the public's trust of Government
and industry.
Created under the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, the Chemical Safety
Board was and is a forward-thinking concept, a board that would
investigate the root causes of accidents without threatening companies
with litigation or enforcement actions which may come as a result of
the involvement of a regulatory agency such as EPA or OSHA.
The board will allow more thorough investigations of accidents such
as the explosion and fire in a tank farm and oil plant in Freedom, PA,
which left three employees dead. The board's findings may prevent
further accidents such as the hydrogen peroxide explosion at a chemical
plant in Linwood, PA, which left one plant worker dead.
I too share the concerns of many who have followed the board's
history concerning the creation of a new Federal agency. However, it is
my belief and that of others that the benefits that may accrue to the
public, industry, and Government far outweigh this particular concern.
A nonregulatory body such as this, modeled after the respected National
Transportation Safety Board, will lead to greater cooperation between
industry, labor, communities, and governments in the interest of public
safety. Only the board will have the statutory authority to do this
kind of work in the most effective manner and many in industry are
beginning to recognize this.
I would prefer to see this board conduct the necessary investigations
rather than another agency. Our amendment would take $3 million already
appropriated and direct it to the board.
We are interested in working with the chairman, who has done an
outstanding job with the bill and with the committee and my colleagues
to ensure that, should the board be funded, it would be closely watched
and held to its primary mission of investigating accidents and
providing safety recommendations for workers.
In that regard I ask that my colleagues support our call for a
nonregulatory body which would enhance public safety.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] for
his support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from West
Virginia [Mr. Wise].
Mr. Chairman, in January of this year a hydrocracker reactor exploded
at an oil refinery in my district and killed a worker, Michael
Glanzman, and injured 44 others in a blast that could be felt 20 miles
away.
The year before that, again in my district, two workers were injured
when a hydrogen unit blew up. The explosion sent a 24-inch elbow pipe
which crashed into a trailer normally filled with workers but,
thankfully, was empty during the accident.
In 1993 a toxic cloud of sulfuric acid spread throughout one area of
my district, sending thousands of residents to the hospital and
spurring a widespread effort to provide a better warning system to the
local community in the event of future industrial accidents. These
accidents have cost these industries tens of millions of dollars.
The amendment offered by my colleague from West Virginia on behalf of
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], the gentleman from
California [Mr. Waxman], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and
the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] seeks to devote adequate
resources to prevent the kinds of horrific industrial chemical
accidents that have killed and injured workers by the score over the
years, terrifying and polluting our communities across this Nation.
The Chemical Safety Board, if funded today, would help prevent fatal
chemical accidents from occurring in the future. It will not do so by
punishing companies for past accidents but by providing information on
those accidents so that the industry can learn from their mistakes
rather than simply pay for them.
While responsible parties must accept blame in the face of
appropriate penalties for violations of the law, the board's job is not
to assign blame. That is the job of the regulatory agencies. The
reports prepared by the board cannot be used to sue chemical companies
or to prosecute them. The board will determine whether the accident is
just that or whether systematic errors are at the heart of the tragedy,
systematic errors that can be addressed and hopefully be remedied.
The board is modeled after the National Transportation Safety Board,
which has helped to make flight one of the safest means of travel in
the world. The Chemical Safety Board is an investigatory board that
examines the root causes of industrial accidents resulting in serious
injuries, fatalities and major property damage.
Mr. Chairman, the Congress was correct when in 1990 it established a
Chemical Safety Board. It has erred, however, in failing to fund that
board since then.
The current system of root cause investigation is unacceptable.
President Clinton, in an effort to reinvent government, divided the
board's responsibilities and assigned them to the EPA and to OSHA.
EPA, part of the overall funding increase in this bill, has been
given additional funding to carry out this mission. OSHA, on the other
hand, has been asked to perform this with additional responsibility
with no additional funding, further taxing the limited resources of
this important agency.
Mr. Chairman, I support the work of EPA and OSHA, but it is improper
and impractical to ask them to carry out the investigation of the root
causes of chemical accidents. EPA and OSHA are regulatory, not
investigatory agencies. For better or worse, they have often had
adversarial relationships with the industries that they are now being
asked to investigate. Moreover, Mr. Chairman, EPA and OSHA are facing
difficulty working together under this vague memorandum of
understanding referred to by the gentleman from West Virginia. In the 2
years since they have taken on the board's mission, they have yet to
produce an accident report jointly, sometimes in violation of these
deadlines.
More importantly, they have questionable statutory authority, a
startling fact noticed by industry. In my own district, EPA officials
approaching a plant to investigate a recent accident were stopped at
the gate by the plant employees who requested written authority to
enter the plant. EPA officials were not able to produce such authority
and I understand were denied entry. The authority, Mr. Chairman,
resides completely within the Chemical Safety Board.
This does not sound like prevention to me. I understand there is
support for the efforts in the Senate, and I would urge the
subcommittee chairman and the ranking member to consider supporting
amendments today to transfer to the board and give funds to EPA to do
the board's work. It is not a large amount of money, but the board is
not a large institution. Let us fund the mission, let us send a message
to the communities like mine and so many others across the country that
Congress supports an effort to make them a safer place to live.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague from
California yielding, and I appreciate very much the way the gentleman
from California, as well as the gentleman from West Virginia, are
dealing with this issue today.
There is little doubt that the House needs to clarify what is not
occurring as a result of both the Congress and the administration's
past directions. The

[[Page H5339]]

problem is a very real problem that faces the entire country and,
indeed, the Hazardous Chemical Safety Board should not be in the midst
of this, and I look forward to working with the gentlemen who are
effectively concerned about the issue and appreciate the manner in
which they are handling it today.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I
appreciate the gentleman's consideration in allowing us to discuss this
amendment, and I hope we can work with him in the future to make sure
the full authority is restored to this board as well as its funding.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask you to support the Wise amendment to
the VA-HUD-independent agencies appropriations bill. The amendment
would reallocate to the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
the $3 million the Environmental Protection Agency has asked for to
perform the functions of the Board.
Mr. Chairman, just last month:
One train worker was killed, two were injured, and hundreds of people
shut themselves in their homes for hours after a train carrying
hazardous chemicals rear-ended a coal train and burst into flames near
Charleston, WV;
Five employees were sent to the hospital after a chemical spill at a
silicon chip plant in San Jose;
Four workers were sent to the hospital after an unexplained escape of
toxic chemical vapors from a tanker truck in Buffalo;
Two high school seniors and a science teacher were sent to the
hospital after a bottle of hydrochloric acid toppled over during
chemistry class in Orange County, CA;
Two workers were hospitalized for hydrogen cyanide exposure following
a spill at a chemical plant near Memphis;
Two people were sent to the hospital after a chemical spill at a
chemical waste management business near Dayton;
One employee was sent to the hospital after a chemical spill at a
factory in Mesa, AZ;
Three hundred people were evacuated after a tanker truck carrying
toluene crashed in Blacksville, WV;
Hundreds of residents were evacuated after a chlorine spill at a
chemical plant in Watervliet, NY;
Two hundred people were evacuated and nearly two dozen sent to the
hospital after a hydrochloric acid spill from a tanker in Industry, CA;
One hundred people were evacuated in south-central Los Angeles after
the discovery of a toxic acid leak from a pressurized gas cylinder left
in a residential alley;
Residents were evacuated and train traffic disrupted after a
hydrochloric acid spill in Albany, NY; and
Rush hour traffic was snarled for hours after a tanker truck full of
corrosive chemicals crashed south of Boston.
Every year thousands of chemical accidents are reported to the
Federal Government, resulting in death, injury, evacuation, and
disruption of the economy. That is why, in the reauthorization of the
Clean Air Act in 1990, Congress established the Chemical Safety and
Hazard Investigation Board. The Board was intended to be an independent
body investigating the root causes of chemical accidents and
recommending approaches of preventing them, operating much like the
respected National Transportation Safety Board.
We need the Board today, just as badly as we needed it in 1990. I
urge you to support the Wise amendment and full funding of the Chemical
Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, in the hopes that just as the House has
listened, the Office of Management and Budget has also been listening.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
West Virginia?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 184, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed,
in the following order:
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], and the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner].
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is 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)''.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 322,
noes 110, not voting 2, as follows:

[Roll No. 276]

AYES--322

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snyder
Solomon
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)

NOES--110

Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barton
Bateman
Bilbray
Bliley
Boehner
Boswell
Brady
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Chenoweth
Clyburn
Coburn

[[Page H5340]]

Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crapo
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehrlich
Fawell
Foley
Fowler
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Goss
Graham
Gutknecht
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Livingston
Lucas
McCollum
McCrery
McIntosh
McKeon
Meek
Miller (FL)
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Nussle
Oberstar
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Radanovich
Riggs
Ros-Lehtinen
Ryun
Scarborough
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Smith (OR)
Snowbarger
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stump
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
White
Wolf

NOT VOTING--2

Schiff
Young (AK)

{time} 1520

Messrs. WATKINS, SOUDER, and SPRATT changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Messrs. DAVIS of Virginia, HALL of Texas, RUSH, PEASE, LoBIONDO,
BRYANT, GIBBONS, TOWNS, SESSIONS, SMITH of Michigan, BEREUTER, CRAMER,
GOODLATTE, DIXON, ENSIGN, GALLEGLY, FRANKS of New Jersey, DAVIS of
Illinois, REDMOND, CASTLE, EHLERS, FRELINGHUYSEN, BERRY, QUINN, LAZIO
of New York, PETERSON of Pennsylvania, CUNNINGHAM, LaHOOD, EWING,
ROGAN, JEFFERSON, HERGER, YOUNG of Florida, HASTINGS of Washington,
SOLOMON, SAXTON, CANNON, WATT of North Carolina, LEWIS of Kentucky,
KASICH, OWENS, SALMON, METCALF, REGULA, HILL, GOODLING, CUMMINGS,
SKEEN, CHABOT, LAMPSON, GREENWOOD, FOX of Pennsylvania, DEAL of
Georgia, SENSENBRENNER, ADERHOLT, RILEY, LINDER, BASS, SHIMKUS, ENGLISH
of Pennsylvania, WALSH, COLLINS, MICA, NORWOOD, Mrs. KELLY, Mrs.
EMERSON, Mrs. CUBIN, Mrs. NORTHUP, Mrs. CLAYTON, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of
Texas, Ms. KAPTUR, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Ms. MOLINARI, and Messrs. WELDON
of Pennsylvania, HOEKSTRA, BARR of Georgia, CALLAHAN, HAYWORTH,
EVERETT, PORTMAN, Ms. GRANGER, and Messrs. COMBEST, WYNN, SMITH of
Texas, McDADE, CHAMBLISS, CALVERT, KIM, BARRETT of Nebraska, McINTYRE,
BONILLA, BLUNT, WICKER, GILLMOR, BISHOP, THUNE, ROGERS, LARGENT, BONO,
PICKERING, HILLEARY, HOBSON, CRANE, COBLE, WATTS of Oklahoma, Ms.
MILLENDER-McDONALD, Ms. BROWN of Florida, and Mr. RANGEL changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

amendment offered by mr. stokes

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

recorded vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 244,
noes 187, not voting 3, as follows:

[Roll No. 277]

AYES--244

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hefley
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Norwood
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOES--187

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Brady
Brown (FL)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Cannon
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Cook
Cooksey
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Ryun
Salmon
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Wicker
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--3

Schiff
Torres
Young (AK)

{time} 1529

Mrs. KELLY changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Sensenbrenner] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed on voice vote.

[[Page H5341]]

The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 278]

AYES--200

Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Borski
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burton
Buyer
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Carson
Chabot
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
Delahunt
Dellums
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doyle
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Ewing
Fattah
Fawell
Frank (MA)
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hamilton
Hastert
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McInnis
McIntosh
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moakley
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Morella
Nadler
Nethercutt
Neumann
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pappas
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Quinn
Ramstad
Riggs
Rivers
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thune
Tierney
Traficant
Upton
Vento
Visclosky
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Whitfield
Woolsey
Yates
Young (FL)

NOES--227

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barton
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bunning
Burr
Callahan
Calvert
Capps
Cardin
Castle
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooksey
Cramer
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
King (NY)
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Lampson
Lantos
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Livingston
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
Meek
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Neal
Ney
Northup
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rahall
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riley
Rodriguez
Rogan
Rogers
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Scott
Sessions
Shaw
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Smith (OR)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Stenholm
Stokes
Stump
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Towns
Turner
Velazquez
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Wynn

NOT VOTING--7

Gonzalez
Portman
Rangel
Schiff
Spratt
Torres
Young (AK)

{time} 1538

Mr. FORBES changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. SKELTON and Mr. PALLONE changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Personal explanation

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, because I was unavoidably detained, I was
not in attendance for rollcall vote No. 278.
Had I been in attendance, I would have voted ``aye''.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 401. Where appropriations in titles I, II, and III of
this Act are expendable for travel expenses and no specific
limitation has been placed thereon, the expenditures for such
travel expenses may not exceed the amounts set forth
therefore in the budget estimates submitted for the
appropriations: Provided, That this provision does not apply
to accounts that do not contain an object classification for
travel: Provided further, That this section shall not apply
to travel performed by uncompensated officials of local
boards and appeal boards of the Selective Service System; to
travel performed directly in connection with care and
treatment of medical beneficiaries of the Department of
Veterans Affairs; to travel performed in connection with
major disasters or emergencies declared or determined by the
President under the provisions of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; to travel
performed by the Offices of Inspector General in connection
with audits and investigations; or to payments to interagency
motor pools where separately set forth in the budget
schedules: Provided further, That if appropriations in titles
I, II, and III exceed the amounts set forth in budget
estimates initially submitted for such appropriations, the
expenditures for travel may correspondingly exceed the
amounts therefore set forth in the estimates in the same
proportion.
Sec. 402. Appropriations and funds available for the
administrative expenses of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development and the Selective Service System shall be
available in the current fiscal year for purchase of
uniforms, or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
5901-5902; hire of passenger motor vehicles; and services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
Sec. 403. Funds of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development subject to the Government Corporation Control Act
or section 402 of the Housing Act of 1950 shall be available,
without regard to the limitations on administrative expenses,
for legal services on a contract or fee basis, and for
utilizing and making payment for services and facilities of
Federal National Mortgage Association, Government National
Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation,
Federal Financing Bank, Federal Reserve banks or any member
thereof, Federal Home Loan banks, and any insured bank within
the meaning of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Act,
as amended (12 U.S.C. 1811-1831).
Sec. 404. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 405. No funds appropriated by this Act may be
expended--
(1) pursuant to a certification of an officer or employee
of the United States unless--
(A) such certification is accompanied by, or is part of, a
voucher or abstract which describes the payee or payees and
the items or services for which such expenditure is being
made, or
(B) the expenditure of funds pursuant to such
certification, and without such a voucher or abstract, is
specifically authorized by law; and
(2) unless such expenditure is subject to audit by the
General Accounting Office or is specifically exempt by law
from such audit.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank the chairman, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the ranking member of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] for the work they
have done on this bill. As the distinguished chairman from California
knows, I was inclined to offer an amendment to title II

[[Page H5342]]

of this bill to increase the community development block grant by $25
million for the redevelopment of polluted urban brownfield sites. I
understand that the chairman supports brownfields redevelopment, but
has some concerns about dealing with this particular initiative which
has not been authorized in this bill. I can appreciate that. By
agreement, we have decided not to offer the amendment today.
I would like to speak for a few minutes, however, about the need to
undertake brownfields development.

{time} 1545

I was disappointed to learn that this legislation today does not
include the $25 million request from the administration to the
Department of Housing and Urban Development for grants for
redevelopment of brownfields. As Members know, title I of the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, authorizes the
Secretary of HUD to make grants to units of local government and States
for local community development programs. The primary objective of the
block grant program is to develop viable urban communities and to
expand economic opportunities, principally for low and moderate income
persons.
Mr. Chairman, that gets to the heart of what I, along with my
colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], today am trying
to do here. The money we are talking about in this amendment would go
toward the block grant program to develop these viable urban
communities and expand economic opportunities.
I can say that spending a lot of time in my own community, I know how
vital redevelopment of brownfields can be in urban areas and how
exciting it can be when these areas are redeveloped. As it is,
brownfields are a blight on our urban and rural landscape. They are
oftentimes abandoned industrial or commercial sites which remained
undeveloped due to the uncertainty which surrounds them. There is an
estimate that there are approximately 450,000 brownfield sites around
the country, many of them in urban areas but also some in suburban and
rural areas.
I have been encouraged by the administration's brownfields request
for the EPA brownfields initiative and that it has been appropriated
$85 million. However, this money is to be used only for assessment
activities, not for cleanup actions and redevelopment.
I have personal experience with brownfields because I sponsored
successful legislation in Colorado in 1993 which has now been used for
over 60 brownfield sites in the State of Colorado, not simply
assessment but to actually clean up those sites.
If we are truly to clean up our urban communities, if we are truly to
develop urban areas, then we need to look at all possible areas in the
Government, not just the EPA but also HUD, to really appropriate money.
So that is why I am pleased that the chairman and the ranking member
have both agreed to work with us to find as much money as we can to put
towards this brownfields redevelopment, and I do want to thank the
Chair for recognizing me today.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to join with my colleague from Colorado
in her effort. I understand, as she said, that this amendment on
brownfields redevelopment will not be offered, but we did want to make
a statement about why we think that the substance of that amendment is
significant. Basically what the gentlewoman says is that this $25
million in additional funds would provide incentives to actually
redevelop the brownfield sites.
I want to also mention that I am pleased with what the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] did to
include $85 million in the bill for the brownfields assessment program.
That is, of course, the assessment program. We, however, would like to
see some additional money available, as was mentioned by the
gentlewoman, for actual incentives to redevelop the sites.
I wanted to mention, Mr. Chairman, that in June there were 85 House
Members on a bipartisan basis who sent a letter to the chairman and the
ranking member in support of the President's request for a significant
increase in the EPA's brownfields assessment program, and I wanted to
thank the gentlewoman from Colorado [Ms. DeGette], the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. Maloney] and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays]
for joining me in initiating that letter of support; also the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the ranking member, who has been a
constant leader on the issue. We have a copy of this letter and a list
of Members who signed it. I will include that letter for the Record.
Let me point out again, Mr. Chairman, that the reason this is
important is because brownfields redevelopment has been and continues
to be a priority for many Members regardless of party affiliation. We
are very much united in this effort to guarantee that our children have
access to open space and economic opportunity by providing incentives
for the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields rather than the
development of pristine open space or the so-called greenfields.
The Clinton administration has been very helpful in assisting States
and local governments in promoting the redevelopment of these
brownfields initiatives. That is why I think it is very important to
continue with this. I just want to say I really believe very strongly
that this is something that could be addressed in conference.
I am obviously concerned that in the bill the subcommittee was not
able to provide the money requested for this economic development grant
program. I understand that there is language that was included that
basically restricts the use of the money provided under the EPA's
program. What I would hope is that when we get to conference, that my
colleagues on the committee would reconsider this limitation so that
money is either added, or at least the restrictive language is taken
away so that some of this money can actually be used for cleanup and
restoration.
Otherwise, I do want to thank the members of the subcommittee for
their work, and again join with my colleague from Colorado in making
this point.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 406. None of the funds provided in this Act to any
department or agency may be expended for the transportation
of any officer or employee of such department or agency
between his domicile and his place of employment, with the
exception of any officer or employee authorized such
transportation under 31 U.S.C. 1344 or 5 U.S.C. 7905.
Sec. 407. None of the funds provided in this Act may be
used for payment, through grants or contracts, to recipients
that do not share in the cost of conducting research
resulting from proposals not specifically solicited by the
Government: Provided, That the extent of cost sharing by the
recipient shall reflect the mutuality of interest of the
grantee or contractor and the Government in the research.
Sec. 408. None of the funds in this Act may be used,
directly or through grants, to pay or to provide
reimbursement for payment of the salary of a consultant
(whether retained by the Federal Government or a grantee) at
more than the daily equivalent of the rate paid for level IV
of the Executive Schedule, unless specifically authorized by
law.
Sec. 409. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be
used to pay the expenses of, or otherwise compensate, non-
Federal parties intervening in regulatory of adjudicatory
proceedings. Nothing herein affects the authority of the
Consumer Product Safety Commission pursuant to section 7 of
the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056 et seq.).
Sec. 410. Except as otherwise provided under existing law
or under an existing Executive Order issued pursuant to an
existing law, the obligation or expenditure of any
appropriation under this Act for contracts for any consulting
service shall be limited to contracts which are (1) a matter
of public record and available for public inspection, and (2)
thereafter included in a publicly available list of all
contracts entered into within twenty-four months prior to the
date on which the list is made available to the public and of
all contracts on which performance has not been completed by
such date. The list required by the preceding sentence shall
be updated quarterly and shall include a narrative
description of the work to be performed under each such
contract.
Sec. 411. Except as otherwise provided by law, no part of
any appropriation contained in this Act shall be obligated or
expended by any executive agency, as referred to in the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 et
seq.), for a contract for services unless such executive
agency (1) has awarded and entered into such contract in full
compliance with such Act and the regulations promulgated
thereunder, and (2) requires any report prepared pursuant to
such contract, including plans, evaluations, studies,
analyses and manuals, and any report prepared by the agency
which is substantially derived from or substantially includes
any report prepared pursuant to such contract, to contain
information concerning (A) the contract

[[Page H5343]]

pursuant to which the report was prepared, and (B) the
contractor who prepared the report pursuant to such contract.
Sec. 412. Except as otherwise provided in section 406, none
of the funds provided in this Act to any department or agency
shall be obligated or expended to provide a personal cook,
chauffeur, or other personal servants to any officer or
employee of such department or agency.
Sec. 413. None of the funds provided in this Act to any
department or agency shall be obligated or expended to
procure passenger automobiles as defined in 15 U.S.C. 2001
with an EPA estimated miles per gallon average of less
than 22 miles per gallon.
Sec. 414. None of the funds appropriated in title I of this
Act shall be used to enter into any new lease of real
property if the estimated annual rental is more than $300,000
unless the Secretary submits, in writing, a report to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Congress and a period of
30 days has expired following the date on which the report is
received by the Committees on Appropriations.
Sec. 415. (a) It is the sense of the Congress that, to the
greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products
purchased with funds made available in this Act should be
American-made.
(b) In providing financial assistance to, or entering into
any contract with, any entity using funds made available in
this Act, the head of each Federal agency, to the greatest
extent practicable, shall provide to such entity a notice
describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the
Congress.
Sec. 416. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
used to implement any cap on reimbursements to grantees for
indirect costs, except as published in Office of Management
and Budget Circular A-21.
Sec. 417. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year
1998 pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be
absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
Sec. 418. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for any program, project, or activity, when it is
made known to the Federal entity or official to which the
funds are made available that the program, project, or
activity is not in compliance with any Federal law relating
to risk assessment, the protection of private property
rights, or unfunded mandates.
Sec. 419. Corporations and agencies of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development which are subject to the
Government Corporation Control Act, as amended, are hereby
authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of
funds and borrowing authority available to each such
corporation or agency and in accord with law, and to make
such contracts and commitments without regard to fiscal year
limitations as provided by section 104 of the Act as may be
necessary in carrying out the programs set forth in the
budget for 1998 for such corporation or agency except as
hereinafter provided: Provided, That collections of these
corporations and agencies may be used for new loan or
mortgage purchase commitments only to the extent expressly
provided for in this Act (unless such loans are in support of
other forms of assistance provided for in this or prior
appropriations Acts), except that this proviso shall not
apply to the mortgage insurance or guaranty operations of
these corporations, or where loans or mortgage purchases are
necessary to protect the financial interest of the United
States Government.
Sec. 420. Notwithstanding section 320(g) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1330(g)), funds made
available pursuant to authorization under such section for
fiscal year 1998 and prior fiscal years may be used for
implementing comprehensive conservation and management plans.

Point of Order

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order against section
420.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, this section violates clause 2 of rule XXI
which prohibits legislation on an appropriations bill. The section
would override section 320(g) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act by authorizing the use of funds for implementation of comprehensive
conservation and management plans.
Current law does not authorize the use of funds for implementation of
plans but only for the development of plans. Therefore, the section is
legislative in nature, in violation of rule XXI, clause 2.
I would also point out, Mr. Chairman, that the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure will be considering the issue of
authorizing and improving the national estuary program during this
Congress. We are very much aware of the need to implement plans to
protect America's estuaries.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members wishing to be heard on the
point of order?
The Chair is prepared to rule. Section 420 of the bill explicitly,
albeit indirectly, amends the Water Pollution Control Act. As such it
constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2(b) of rule XXI. The
point of order is sustained. Section 420 is stricken from the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 421. Such funds as may be necessary to carry out the
orderly termination of the Office of Consumer Affairs shall
be made available from funds appropriated to the Department
of Health and Human Services for fiscal year 1998.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Bentsen

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Bentsen:
Page 76, and after line 17, insert:
Sec. 422. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to implement clauses (ii) through (v) of section
761.93(a)(1) of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(relating to the import of PCB's and PCB items at
concentrations of 50 ppm or greater for disposal), or to
authorize any person to import into the United States
(Pursuant to an exemption under Section 2605(e)(3)(B) of
title 15 of the United States Code or otherwise) any PCB's or
PCB items at concentrations of 50 ppm or greater for purposes
of disposal or treatment.

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, given the fact that we passed over a
number of amendments, I apologize for seeming anxious.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment on behalf of myself
and the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Rivers] to prohibit the
Environmental Protection Agency from using any funds under this act to
allow the importation of polychlorinated biphenyls, PCB's, to be
disposed of, including incinerated, in the United States.
Mr. Chairman, the EPA issued a final rule on March 18, 1996 to allow
the importation of large quantities of PCB waste, reversing an EPA ban
that had been in place since 1980. Later that same month, the Sierra
Club Legal Defense Fund initiated a legal challenge to the EPA decision
allowing for the importation of PCB's based on the opinion that it
violated the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
Additionally, during consideration of H.R. 3666, the fiscal year 1997
VA-HUD appropriations bill, the House adopted a similar amendment I
offered which was later dropped in conference with the other body. On
July 8 of this year, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled, in a
unanimous decision, that EPA had violated the Toxic Substances Control
Act of 1976. Chief Judge Proctor Hug wrote:

EPA lacked the statutory authority to promulgate the import
rule, which violates the PCB manufacture ban contained in the
Toxic Substances Control Act.

EPA, in the execution of the import for disposal rule, waived the
yearly requirement to obtain an exemption from the administrator. This
rule allowed the continual import of PCB waste in direct contradiction
of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. The court ruled that EPA's
1996 rule providing for the continuing importing indefinitely without
interruption violates congressional intent with respect to the loan
exemption under TSCA which would only allow such imports if the EPA
administrator determines an unreasonable risk to injury or health or
environment would not result because such exemption may not last longer
than 1 year.
Mr. Chairman, EPA has failed to offer any scientific data or analysis
to justify reversal of this ban. Their longstanding position has always
been that PCB imports pose an unreasonable risk to health and safety.
On December 6, 1994, EPA emphasized that, and I quote:

the import of PCB's into the United States and the
distribution of commerce of PCBs present an unreasonable risk
of injury to human health and the environment.

Yet a year and a half later the EPA reversed itself with no new
studies, no new research, no new reports that PCB's are anything less
than a substance risk to human health and the environment. It is
difficult to understand why EPA would change its position without any
new scientific evidence.
We know from scientific research that PCB's accumulate in the
environment and move toward the top of the food chain, contaminating
fish, birds and ultimately humans. When incinerated, PCB's release
dioxin, one of most toxic chemicals known to man. As a result, PCB's
are the only chemical that Congress has identified for phaseout under
TSCA.

[[Page H5344]]

Since 1979, PCB's have not been manufactured in the United States.
With this ban in place, the amount of PCB's in the United States have
steadily decreased but the range of health and environment effects has
not. Incinerators in Kansas, Utah, Pennsylvania, and two sites in
southeast Texas burn more than 800,000 tons of domestic PCB waste each
year.
This rule might be necessary if Canada and Mexico, two countries
expected to send us most of their PCB's, did not have facilities
located within their boarders to dispose of PCB waste. Both countries
do have such facilities designated to handle PCB waste. Mexico even
exports some PCB waste to Europe for disposal.
Furthermore, EPA makes contradictory statements with regard to the
issue. In a 1991 internal memorandum regarding this issue of PCB's and
NAFTA negotiations, Elizabeth F. Bryan, then deputy director for
exposure, wrote:

It is likely that Mexico would be discouraged from
development adequate disposal facilities for their own PCB
waste, if the United States accepts their waste.

This memo further states:

Congress clearly intended to ban PCB's in the United States.
That intent should not be diluted through considerations of
free trade.

Yesterday the EPA put out an analysis of my amendment in which they
state:

EPA closed its borders to PCB waste in 1980 to encourage the
development of disposal industries in Canada and give the
United States time to phase out much of our use of PCB's.

{time} 1600

These goals have been accomplished.
I would also like to add that the Canadian disposal industry opposed
EPA's rule and presented compelling evidence that Canada is fully
capable of handling their own PCB waste. EPA agreed with that view as
late as December 1994 when they said, ``EPA does not want to encourage
the expansion of PCB's where there are feasible alternatives already in
place.''
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues accept this
amendment. The last thing we need to do is be accepting dangerous PCB's
as a form of business in the United States.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word
and to essentially express some slight reservation, because this item
is in the courts. The ninth circuit is currently in the process of
considering an appeal.
On the other hand, the House did adopt this matter on a voice vote
last year. I frankly think the committee would not have any reservation
about this going forward and we would be willing, after some more
discussion takes place, to accept it if my ranking member would do the
same.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I just rise to agree with the chairman of the
subcommittee that this is a matter that was accepted last year, and if
the chairman is inclined to accept the matter at this time, then there
is no objection on this side.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STOKES. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, with the agreement of the
gentleman from Ohio, we would accept the amendment. I would suggest to
Members who are anxious about this, while I welcome their comments,
others, if they want to, can revise and extend their remarks.
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the proposal currently on the
floor. I joined with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen] last year
to offer this, as well as having offered it in the freestanding bill.
Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about simply accepting it this year. As
people may recall, last year we did that but it was stripped from the
bill in conference and never made it into law. While there is a recent
decision in the courts regarding this matter, it still is in appeal and
prudence does recommend legislative action by this body.
Why should we be concerned about this? For several reasons. PCB's are
substances that, as a group, are extremely toxic and long-lived, they
are proven cancer causers, and they disrupt hormone systems and cause
reproductive and endocrine damage in human beings. These are not your
garden variety carcinogens.
In fact, PCB's are the only substance ever specifically banned by an
act of Congress in this Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976. Yet in
1996, the EPA decided to allow the importation of these chemicals. At
that time many of us argued that the decision had more to do with
keeping waste disposal facilities in the United States profitable than
in keeping the public safe.
Unfortunately, that view turned out to be prophetic. In an AP story
published July 8, the EPA is quoted as arguing that the import ban was
no longer needed because the U.S. waste disposal industry had enough
incinerator capacity to handle foreign PCB waste. The industry, which
was running out of domestically produced PCB's to destroy, and I want
to repeat that, the industry, which was running out of domestically
produced PCB's to destroy, could make up to $100 million a year from
incinerating imported PCB's, the EPA said.
The EPA also said at that time that some surveys had estimated more
than 173,000 tons of PCB-tainted material existed in Canada and another
60,000 tons in Mexico.
Mr. Chairman, this body cannot tolerate a calculus that values the
fiscal health of the toxic waste industry over the physical health of
our citizens. For these reasons I would urge my colleagues to vote for
this provision, and I would urge the chairman to allow a vote, and I
would urge conferees not to strip the provision from the final bill at
the end of their conference. This is a serious issue that deserves our
attention and our action.
Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
[Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis] for accepting this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Bentsen amendment, and I
commend my colleague from Houston for his leadership on this important
issue.
On March 15, 1996, the EPA issued a final rule to amend the Federal
PCB regulations and allow the import of PCB waste for disposal in
permitted facilities in the United States.
This rule allows the importation of foreign PCB waste for disposal in
the United States.
The EPA has estimated that the U.S. disposal industry would receive
$50 to $100 million annually if PCB's are imported into the United
States from Canada and Mexico.
And where would PCB's be disposed? In Kansas, Utah, Pennsylvania,
Port Arthur, TX, and Channelview, TX.
Mr. Bentsen's amendment would prohibit the EPA from using any funds
to implement its final rule.
PCB's when incinerated release dioxin--one of the most toxic
chemicals known.
Dixon, as we all know, causes a wide range of adverse health effects
and it accumulates in the environment.
The incineration of PCB's is recognized as a health hazard.
That's why the Congress designed a phase out of domestic PCB
manufacture in the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976.
Last week, the ninth circuit court overturned EPA's rule to allow the
importation of PCB's. The Bentsen amendment will ensure the continual
prohibition of imported PCB's even if EPA exercises its option to
appeal this ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding.
In closing on this amendment, and I know there are other amendments
Members want to get to and to finish this bill, this is not a question
of international trade. I am a free trader, but this is not a good or a
service that I believe we ought to be importing. This is a dangerous
chemical. It is dangerous waste.
We are taking care of our own PCB's in this country. We do not need
to take care of PCB waste from other countries

[[Page H5345]]

which, ironically, will not take exports of PCB's from the United
States.
The fact is that this is not a debate about the domestic incineration
of PCB's. That is another matter. We take care of our own, but we
should not take care of others.
The fact is that the EPA clearly intends to appeal this rule. They
would not be opposed to this amendment otherwise. So I would encourage
my colleagues to support this amendment and I would encourage the
managers of the bill to defend this amendment with the Senate. I
realize it is not the courts, but this is something that clearly is not
in line with Congressional intent from the TOSCA Act.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Solomon

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Solomon:

Page 76, after line 17, insert the following new section:
Sec. 422. None of the funds made available in this act may
be provided by contract or by grant (including a grant of
funds to be available for student aid) to any institution of
higher education, or subelement thereof, that is currently
ineligible for contracts and grants pursuant to section 514
of the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997 (as
contained in section 101(e) of division A of Public Law 104-
208; 110 Stat. 3009-270).

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering with the
gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] should be familiar to most
Members, as it has passed this House several times with bipartisan
support, and is now permanent law for defense funds and funds covered
by the Labor/HHS appropriations bill.
This amendment would simply prevent any funds appropriated in this
act from going to institutions of higher learning which prevent
military recruiting on their campus, or have an anti-ROTC policy.
The amendment would not affect direct student aid funds such as
Federal Direct Loans and Pell grants, nor would it affect institutions
with longstanding, religiously based pacifist traditions.
Mr. Chairman, institutions that are receiving Federal taxpayer money
should not be able to then turn their back on the young people who
defend this country.
This is especially important in today's environment, when, as we
know, military recruiters are already having trouble filling their
quotas with able applicants due to 13 straight years of defense budget
cuts.
It is more important than ever that we not allow campus
administrators with ideological agendas to prevent recruiters from
explaining the benefits of an honorable career in our Armed Forces to
our young people.
It is really a matter of simple fairness, and that is why this
amendment has always received such strong bipartisan support.
I would also like to note that, since the gentleman from California
[Mr. Pombo] and I started this process a few years back, we have seen a
great deal of progress on college campuses. Many schools have publicly
announced a shift in their antimilitary policies and many more have
quietly followed suit.
The legislation is working, and we can all be proud of that.
However, it is necessary to round out the process by attaching the
amendment to just a couple of more appropriations bills, including this
one today, and writing it into permanent law.
Then I believe we will have a powerful deterrent in place which will
give our fine military recruiters the tools and confidence they need to
carry out their constitutional functions to the best of their
abilities.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
Solomon amendment to H.R. 2158 to prohibit the use of funds in the VA-
HUD appropriations bill, by any Department or Agency, for grants or
contracts to universities and colleges that do not give ROTC and
military recruiters access to the general student population.
This amendment levies a grossly unfair and extreme bias against
religious institutions that do not allow secular military or ROTC
recruiting to occur on their campuses. Individual students and
institutions will be penalized simply because they choose to attend a
religious institution.
Not only is this fundamentally unfair to the institutions and
students but this is also an unfair mixing of church and State.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this unfair
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Vento

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Vento:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. 422. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by increasing the amount made available for
``INDEPENDENT AGENCIES--Federal Emergency Management Agency--
emergency food and shelter program'', and reducing the amount
made available for ``INDEPENDENT AGENCIES--National
Aeronautics and Space Administration--human space flight'',
by $30,100,000 and $43,000,000, respectively.

Mr. VENTO (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
Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California reserves a point of
order.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that I had printed in
the Record yesterday, and which was in order in title III. I would
suggest that, if there are unanimous consents that are going to occur
and that are reasonable, that they should be recognized.
My concern is that this amendment previously has been ruled out of
order because I came and we were on page 61, and now we, of course, are
at the end of the bill and it should be in order now.
This deals with the Emergency Food and Shelter Program and the
public/private partnership. It is a public/private partnership that
works. Since the program began in 1983, $1.6 billion has been
appropriated to the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program. What I am
proposing here is to raise the funding to $130 million from $100
million that is in the bill.
Why this reduction was instituted or persists is not at all clear and
certainly was not justified with a program that works. Funds under this
extremely well run program reach communities within 45 days from the
date of release from FEMA. It is not an emergency management regular
program. In fact, this program works and there is no scandals, there
are no adverse GAO reports, no adverse Inspector General flack, no bad
reports of this program.
It is a program unique because it helps not with disasters from
Mother Nature but with personal emergencies of people who have become
very often homeless. An increased number of social and economic
casualties, of course, are occurring today.
The program combines rapid national distribution with the expertise
of local nonprofit charitable organizations in delivering services
where they are most needed and builds upon the solid foundation of
assistance that historically has been provided by the State and local
charities and nonprofits.
The Federal Government has not taken over the program and the
challenge, rather the Emergency Food and Shelter, the FEMA program, has
become a partnership building upon that which exists and works. The
administrative costs of this program are very low, about 3.5 percent
locally and nationally.
There is no doubt that such success is owed to the partnership form
with the unique national board made up of the American Red Cross, the
Catholic Charities, the Council of Jewish Federations, the National
Council of Churches of Christ in the United States, the Salvation Army,
the United Way, and FEMA. We should be celebrating and rewarding the
success of the collaboration, not shortchanging it.
Mr. Chairman, some have suggested compassion fatigue exists in
America

[[Page H5346]]

because problems are not alleviated. It is important to note that the
Emergency Food and Shelter and HUD homeless programs, modest programs
in size, have helped hundreds of thousands of families and individuals,
but our economics and society throughout the 1980's and 1990's
continues to sustain new homelessness.
It is a dynamic population and, as a Congress working with local and
State, especially with the private nonprofits, we should stay involved
with solid financial commitments, Mr. Chairman. The Federal dollars in
the Emergency Food and Shelter Program, the FEMA Program, and the HUD
homeless programs leverage private funding.
The nonprofits, who historically dealt with a demographically
different population and social problems, today are operating on
overload. They cannot respond to the problems and needs in the same way
that they did yesterday because of the gravity and the severity of
those problems. Specifically, reviewing the fiscal year 1996, the
national board, the specific program that I am talking about here,
accomplished a great deal with the dollars they have available.
Mr. Chairman, I would point out that we are cutting money in this
amendment by reducing the NASA Human Space Flight Program by $43
million in order to provide the $30 million for this program. Because
it does spend out quicker, there is a difference. This program serves
to alleviate the plight of the homeless right down here on terra firma,
that is on the ground of Mother Earth.
As Members should be aware, the NASA budget is in excess of the
administration's request, this particular portion, by $100 million.
There has not been a NASA, an OMB or administration request or
justification for this funding. We do not have to be rocket scientists
to understand the demand and the positive needs that we need in terms
of the increase to provide emergency food and shelter.
As I said, the program is working. Unfortunately, many in our society
continue to experience homelessness and I would urge Members to support
this sound amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, amendment No. 26 which
has been ruled out of order because it starts at page 57 and amends
page 61 and we were upon page 61. I'm very disappointed that the
consideration was not provided even though we were in the same title
III and had moved so quickly to this point in the bill, therefore I'm
offering it at the end of the bill as a new section 422.
The Emergency Food and Shelter [EFS] Program is a public/private
partnership that works. Since the program began in 1983, $1.6 billion
has been appropriated to the FEMA EFS Program. In 1995, prior to the
devastating rescissions bill, the funding for this program annually was
$130 million. Since the rescissions bill, the funding has been level at
a less than adequate $100 million. Why this reduction was instituted or
persists isn't at all clear and certainly not justified.
Funds under this extremely well run program reach communities within
45 days from date of release of funds by FEMA. This is a program that
works with no scandals--no adverse GAO reports, no IG flack. The
program is unique because it helps not with the disasters of mother
nature, but the personal emergencies of people who have become
homeless--an increasing number of social and economic casualties today.
The program combines rapid national distribution with the expertise of
local nonprofit charitable organizations in delivering services where
they are needed most and builds upon the solid foundation of assistance
that historically has been provided by the State/local charities and
nonprofits. The Federal Government hasn't taken over the problem and
the challenge, rather EFS/FEMA has become a partner, building upon that
which exists and works.
The administrative costs are a mere 3.5 percent, locally and
nationally. There is no doubt that such success is owed to the
partnership formed with the unique National Board, made up of major
charity organizations: the American Red Cross, Catholic Charities,
Council of Jewish Federations, National Council of Churches of Christ
in the USA, the Salvation Army, the United Way, and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. We should be celebrating and rewarding the
success of this collaboration not short-changing it. Mr. Chairman, some
have suggested compassion fatigue exists in America, because problems
aren't alleviated--it is important to note that the EFS/HUD homeless
programs, modest in size, have helped thousands of families and
individuals. But our economy and society throughout the 1980's and
1990's continues to sustain new homelessness. It is a dynamic
population and as a Congress working with State, local, and especially
the private nonprofits, we should stay involved with solid financial
commitments.
The Federal dollars in EFS/FEMA and HUD homelessness programs
leverage private funding. The nonprofits who historically dealt with a
demographically different population and social problems, today are
operating on overload. They need and merit our good faith effort.
Specifically reviewing EFS/FEMA in fiscal year 1996, the National
Board accomplished the following with an appropriation of $100 million:
provided over 82.6 million meals at an average meal cost of 47 cents;
provided more than 3.8 million nights of shelter at an average cost of
$5.93 per night; paid over 177,000 utility bills allowing families to
remain in their homes; directly funded more 10,300 charitable
organizations and governmental agencies in over 2,400 jurisdictions in
all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.
territories.
My amendment would restore the funding level to $130 million. This
could help serve tens of millions more meals, a million or so more
nights of shelter, and help with hundreds of thousands more utility
bills across this country. My amendment would accomplish these worthy
goals by reducing NASA's Human Space Flight Program by $43 million--
providing $30 million to this specific FEMA program that serve to
alleviate the plight of homeless on terra firma, on the ground of
mother Earth.
As Members should be aware, the NASA budget is in excess of the
administration request by $100 million. There has been no NASA, OMB, or
administration request or justification for this funding and you don't
have to be a rocket scientist to understand the demand and positive use
that this increase would do for the Emergency Food and Shelter Program
of FEMA.
I urge Members to support this amendment that will be so beneficial
for all Americans.

Point of Order

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] insist
on his point of order?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I do, and let me say that I
agree with much that has been said about this program. We have provided
$100 million in the budget request because of that.
I raised a point of order against the amendment because, first, the
amendment takes away from an unauthorized program and gives money to an
unauthorized program. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me give just a bit of
detail:

{time} 1615

The amendment proposes to increase an appropriation not authorized by
law, and therefore is in violation of clause 2(a) of rule XXI. Although
the original account, funding for the Emergency Food and Shelter
Program, where the funding would go, is unauthorized, it was permitted
to remain pursuant to the provisions of the rule that provided for the
consideration of this bill. When an unauthorized appropriation is
permitted to remain in a general appropriations bill, an amendment
merely changing that amount is in order, but the rules of the House
apply as a merely perfecting standard to the items permitted to remain
and do not allow the insertion of a new paragraph, not part of the
original text permitted to remain, to change indirectly a figure
permitted to remain.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] wish to
be heard on the point of order?
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, the fact is both provisions are in the bill.
They are protected by the rule. As the gentleman has pointed out, both
of these are. I have not received authorization, but the rule does
address that particular factor, and it seems to me that it would follow
that the modification of funds between them at this particular point, a
technical point at best, that the spirit of the rule would suggest that
it is in order.
I might further add, Mr. Chairman, that in terms of the procedures of
the House, the rolling of votes and the activities that have taken
place today, the avoidance and leaving behind of amendments I think is
highly inappropriate and improper. I was here and offered this
amendment in the proper title, but simply being a few pages beyond. I
was not afforded the comity and the consideration of being able to
offer this amendment today. I think it is highly unusual and
inappropriate.
I ask the Chair to rule on the amendment.

[[Page H5347]]

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is ready to rule if no other Members wish to
be heard on the point of order.
The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] makes a point of order that
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento]
violates clause 2(a) of rule XXI by providing an unauthorized
appropriation.
The amendment proposes to insert a new paragraph on page 76 that
would indirectly increase an amount provided on page 57, which has been
passed in the reading.
The increase proposed by the amendment is not authorized by law. The
Chair notes that the amount already carried in the bill for that object
is, likewise, unauthorized. However, that unauthorized amount in the
bill was permitted to remain by House Resolution 184.
Where an unauthorized appropriation is permitted to remain in a
general appropriation bill, an amendment directly changing that amount
in that paragraph, and not adding legislative language or earmarking
separate funds for another unauthorized purpose, is in order as merely
perfecting. But an amendment adding a further unauthorized amount is
not in order.
As indicated in the ruling on July 12, 1995, shown on page 142 of
House Practices, even though it may be permissible by amendment to
directly change an unauthorized item in a paragraph permitted to remain
by a waiver of points of order, it is not in order to indirectly
increase that amount by insertion of a new paragraph not textually
protected by the waiver. The precedents that admit a germane perfecting
amendment to an unauthorized item permitted to remain, for example,
Deschler's volume 8, chapter 26, section 3.38, deal with actual changes
in a figure permitted to remain. They apply a merely perfecting
standard in the strictest sense of that phrase. None involve the
insertion of a new paragraph, not part of the text permitted to remain,
to increase indirectly a figure permitted to remain.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento]
cannot be construed as merely perfecting under the precedents.
Accordingly, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Foley

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Foley:
After the last section of the bill (preceding the short
title), insert the following new section:
Sec. 422. The aggregate amount otherwise provided in this
Act for ``INDEPENDENT AGENCIES--Department of the Treasury--
Community Development Financial Institutions--community
development financial institutions fund program account'' is
hereby reduced by $75,000,000.

Ms. WATERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of
order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman reserves a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read,
and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] is recognized for 5 minutes
in support of his amendment.
There was no objection.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, one only need to pick up the morning
newspapers to support the amendment to freeze funding for the Community
Development Financial Institutions funded at current levels, not a cut,
maintaining funding at 1997 levels.
Today's Wall Street Journal: ``Treasury Aides Trumped Up Papers To
Defend Awards As Probe Drew Near.''
``A Treasury investigation as to whether agency officials created
misleading documents to deal with a congressional probe found that they
did, and just in the nick of time, too.''
The assistance went to community development lenders with ties to
South Shore Bank, also known as Shorebank, a Chicago-based institution
with long ties to the Clintons. A recipient of $2 million in assistance
was Southern Development, Inc., an Arkansas firm that Hillary Rodham
Clinton set up with help from Shorebank founders.''
In the Arkansas Democrat Gazette: ``Among the banks Bachus named as
being part of a suspected `old boys' network' of community lending
institutions with ties to President Clinton and his wife is
Arkadelphia-based Southern Development Bancorporation, Inc. It received
a $2 million award from the Community Development Financial
Institutions Fund last year. Mrs. Clinton, then a partner in Little
Rock's Rose Law Firm, and presidential counselor Thomas F. `Mack'
McLarty, a former executive of Arkla, Inc., were charter members of the
holding company that founded Southern Development in August 1986.''
In the Rocky Mountain News: The chairman suggests, Mr. Bachus, that
nearly a third of the money designated in the Community Development
Financial Institutions fund went to interlocked institutions that all
have well-documented links to Hillary Clinton.
``Government Investigates CDFI Program,'' in the National Mortgage
News Journal, details the same story. Reuters this morning: ``Treasury
Admits Misdoings At U.S. Small Business Fund.''
May doubt the articles? Read this: ``A top administrator at a small
business program touted by President Clinton wrote spurious memos to
justify loans that had already been made, Treasury Department officials
confirmed Tuesday.''
Now my colleagues, what we are asking you to do is freeze funding
until we can investigate the facts of this case. The Treasury
Department may be making improvements now as a result of the oversight
inquiry, but the department has not shown it knows how to run a grant
program.
In this era of government belt tightening, where even programs that
are models of efficient administration face significant cuts in
funding, it makes absolutely no sense, no sense, to increase by more
than twofold the amount the taxpayers will allocate to this program.
Only in Washington would we be sitting here debating a 150 percent
increase in funding for a program that is judged, by any objective
standard, a monument to bureaucratic bungling and administrative
inefficiency. In the real world, heads would be rolling, customers
would be demanding refunds, and the budget ax would be swinging. In
Washington we appropriate more taxpayers' money for this program.
This perverse incentive structure needs to be dismantled, and a
message needs to go out to our Federal bureaucracy that we will no
longer reward mismanagement abuse with ever-increasing levels of
funding.
By the CDFI's own admission, at least $11 million in taxpayer funds
were awarded in its last round of funding without anybody bothering to
memorialize in a written document any of the factors upon which the
agency based its recommendation. Not a word. Then when the gentleman
from Alabama [Mr. Bachus], the chairman, approaches the committee and
asks for reports, at midnight they work on the documents. My colleagues
will hear more about that later.
Any claims that the Treasury Department may make regarding real world
success for the CDFI program are purely speculative at this time. The
fund originated July 1996. As of March of this year they had only
distributed $4 million the $37 million that was awarded in the first
round. Now at this point I understand we have up to one half that has
been sent out.
The Treasury wants Congress to raise funding 150 percent on this
untested program with serious administrative problems. The Foley-Bachus
amendment will not zero out CDFI funds, I want to reemphasize. It
simply maintains fiscal 1997 funding levels pending further review of
the program.
Now it bears emphasizing that this amendment, again, does not zero it
out. But I would call the attention of my colleagues, the Senate is
never known for cutting many programs. The Senate VA-HUD approps zeroed
out the CDFI fund yesterday. The Senate zeroed it out. Now we are
asking for a freeze.
Now clearly, some people may doubt these articles in our major
newspapers. But as the chairman will tell my colleagues in the next few
minutes, this investigation has unearthed some rather disturbing
things. There is no distancing from these companies the relationship
that had existed in the late 1980's. So clearly, if we are going to ask
the American taxpayers to foot the bill for this program or any other,
we should make certain that there are certain standards.

Point of Order

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman insist on her point of order?

[[Page H5348]]

Ms. WATERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state the point of order.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Vento], and perhaps even others had been here, their amendments would
have been protected against a point of order. However, they were not
here at the time, and therefore they have not been allowed to take up
their amendments.
I think that that amendment falls in the same category. However, I am
aware that there may have been some attempts to recraft the amendment
to comply with being able to take it up in the general provisions. If
so, if that is the case, how then was it recrafted to comply? And if it
has not been, the point of order I think should prevail.
The CHAIRMAN. If there is no other argument on the point of order,
the Chair is prepared to rule.
The amendment simply reduces an amount otherwise provided by the
bill. That the amendment does so indirectly does not matter. An
amendment inserting new language simply and only to reduce the amount
of an appropriation provided earlier in the bill is permissible, as not
adding a further unauthorized amount.
The point of order is overruled.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise today in opposition to the Bachus amendment to the fiscal year
1998 VA-HUD appropriations bill and in support of the provision in this
bill to provide $125 million for the Community Development Financial
Institutions program.
The Community Development Financial Institutions program provides an
important source of funding to low-income and low-wealth communities
across the Nation. The CDFI program is the very type of program that
this Congress, with its attitude about Federal spending, should
support.
Rather than providing conventional government assistance to poor
communities, the CDFI fund focuses on efforts to use government
resources to leverage private sector funds, with the goal of achieving
community self-sufficiency. The CDFI fund invests in a diverse array of
institutions, including banks, credit unions, nonprofit loan funds,
venture funds, and others, with varying asset size. The fund is
designed to promote community development in the broad range of
communities which make up our Nation.
The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] spent a good deal of his time
making some allegations about the politicization of this election
process for grantees. These allegations have been carefully
investigated and refuted by the Treasury Department. And in that light,
I commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the chairman, and
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the distinguished ranking member,
and the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] is indeed distinguished
as well, and the subcommittee members for their report language
endorsing the goals of the CDFI program and their belief that any
process abuses can be corrected without destroying the program, which
this amendment would do.
I also commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] for their emphasis on the activities
that support microenterprise development to build the skills, assets,
and earnings of low-income Americans.
Mr. Chairman, as this Congress systematically dismantles our
traditional programs for poor people and poor communities, we must
support programs designed to ensure that these communities have access
to the financing they need to help themselves. The CDFI fund is one
such program.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Bachus amendment and support the
committee, support the funding level of the gentleman from California
[Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] of $125 million
for this important and successful program which is helping American
communities help themselves.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1630

Mr. COOKSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COOKSEY. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for all of us in
this body to define what this amendment does and why it is necessary
and what it does not do. This amendment leaves funding at the present
level of $50 million a year. We heard the gentleman from Florida that
said the Senate, because of these same facts and what has happened in
this program, zeroed out funding. But the amendment that the gentleman
from Florida and I have offered leaves the funding level from last
year.
Why are we offering this amendment? Why are we opposed to the
administration's request that funding for this program increase by 150
percent to $125 million? We are doing that for several reasons. One is
that of the original $50 million that was appropriated by this
Congress, $37 million of it was directed to this fund, and of that $37
million, as of March of this year, only $4 million had been spent. As
of this time, the whole $37 million that was appropriated in 1996 has
not been granted. We have got $37 million in an appropriation and since
1996 they have not appropriated all the money. Should this Congress
come along and at this time say we are going to put another $125
million in? I think not.
What has happened to the money that the people of the United States,
the taxpayers, put in, this $37 million? Let us look at what has
happened to it. First of all, not all of it had been spent and we are
asking those same people for another $125 million. But of that that was
granted, $11 million of it was granted without any written memorandum,
no written review.
In fact, to review, to do our necessary oversight, on April 14 of
this year, I told the director of this fund that I would be reviewing
the grant process and that my investigators would be there on the
morning of April 18. Subsequent to my letter to her, she was at a
conference in Paris, France, she called the deputy director and told
him to create a memorandum, to create paperwork outlining the grant
process. In fact, he did this on $11 million dollars worth of grants.
To get there, to put this paperwork, documentation of how these grants
were made, to be able to do that, they had to stay up all night the
night of April 17, and during the middle of the night and until the
next morning, and they only typed those papers up and put them in the
files 2 hours before congressional investigators visited to determine
if they had gone and complied with the grant process.
The inspector general has reviewed this whole process. What has she
found? She has said that this was wrong. She has said that this was
done against the advice of legal counsel at the fund. She has said that
legal counsel advised that these documents be dated. In fact, they were
not only not dated but they were put in those four files and they were
made to appear as if they were written sometime, I think, between May
and July 1996.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Alabama which freezes the funding levels for the
Community Development Financial Institution Fund at last year's level
of $50 million despite the bipartisan budget agreement's increase in
this valuable economic empowerment program to $125 million.
The administration and congressional leadership in fact agreed to
this increase precisely because CDFI is a win-win for all parties
involved. These investment funds are matched in the private sector and
then used to create jobs, promote small businesses and build affordable
housing in communities across the Nation.
While I thank the gentleman for his diligence in shedding light on
poor management decisions in the first year at the fund and appreciate
his help in ensuring that this worthy program will in the future be run
efficiently according to new reforms, I must nonetheless take issue
with his conclusion that the program should not in any way be hindered
from meeting its critical goals of revitalizing distressed communities.
The only arguments that I have heard

[[Page H5349]]

from the other side thus far are that the beneficiaries of these
programs, those distressed communities, should be penalized until the
Federal Government resolves its bureaucratic problem of paperwork.
I am making an argument that today we should not cease the fundings
or freeze the fundings for these communities that so desperately need
the resources while our investigations, which I might add I raise
questions about those investigations, because I just got off the phone
a few minutes ago with South Shorebank and the bank corporation and
they have indicated in the course of this investigation they have never
so much as been contacted by the investigators in the majority party on
this particular issue.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Banking and Financial
Services, serving the people of the south side of Chicago and the south
suburbs, I have had the special honor and privilege of becoming
intimately familiar with the exemplary organization and national
leadership in community development lending that Shorebank and its
holding company, Shorebank Corp., has exemplified as 1 of the 31
recipients of this year's CFDI fund awards. Thus, based upon my
personal knowledge, I feel compelled to take issue with the gentleman's
allegations that the recipients were not awarded CDFI funds
meritoriously, but rather were the beneficiaries of some sort of
political favoritism based upon connections with the Clinton
administration.
Shorebank and the Shorebank Corp. have been involved in community
development long before the Clinton administration became an
administration in Washington. They are a model, an exemplary model that
the President has talked about in many speeches across this country.
Mr. Chairman, CDFI's statutory language defines an affiliate as it is
defined in section 2(k) of the Bank Company Holding Act as--

Any company that controls, is controlled by or is under
common control with another company. Shorebank has never
owned, controlled or voted any voting securities of the 3
CDFIs in question, nor has it ever controlled the election of
a majority of directors or trustees of any other CDFIs. Nor
has the Federal Reserve ever determined that Shorebank
exercises a controlling influence over any other CDFI.

There are business relationships between Shorebank and other CDFIs
through its consulting subsidiary, but at no point in time have they
ever exercised undue influence.
Mr. Chairman, there were no violations of statutory limits. The
enacting statute prohibits the fund from providing over $5 million to
one of these CDFIs and Shorebank Corp. has only received $4.5 million.
The claims of political favoritism are also unfounded. In fact, to
assert such claims is actually insulting to those communities which
have been blessed by the innovative and immensely successful
revitalization efforts spearheaded by Shorebank and other community
development lenders.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the chairman of the Subcommittee on
General Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services to join me in a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, is it the gentleman's understanding from the report
based upon the investigations that he has received that they have
never, or have they ever contacted Shorebank or its officers with
respect to the particular allegations that are being made?
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BACHUS. I would say to the gentleman that it is not our
obligation to contact Shorebank or even to decide whether they are
worthy of a grant or not. This law sets up a review process and
requires certain documentation to be made. Shorebank may, in fact, be a
totally worthy organization. I have no reason to believe they are not a
good organization that does good work. That simply does not entitle
this fund to simply make a check out for $4.5 million and hand it to
them without a review, without any documentation. Certainly the
gentleman from Illinois would agree that the end does not justify the
means. As worthy a goal as there may have been, it does not allow one
to manufacture documents.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Jackson of Illinois was allowed to proceed
for 30 additional seconds.)
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, is it the gentleman's argument
that the distressed communities who would be the beneficiaries of the
additional appropriation, the $125 million, should be penalized because
of bad paperwork by the administration?
Mr. BACHUS. It is not, and I would say this, not for bad paperwork,
but for a process that was unethical, that was misleading, that
misrepresented that there was in fact to these four applicants, they
were awarded money. They did not go through the process that the other
257 applicants went through, even if they are worthy. Even if we say
these guys are great, we just cannot ignore the law. We cannot ignore
the rules.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, as a former prosecutor and as a member of both the
Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight, it never ceases to amaze me the new defenses that are raised
whenever somebody with regard for the integrity of our laws and the
integrity of the appropriations process raises a question about
something that this administration is doing.
We have three new ones just here today. Defense attorneys, take note.
It is a defense to any hint of an investigation that certain people
have never been contacted, an airtight defense for abuse of public
moneys.
Or they are doing a wonderful job with the money that is
appropriated. It does not matter that it may be appropriated by people
who are violating the law, but they are doing such wonderful things
with the money. An airtight defense.
And yet another one. That to investigate or to hold up increased
funding in the light of very serious allegations, violations of Federal
law, would insult the eventual recipients of the money. Another
airtight defense.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment and the
discussion of it by its proponents today has nothing to do with
condemning the wonderful job that the banks may or may not be doing
through the CDFI funding. It is no indictment whatsoever on the
wonderful things that the recipients of the money may be doing, and it
really escapes me for people on the other side to become so indignant
because this amendment and its proponents and their very sound
arguments are saying, now, wait a minute, we here in this Congress are
stewards of the public trust, we are stewards of the public moneys. And
when very serious allegations are raised that individuals administering
tens and hundreds of millions of dollars of programs are violating
Federal laws in the way they administer those programs, that all of a
sudden, we are made out to be the insensitive bad guys is really
something that I am getting kind of sick of, Mr. Chairman.
Let me give three possible violations of Federal law just by a very
quick reading of title 18 of the United States Code annotated that may
be at play here, and see if this may cause folks on the other side that
are so indignant that we would raise this problem to perhaps rethink
their indignation.
18 U.S.C. 371, 18 U.S.C. 1001, 18 U.S.C. 1505, 18 U.S.C. 1517. Mr.
Chairman, what the gentleman from Alabama and the gentleman from
Florida are saying is, ``At least let's hold the status quo until this
can be looked into,'' these very serious allegations of obstruction of
justice.

{time} 1645

We are not saying, ``Let's completely emasculate the program.'' We
are not saying, ``Let's cut it back.'' We are simply stating that in
light of these very serious allegations that are substantiated to a
large extent, I believe, in an investigation conducted by the Inspector
General of this agency, let us at least hold off increasing the amount
of money that we are letting these folks who seem, very clearly, to
have violated Federal laws in manufacturing documents designed to
mislead, misdirect, and obstruct an investigation can be looked into.
And I think it

[[Page H5350]]

would be an abrogation of our responsibility that supersedes anything
about how nice a program is or what wonderful things it may be doing if
we were to turn a blind eye to these very serious allegations.
Mr. Chairman, I think that the gentleman from Alabama, who is the
chairman of this Subcommittee on General Oversight and Investigations,
I think the gentleman from Florida, who is a coauthor of this
amendment, have raised very serious concerns here that should not be
dismissed simply because folks on the other side who like these
programs, like the programs and feel that an indictment or an attack on
people who appear to be violating the law is somehow an attack on the
program or what might be very worthy recipients of the funds.
Mr. Chairman, let us just simply stand back for a moment, forget
about being defensive about an investigation that may have done
something wrong, maybe they did not. But let us stop being so defensive
and recognize that we have an overriding, overarching responsibility
here to ensure that our laws are faithfully executed and that those
people who are entrusted with the authority to administer hundreds of
millions of dollars for very worthy purposes, deemed so by law and by
the President of this country, that they do so in a manner befitting
the laws and the integrity of our system.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I
oppose this amendment, and I want to make it clear at the onset that I
think the oversight work that our subcommittee chairman on the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services is doing is important work.
I respect him for it, and I furthermore believe that the Treasury and
the officials that, in fact, wrote out memos prior to his review of the
files are in error, that they are wrong in terms of what they did. But
those memos were undated, I might add, and there is no indication at
this particular time that there is anything that was done illegal. I
certainly think it was not proper.
But the focus of my attention today is not so much on what these
officials did that regulate the program. I think we should get a
thorough accounting of it, and perhaps somebody, as my colleagues know,
ought to get a few demerits, if not some other factors that would enter
into that in terms of this program; because I care about this program
and I want it to work.
This Congress acted on this program in 1994 and authorized $400
million, but the only money that has been appropriated is that $50
million so far, and incidentally they have, this past year 1996,
finally have provided some grants awarded. I think they are doing much
better than some of the reports of my colleagues and friends here with
regard to expediting the program. It is an enormously important
program.
But as my colleagues know, I get the impression here that we are
jumping from oversight to prosecution, to persecution of a particular
program, and the end result of this is not going to fall on the
bureaucrats or those that are administering the program at Treasury,
but on the individual communities that are relying and looking at this
program as being something to revitalize and to help their communities.
So I am very concerned about the rhetoric that I heard here today
with regard to the allegations, and so forth, that are going on. I
think we have a presumption to do our job, but also to assume that this
program administration is corrected. Maybe one of the biggest problems
with this program is the fact that it was part of President Clinton's
initiative in his first Presidential campaign because it certainly
seems that almost anything associated with the administration, whether
it has been AmeriCorps or whether it has been this CDFI program, seems
to be issues that have rankled a lot of sensitivity, especially this
particular bill as they do with brownfields and some of the other
initiatives.
Mr. Chairman, I regret that because I think these programs should be
really bipartisan in nature. I think that most often they have been. I
do not remember the same circumstance occurring in past years when I
agreed with President Bush or agreed with President Reagan, although it
may not have been as often as they would have wished.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, again I want to state I think these programs
can do some good in the community. I have stood up for minority
business development grants and other things in my community and fought
for them.
What we are saying in this amendment: Currently there still exists
$33 million in current accounts to spend. With this amendment we will
continue and add another $50 million to the account to do their good
work. All we are asking before we up the account to $125 million, is we
get some answers.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand the
gentleman's position. I appreciate the fact he did not eliminate the
program. But I must say that this program has been in the starting gate
and hardly has gotten started because it has been fighting sort of a
rear guard action since its passage, and it has not all been on one
side of the aisle, many have frustrated indirectly.
So the concern I have is that these programs are enormously
important, they are in place, they should be funded. It is authorized
at $400 million. This is a completely reasonable agreement to fund at
$125 million unless we find out something substantive that is flawed in
terms of the systemic nature of the program.
Some actors along the way have done something, but I do not think
anyone has argued that the dollars that are going into the program are
fundamentally being misused or abused, that nothing has been lost with
CDIF.
As my colleagues know, there are some claims of favoritism, there are
some claims of producing materials or records. I think there is an
explanation, which I find inappropriate, that I do not necessarily
accept, and I will, as my colleagues know, and do support the gentleman
from Alabama [Mr. Bachus], the subcommittee chairman's active oversight
role.
But I think that we need to look beyond that, and the embellishment
of this does not justify sentencing the program to another year in
purgatory as it would be. Why punish the low income, low wealth
communities that need the help? In fact, the grant programs have
awarded, maybe not spent out the money, but have awarded $35 million
and $13.1 million in 1996, respectively, which means that the dollars
are actually committed even though they may not have been expended this
year.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Vento was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. VENTO. The demand for the program is very great if we looked at
the 2 elements of it, the Bank Enterprise Program. The demand there has
been very significant. On the CDFI, community development organizations
have $300 million and requests were submitted. Thirty-five million was,
in fact, committed after, in fact, the request, and of course on the
other side some 31 community development organizations received that
$35 million, and 38 banks under the Bank Enterprise Program received an
allocation of $13.1.
The demand for the program is clear. We think it is a program that
has worked, and will succeed in the future, but too many of our
colleagues will not give it a chance to demonstrate that. Grantees were
limited in numbers. The very best applicants won grant, Treasury did
request, of course, an Inspector General investigation that did not
criticize the grant awarded. The IG report did counter allegations that
a CDFI official selected and awarded grants that he formally worked
with had a conflict of interest. In fact, there is a small group, or
nucleus of people with the CDFI expertise. It should be expected that
some overlap in terms of individuals that are specifically familiar
with this limited number of special financial institutions, and that is
one of the principle issues that we have to sort through in terms of
understanding that there is no documentation that I am aware of, that
the CDFI staff exercised undue influence or favoritism of a particular
applicant to the detriment

[[Page H5351]]

of other applicants, no doubt by selecting certain more established
grantees, some of whom were the models for the 1994 law. Other
applicants were not selected.
But it is a case where there is a lot of applicants, there is
competition. Whenever we see these circumstances, there can be and
likely will be allegations that someone did not receive the grant they
sought. I mean it happens to each of us. We have within our States or
districts people that are competing for grants. It is unfortunately
part of the competitive process that we have this criticism.
But I think we should be more restrained in jumping on this and
claiming violations of the law. Of course anyone can make allegations,
but proving them is another matter. But I stand with my friend to help
and work with him, but let us not cut the program out, let us not
sentence this program to another year in purgatory.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, once again let me repeat what this amendment does is it
freezes spending at last year's level. It does not provide a 150-
percent increase for a program with a lot of questions being raised
about it at this time.
As a businessman from Florida, I understand the need for affordable
low interest loans in economically depressed areas. These kinds of
incentives are crucial for stimulating business and job growth. That is
why I do agree with the general goals of the Community Development
Financial Investment Fund, even though as a fiscal conservative I
wonder whether or not this program represents a true Federal
responsibility. The original catalyst for this program, after all, was
a local initiative.
More concerning than the issue of federal law, however, are questions
which have recently arisen on the program's effectiveness and
impartiality. At this time the House Committee on Banking and Financial
Services' Subcommittee on General Oversight and Investigations is
investigating a series of allegations against the Fund. With these
kinds of issues surfacing, I think it is important to not let noble
goals supersede good sense when we are talking about the taxpayers'
money.
There are several potential problems with the CDFI Program, all of
which warrant a serious, thoughtful review by the banking subcommittee
before we allocate a huge increase.
First of all, there are serious questions about the management of the
program. A recent review by the accounting firm of Ernst & Young found
irregularities within the award process, a failure to adopt uniform
review procedures and a severe lack of documentation.
Second, since the CDFI distributes money through an awards process,
it is imperative that funds utilize a fair, unbiased procedure for
these allocations. A recent review of the fund, however, showed that
they failed to adopt objective scoring systems in selecting recipients.
This revelation suggests the possibility of favoritism and cronyism
within the agency in divvying up this money.
And finally, there is a question of criminal activity at the fund.
During an initial investigation by the subcommittee, they were unable
to find any material demonstrating that the fund conducted a meaningful
review of potential grantees. However, a second subcommittee review
unearthed undated memos which may have been written after the first
review had been concluded.
As a steward for the Federal Government's taxpayers' money, there are
times when one just says, hey, wait a minute, maybe this program does
not need or deserve a large increase this year. Why should the American
taxpayer be forced to fund a 150-percent increase for a program that is
under serious investigation by this legislative body?
With this amendment we are in no way saying the Community Development
Financial Institutions as a whole are not a good idea or do not provide
a service to the community. What we are saying is that noble goals are
not always followed by effective implementation. Let us not increase a
questionable program by 150-percent. Let us slow down the funding and
wait until the authorizers have a chance to ensure that the program is
meeting its obligations and taxpayers' expectations.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I must rise today in opposition to the amendment
offered by my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr.
Bachus], the chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial
Services' Subcommittee on Government Oversight and Investigations, on
which I am the ranking member.
While I support the efforts of the gentleman to ensure that the
Community Development Institution Fund is efficiently and effectively
administered, I vigorously oppose the proposed freeze of the Community
Development Financial Institution Fund at the fiscal year 1997 levels.
I am a little bit surprised at the tone and spirit of this attack.
Let us be clear. This is an attack on small business. The small
businesses of this country that benefit from this fund are the ones
that we all talk about we want to help. These are small institutions
such as credit unions and others providing the funds for these
businesses.
I am surprised at this attack in the way that it has been done
because most people do not know that this Fund is kind of divided into
two parts. We have the small nontraditional institutions that provide
monies to small businesses in inner cities and rural communities. This
is not a minority program, as it was referred to a moment ago; I want
to set the record straight.

{time} 1700

I want to set the record straight. This is a program that operates
throughout this Nation in rural communities, in inner cities, in
suburban areas. This is a program for everybody, and they do avail
themselves of it.
Let me also make something else clear. When this program was
initiated, even though the President had a vision for how we could put
this money into small development organizations and institutions such
as credit unions, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake] said no, we
are not going to give it all to these nontraditional organizations and
small banks and institutions. We are going to give some of it to them,
but we are going to give some of it to the big boys, so they too can do
some of this community development lending.
There has been no talk or investigations or planting of information
about the Bank of America or Chase Manhattan or CitiBank or
NationsBank. They all participate in this program. They are on the
other side. They are the big institutions who have money that they use
to do whatever they are supposed to do with this money. But this is
just to look at the small kind of nontraditional institutions that are
helping small businesses. So I am surprised.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say that it was said that this money has
not been allocated in a timely fashion. Let me correct the record. Over
two-thirds of this money has been issued as of March, over two-thirds
of it has been given out.
Let me tell the Members why we do not want to freeze the funding. The
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] would have us believe this does not
really hurt anything; we are not trying to strip it, we are simply
trying to freeze the money and keep it at certain levels. We are all
basking in the glow of the growth and development and the success of
our economy in this Nation. We like to get up and talk about how well
the economy is doing.
These little businesses want to do well, too. They want to take
advantage of this growth and all that is happening in the economy. We
do not want to freeze them now. Just think what a little money would do
for them. They have the ability to put this money out to little
businesses who can sell their goods and their services. That is why we
do not want to freeze it. We want these little businesses to take
advantage of this growing economy.
While I applaud the work of the appropriations subcommittee, and I
do, the chairman, the gentleman from California, [Mr. Jerry Lewis] and
the ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Stokes] have done a
good job, as well as other members of the subcommittee in developing
this bill, I

[[Page H5352]]

am particularly pleased they have decided to increase the funding of
the CDFI funds to $125 million in keeping with the budget agreement.
Again, we want little businesses to participate in this growth and
development. Now is not the time to put our foot on their necks.
The CDFI program does the critical work of revitalizing distressed
communities by increasing the capacity of community-based financial
institutions to meet the unmet financial needs of this community, at a
time when we are talking about welfare reform, at a time when, again,
we all wax eloquently about how we want to help small businesses.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Waters] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Ms. Waters was allowed to proceed for 30
additional seconds.)
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, this is not the time to clamp down, to deny
funds. When we talk about we want to help small businesses and we
believe in this program and the fact that we should have community
development in distressed communities, it does not make good sense.
I would ask my colleague, my friend that I worked with very well, to
reject the notion that somehow this is going to make this a better
program. I would ask him to simply refrain from trying to deny access
to funds for small businesses at this time.
Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, in the past year the CDFI fund has generated a
considerable amount of controversy. A recent report by the Department
of Treasury's inspector general highlighted a number of these problems.
I cannot in good conscience even think of increasing the budget of the
CDFI funds until these problems have been addressed.
I am also troubled that the CDFI fund has only distributed $4 million
of the $37 million appropriated in the last Congress. Our amendment
will freeze CDFI spending in an effort to allow Congress to work with
the Department of the Treasury to continue to address the points raised
in the inspector general's report.
Mr. Chairman, after a 2-month delay, the Treasury Department finally
complied with an April 14 request by the oversight subcommittee for all
the materials created by Ernst & Young, the accounting firm hired by
the CDFI Fund to review fund procedures. In these documents were
interviews with CDFI fund employees which indicate that CDFI employees
raised a number of troubling issues concerning the administration of
the awards.
These allegations include: CDFI officials instructed reviewers to
emphasize positive information for applications being passed, and to
emphasize negative information for those failing. Certain applicants
received requests for clarifying information from CDFI reviewers that
went beyond clarification and constituted assistance in preparing the
applications. CDFI was helping certain applicants receive what was
supposed to be competitive awards.
Extensions on applications were granted to some but not all
applicants. CDFI regulations required a three-tiered review process.
This was ignored. For instance, the Tier 1 reviews were not conducted
until after the award decision was ultimately made.
The Fund reviewed certain applicants with different review criteria
than other applicants. Applicants were interviewed but no accurate
records of the interviews were ever prepared. The list goes on and on.
I must stress that these allegations were made by CDFI employees and
are being investigated by the oversight subcommittee. Clearly there are
too many additional questions that need to be addressed before we can
even consider increasing funding for this program. Perhaps we will be
able to increase the funding at a later date when the inspector general
and Congress have finished their investigation, but in the meantime, I
urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment until the oversight
and investigations committee can resolve these very serious issues.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RILEY. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, let me first clarify two things that I
think have been said here that are in error. One is that the inspector
general has addressed the issue of whether the grants were proper or
not. In a letter to me yesterday, she says that her investigation was
restricted from that, and that that investigation continues to go on.
So she has really not addressed that. We do not know whether or not the
grant process, whether or not there was fraud or whether there was not.
What we do know is that the letter of the law was not followed, that
documents were manufactured. I think it does put us on the horns of a
dilemma. The Department of Treasury has not dismissed this. They say
they have serious concerns about this.
What I am saying, and I am not speaking for my colleagues, I am not
talking about the underlying intent of this program. I am not talking
about the good it has done or that it could do. I am certainly not
saying there is not a need in these communities for help and that there
are some worthy goals.
I am simply saying that when we take 271 applications and give four
applicants about one-third of the money without a review process, and
then take the other 267 and make them go through a review process, and
then when I am charged as chairman of the Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight to come in and review the process, and instead
being told, hey, we do not have any paperwork on these four, these
documents were put in there to mislead.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, for all the reasons that the distinguished gentleman
from Alabama [Mr. Riley] just stated I would urge opposition to his
amendment, which is well-intentioned, and support of the full funding
for this program.
I do so on the following basis. The gentleman indicates that last
year a problem occurred. It is my understanding, I say to my friend,
who has much more knowledge on this issue than I, I want to say that
out front, but it is my understanding that in fact the applications to
which the gentleman refers were in fact reviewed, but there was not the
proper paper documentation of that review.
Now that aside, because I do not have nearly as much information as
the gentleman does, that issue occurred last year. That issue is
properly under investigation by the committee, as it should do, as it
has a responsibility to do, to ensure that in fact proper procedures,
legal procedures, effective procedures, are pursued for the purposes of
granting dollars appropriated by this Congress. I applaud the gentleman
for that effort. It is an appropriate effort. I support it.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California, my very good
friend who has written an extraordinarily good bill.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my
colleague's yielding and his comment.
I must say to the gentleman, the only reservation I have, for I am
concerned about programs that affect the inner city and small
businesses, et cetera, is that when we went to the Committee on
Appropriations, the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services generally had expressed dollar levels
but this information was not available to the Appropriations
subcommittee. This does concern me.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my chairman for his comments on that
issue.
I believe for the reasons stated by the gentleman that we ought to
reject his amendment, not reject his investigation, not reject going
forward to find out whether there was wrongdoing here--that is
appropriate and we ought to do it--but I say to my friends that this
activity occurred prior to the budget agreement. The budget agreement
entered into by both sides contemplated and agreed to the full funding
of this program.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, let me say this. On April 14, I announced
my intention to review the files. These

[[Page H5353]]

documents were created on the night of April 17 and the morning of
April 18. I have been attempting since that time to find out the truth,
and it was only on the inspector general's report coming in this week
that I knew about it.
Mr. HOYER. I understand that.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I do agree that we are caught on the horns
of a dilemma, and that you can advocate for this program and condemn
the act that happened. So I do not fault the gentleman for that. We
have been hurt in our oversight. I do not question the gentleman's
motives. I do not question that. That is not for me to do, or to
question the effectiveness of the program.
Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for his comments.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I think we concede that nobody is going to
defend the fact that somebody began to put it on paper after the
Oversight Committee chairman properly asked for some materials. But the
fact is that the contention that there has been no evaluation done,
even if it was done orally and it was not put on paper, does not mean
that it was improper. That is a legitimate question. The gentleman
would like to put things on paper, and I do, too. But the fact is that
there is no demonstration that anything that has been done is improper.
In fact, most of the information that has been alleged to be improper
has, I think, had satisfactory answers brought to the conclusion with
regard to this.
Mr. BACHUS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman,
there are two allegations that things may have been improper. One is
that these documents should have been dated. Even the legal counsel at
Treasury cautioned against doing what was done.
I will say this, and I say this with some hesitance of being
misinterpreted, but I am going to say it, President Clinton was a
supporter of this program before it was created. He advocated it before
it was created. He was a proponent of it. So his involvement in pushing
it or advocating it should in no way indicate any ill intent on his
part.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 5
additional minutes.)
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. That is why I
suggest to my friends, as I said at the outset, that I think the
gentleman's comments really lead us to remove ourselves from either
horn of this dilemma.
The reason I say that, it seems to me self-evident that we have a
program here which almost everybody who has risen to talk has said has
a worthy, important critical objective, to give economic development in
those areas where all of us want to see economic development, job
creation, and better lives for people.

{time} 1715

If that is our objective, then the budget agreement which
contemplated the full funding of CDFI ought to be pursued at the same
time that other horn ought not to be abandoned, that is to say, this
investigation; this investigation into whether or not the
administration of this program is being pursued properly, which I do
not know, but if it is not, it ought to be. I agree with the gentleman
from Alabama.
I also appreciate the gentleman's remark, the President has been a
very strong proponent of this program, long before there was any
question of impropriety. The President does not want impropriety any
more than the gentleman from Alabama. But what the President does want
and what he asked for in the course of the budget agreement was that
this program be pursued vigorously because the objective was critical.
If we are going to energize and grow communities, we need to have
healthy economic engines for not only central cities but also other
areas.
So that is why it is so important that we fully fund this program
today, and I might say to my friend, there will be time obviously
between now and the adoption of the conference report. And as the
gentleman well knows, this money is October 1 forward money, so that if
we do not give the lead time now, once you resolve the problem and we
do not have the resources, we will not be able to pursue the program as
vigorously as I think most wanted.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, the bigger question is, we are talking about
four loans in question totaling $11 million that went to Shorebank
Corp. of Chicago and three related companies. A college roommate of
President Clinton worked there in the 1980's. They came down and set up
a corporation in Arkansas which Mrs. Clinton became a director of and
formed through the Rose Law Firm.
The one firm, the group of companies that got $11 million from this
fund are the only ones we cannot find documentation towards. So we are
urgently concerned with the way this particular grant was authorized.
There may be nothing inappropriate about it.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I will say with all due
respect to my friend from Florida, your side of the aisle is
unbelievably concerned with anything that Hillary Clinton may have had
any relationship to over the last 29 years of her life.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I believe we can extricate ourselves from
these horns of dilemma on which I do not believe we are hoist. I say to
my friend that I think we can reject your amendment or perhaps you
would withdraw it. We could reject your amendment and pursue the proper
investigation, so that we have a fully funded program that we all think
is important, and at the same time make sure it is being run properly.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, let me say that I wanted us to focus for a minute on a
problem we have. That problem is that the people who directed that
these documents be placed in the files are the director and the
assistant director of this fund. We are not talking about clerks here.
We are not talking about low level officials.
We do need to move in two directions. One is that we clean up our
program as opposed to close it down, or some for philosophical reasons
say close it down. This amendment freezes funding this year. I will say
again, I think Shorebank has done good work. I do not think that that,
and I have not pointed the finger at Shore Bank or these three other
institutions. They received funding.
What I have said is that they did not go through the same process
from what the files appeared. It is a different situation. I do not
want this to be taken personally on my part, particularly this is a
program that the President fervently believes in.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BACHUS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's support for the
program. The concern I have is that very often in a categorical grant
situation there is a lot of communications had between the agency and
the applicants. In fact, sometimes they get customized, sort of like a
game of ping-pong, until you get the number right.
The fact is this is a relatively small community at this time. It is
a startup program. Clearly there are some problems here. I fault them
for providing papers after what apparently was the oral and the
nonwritten type of approval of these grants. That is regrettable for
those of us that have advocated for this program. Certainly for the
administration, the President, this is deeply disturbing and we hope we
can resolve it.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I would say that it ought to be deeply
disturbing to him to have something like this happen, and him to be
involved in it only because he is an advocate and supporter of the
program.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BACHUS. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I share the gentleman's
concern about the proper management of this or any program. I am the
ranking member of the subcommittee that the

[[Page H5354]]

gentleman chairs. We have not had a discussion about this. Not once did
the gentleman ask me to join him in taking a look at this.
I would be the greatest supporter of trying to make sure that this
program and any other program is run properly. We all care deeply about
this program. This was a bipartisan effort. We debated this in a
laudable fashion when it came before us. If the gentleman wants my
cooperation in taking a look, he has it. But I would respectfully ask
the gentleman not to cripple this program, not to cripple the
institutions, not to cripple the small businesses who will be the
beneficiaries, all of those applicants you have from Alabama.
You have about six of your areas in Alabama who would like to have
money. We need to expand the opportunities. I would ask the gentleman
not to cripple their opportunities with limiting this and keeping it at
$50 million when, in fact, the President and the budget agreement that
was worked out would allocate $125 million.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I am sensitive to that agreement.
Let me wrap up and then I will engage in a colloquy. I think what we
are doing here today is healthy because we are not simply slamming each
other's motivations. We are not trying to grab this for political
purposes. I think that it does do a disservice to our debate when we
characterize the President's advocacy of this program in a demeaning
way. He is a supporter of this program and of what it is designed to
do.
We have to have every applicant go through the same process, play by
the same rules, and this agency has got to be forthright, honest, open
and expedient when we go in to review it. They have to give us an
honest review.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I am a member of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal
Service, and General Government of the Committee on Appropriations, and
this did come before our subcommittee and we discussed it at length. I
would like to say to my colleagues, and to my colleague who has this
amendment here, we are aware of these allegations of improper
activities surrounding the first round of CDFI awards and,
coincidentally, one aspect of this allocation was highlighted in
today's Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal.
While the appearance of these articles today as we debate this
amendment gives the impression of breaking news, I say to my colleagues
this is not breaking news and this investigation is not news to our
subcommittee. The allegations against the CDFI program were discussed
throughout our hearing process. An appropriate investigation has begun
and is being undertaken by the IG and the Treasury Department.
So the committee's position is fully discussed in the House report,
and we insisted that appropriate changes, safeguards and improvements
are made to ensure that every penny that we are appropriating from this
subcommittee reaches the budding entrepreneurs and underserved
communities for which it is intended.
I beg my colleagues, particularly my colleague who offered this
amendment, we must give the CDFI fund a chance to continue to build on
its success and make course corrections and, of course, improvements as
needed. You do not want to wipe out this program for one or two
infractions which you have heard about but that are being investigated.
The CDFI program is well deserving of our support. Our colleagues
have told us how good it is for budding entrepreneurs. It has my and
many of my colleagues' support. Why do we not give this a chance?
Hopefully this well-meaning colleague will withdraw his amendment which
will be deleterious to this particular fund. It is already being
investigated, and we ask your help in having the CDFI maintain its
funds.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake].
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
Let me say I stand in a unique position here in that I am the
predecessor of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] as chairman of
the Subcommittee on General Oversight and Investigations.
One of the things that one finds when he or she is in that position
is that there are always agency issues that can bring one to a point of
wanting to do what the gentleman has tried to do with this particular
piece of legislation; or one can make the decision that they are going
to try to work with the agency, work through those problems, solve
them, based on a desire to want to assure that a worthy program has the
ability to do what it was designed to do.
Let us be very clear. I chaired the committee during the time of a
Republican administration in the White House. The gentleman was a
member of that committee and he knows for a fact that I never did treat
the committee in a way where, whatever problems we found in an agency,
we treated them as if they were White House problems. We treated those
problems based on the fact that that particular agency had some issues
that needed to be resolved, either because they were being investigated
or we found some problems that we had some difficulty with.
Therefore, it seems to me when we really look at Community
Development Financial Institutions and the dual track on which that
runs, because it does not stand by itself; it in fact runs also with
the Bank Enterprise Act which Tom Ridge and I did as a bipartisan piece
of legislation in 1991, long before there was a Bill Clinton in the
White House. The reality is, if we look at the first year of CDFI
funding, what we ought to be dealing with is, yes, there are some
problems.
We all know those issues need to be addressed. There is an
investigation. We definitely want to see that resolved. But it seems to
me that the intent of the program, which did not really start with Bill
Clinton but started way back, which is why Tom Ridge and I did it, and
then subsequent to Tom Ridge being elected governor of Pennsylvania,
the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] and I came back and issued the same
legislation again, the reality is, Mr. Chairman, that we as a body, it
seems to me, if we are going to respond every time an entity in our
communities do not get funded or if we are going to respond to every
complaint that is brought before us, we will find ourselves going
through almost every agency of government making a decision that that
agency ought not be funded.
I would suggest that this is an appropriate agency for us to look at
based on its 1 year experience and in looking at that 1 year
experience, make a determination in accordance with some
recommendations that they have already made, put our recommendations on
the table as well, try to work through those recommendations.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am a little puzzled. I was in the Chamber to deal
with another matter and I have been listening to this debate. I am a
little puzzled about what is going on.
It seems to me that we have got a documented wrongdoing here that has
been discussed now in the media, and inspector generals have gotten
involved with it, once again showing the worth of having a good
inspector general in any of the line agencies, as we have voted in this
House recently to approve.

{time} 1730

And then I take a look at the bill and suddenly discover that a
program that has some mischief in it we are being asked to increase by
150 percent, and that it is a program, it turns out, where some of the
mischief is involved with the person who is asking for the increase. I
am having a little trouble with that.
We have a responsibility here not only for legislation but for
oversight. How do we look our colleagues, our taxpayers, the people we
represent back in the district in the eye and say, oh yeah, we sort of
saw that but we winked and nodded at it because it was OK. We went and
took a look at the fact and, yeah, they said, oh, they did something
wrong.
What are these folks doing? Well, these folks are out there instead
of ripping stuff up before the cops come through the door, they are
making up the justification to cover up, to put stuff in the file. That
is intentionally misleading a congressional committee. That is against
the law. There are penalties for that.
I cannot understand why we are all just standing here saying, oh,
this is

[[Page H5355]]

OK. It is not OK to mislead a congressional committee, and we all know
it.
They want us to believe that this is just an innocent mistake. Let me
read here from the memo that was put into the file, after the fact, to
aid and abet this coverup. ``The applicant is potentially
competitive.'' Now, remember, this is put in 2 months after the money
has been given to the applicant. ``The interview team will need to
review the application in depth to determine whether or not the
application is in actuality competitive, and if it isn't competitive,
how much funding to provide, in what form, and for which initiative.''
That statement is put into the file several months after the money
has been given. That is a blatant bald-face attempt to mislead
investigators by a line agency over which this institution has
oversight under the balance of powers. We are accountable to the people
of the United States of America to say this is wrong, we will not
tolerate this, and we expect cooperation from the other branch of
Government.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida has illuminated the problem.
He talks about people who he believes violated the law. He talks about
people who mislead the Congress, and he supports an amendment which
does not penalize them in the slightest. This does not cut their
salary. This does not let the air out of their tires. This does not
wake them up with a crank call at 4 o'clock in the morning. It cuts the
program so that the intended beneficiaries are denied the funds. That
is the illogic in this.
In fact, by this reading, the beneficiaries have already been hurt
because people running the program ran it badly and we will show those
people who ran the program badly, if they cheated the beneficiaries, we
will cheat them even more.
This is like the parent who tells the teacher, ``You know, my kid is
very sensitive. And if he misbehaves, smack the kid next to him. He
will get the message.''
This is not hitting the person who misbehaved, this is smacking the
person next to them. And we are telling the poor people, who are
supposed to be the beneficiaries of this program, that because they
have suffered maladministration, we will go after the program.
Now, I thought Republicans believed that what we should do was
encourage self-help. We have cut housing, we have cut benefit programs,
we have cut welfare. Have we no other way to deal with
maladministration than to deny to the intended beneficiaries of a
program the benefits they are supposed to get?
The people who misbehaved will be left whole by this. They will in no
way be inconvenienced. Indeed, they will be paid the same amount of
money to do less work.
Now, I appreciate the gentleman from Alabama, and I mean this
seriously, that he said he was not impugning their motives, and I do
appreciate that. I did begin to hear some dark plots about Hillary
Clinton, and I thought we were going to be told that the documents had
been found in Vince Foster's briefcase. But the gentleman correctly
said this is a question of how we deal with programs. But the question
is how do we deal with inefficiency, corruption, or whatever in a
program.
Do we punish the intended beneficiaries? Do we hit the innocent
victims? Because that is what this amendment does. Or do we say let us
prefer charges. I am not familiar with the specifics. But if someone
violated the law, we should not take away the program they are
administering from the people on whose behalf it was created. Go after
them.
I am particularly concerned by the double standard. The gentleman
from Florida, who spoke just before me, has been very active on the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. My recollection is a few
years ago we found about $4 billion they had not told us about. They
hid $4 billion. And what did we do to them? We said spend that more
carefully the next time. The intelligence agency has been plagued with
problems, spies, et cetera. We have not cut intelligence because of
that.
Indeed, I think we could have cut them for other reasons. When we
have cost overruns in the Pentagon, when we have other problems, do we
penalize the programs' intended beneficiaries' shares? That is the
illogic.
Have we not done enough to the poor? I mean this. Let us look at the
budget. We have said, no, we cannot have welfare, we cannot have food
stamps. People can make an individual justification for each of those,
although I would disagree. We cut housing. We cut welfare. We cut for
the least among us.
We did say, OK, here is what we will do. We will fund the program
$150 million, not even the margin of error in the average Pentagon
program, and we will take that and we will give that to these people
for them to engage in self-help. There has been no allegation that the
beneficiaries misspent. There has been no allegation, and the gentleman
from Alabama quite generously noted some of the beneficiaries had done
a good job.
Well, who do we think we are punishing? What is the logic of saying
to one group of administrators, because you did badly we will,
therefore, hurt the people for whom the program was intended?
I hope we will reject this amendment because I have not heard any
arguments against the nature of the program, against the way the
program works out in the street. I have not heard arguments that the
program in its execution is flawed. I have heard some people at the top
did bad things. Go after them.
Do not take the poor people of these cities, who are the intended
beneficiaries of this, hostage in our frustration that some high level
people did something wrong.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, for 11 years here I have argued consistently that the
only way we really get to the bottom of trying to resolve many of the
issues that are endemic to those communities where many of us would
agree we need to make adjustments in our approaches to social
programming is to create investment vehicles, investment opportunities,
create the means by which government becomes the tool that leverages
the possibility for development.
I am more than a Congressman, I am a minister who happens to be
involved in development and has done more than 50 million dollars'
worth in the community where I live. The bottom line is the one thing
we do not have in those communities is access to capital. One reason we
started out with the Bank Enterprise Act was to create vehicles by
which we could get capital into the communities and not just focus on
housing but also focus on redevelopment of commercial strips, getting
people involved as entrepreneurs, getting them in business for the
first time in their life.
If we are talking now about trying to reduce a program that has only
been funded for 1 year, we are going to take away funding in the second
year, the reality is it will take us almost forever to get that program
back up to a point where we get businesses started in those
communities.
Now, I find a problem in terms of the rhetoric that I hear here. On
the one hand I hear my colleagues on the other side talk about how we
need to move people from welfare to work. And then here we talk about,
in spite of the fact we want to do that, we are going to take away one
of the few leveraging tools we have to make investments to try to
create jobs in those communities where the people live who would come
off of welfare and go to work.
I do not need anybody telling me what the politics may be. I want
them to deal with some realities. I have been fortunate where I am to
create 800 jobs, I have about 800 employees, largely because initially
we did investments from church funds. Most entities cannot do that.
They need this leveraging tool. They need the synergy of government
being involved with these community development corporations so that
they can do what they are unable to do by virtue of the fact the
resources are not available to them.
I would urge my colleague again to take a very close look at what his
legislation does. I think it is a piece of legislation that, if he
really would give consideration to, he might want to think about
withdrawing because this

[[Page H5356]]

piece of legislation does damage to any possibility of being able to
restore those communities, to create jobs in them, to put those
commercial strips back on the marketplace.
If those commercial strips go back into the marketplace, they become
taxable entities. If they create jobs, they create opportunities for
folks to actually make contributions to the Federal Government through
taxes that they currently are not doing. They create working
communities where people do not have access to jobs.
I think we are doing a dangerous thing, and it is my hope that my
good friend from Alabama will take a very serious look at the damage
that will be done if we go in the direction of this amendment. And I
would say to him again, having served as chairman of this oversight
committee during the previous administrations, which did not involve
Bill and Hillary Clinton, there were many times I could have actually
done what the gentleman is doing. I did not do that. I did not do it
with HUD or even with the RTC, in spite of all the tragic problems they
had, but rather we tried to work with the administration.
I would urge the gentleman to work with this administration. Let us
do what is right to try to move forward as a nation.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's work on the
oversight and his work on the RTC oversight. I similarly, before that
subcommittee, I headed a task force on the RTC, and I think we made it
a better entity of the Resolution Trust Corp.
I would point out in the report of investigation by the Department of
the Treasury, the office of Inspector General, and I am reading, ``On
June 25, 1997, Thomas Byrnes and Charles Mitchell, Auditors, Capital
Audit Region'' of the office of inspector general from Treasury,
``conducted a comparison of the information contained in the four
undated memorandums with the information provided by Rohde,'' who is
the individual involved, in the oral memorandum based on the
contemporaneous notes taken by Rohde, Cooper and Piper during the oral
memorandum presentations. There was nothing in the notes which
contradicted information presented in the written memorandums.
I would point out that the information is consistent. That does not,
in my judgment, excuse or justify the fact that these memos were
written and not dated and placed there prior, but it does to me suggest
that there was an evaluation process that was in place based on what
was a substantial memory of the individuals making the awards.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The question before us really is one of propriety, and I regret to
say that I am very disturbed by the developments that I have read
concerning the handling of the funds in this matter.
But let me speak first to the issue of whether the Congress is or is
not being responsive to the needs of those in low-income communities,
particularly in light of the debate as to whether this is an effective
program or not.
The CDFI Program was a joint effort of the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Flake] and Mr. Ridge several years ago, and at the time of its
outset I was a supporter and felt confident it was a direction in which
we should move. I pointed out then, however, and I point out to Members
tonight, that the community investment program of the Federal Home Loan
Bank, a program that exists today, as of the close of business in 1995,
in 1 year, extended loans to low-income communities totaling $9
billion. Nine billion dollars.
So to say that programs of this Congress intended to help low-income
individuals are not available is simply not accurate. Matter of fact, I
would strongly support an expansion of the applicability of the CIP
Program because I know how those funds are awarded and that deserving
people get real opportunities.
The problem for us here with this debate is that with the CDFI
Program, upon further examination, we cannot defend how the awards were
made. There was no objective scoring criteria. There was no way to go
back and say tonight that the $50 million that has been authorized and
allocated, we know how it was given out.
Apparently the documents that have been the subject of controversy
were inserted into the public record after the determinations were
made. That is troubling.
All I am suggesting to my colleagues is that we should move very
carefully. And the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] is suggesting
with the adoption of his amendment that we say, wait a minute, let us
keep it at last year's level 1 more year. And what are we talking
about? The difference between $50 million, last year's appropriation,
and the 125 previously agreed to. And I would point out to the
gentleman that perhaps $25 million of the previously authorized 50 was
actually spent.
So what is the rush? Why do we not take the proper steps? Because of
one simple point. When I get off the plane and go back to Baton Rouge
over the weekend, I will find it hard to say that $150 million is
insignificant money to people in my district. Not that we are abjectly
opposed nor in any way resistant to helping those in communities who
have financial need, that we do in fact want to help, that we would
like to see programs like the CIP Program properly managed and properly
operated, and be fully funded. I can be supportive of that. But we
should not at this point take this step without making careful review
of the circumstance surrounding this program.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Louisiana knows, over
the years I have argued that in order for us to really build a concept
of holistic communities, we cannot merely talk about housing. And what
happens, and the gentleman is absolutely right, there are funding
mechanisms available, Fannie Mae, Ginnie Mae, Freddie Mac, all of those
are available, but what they do is basically concentrate on housing.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time briefly on that point
only, and then I will be happy to yield further, the community
investment program of the Federal Home Loan Bank funds firehouses,
multifamily apartment houses, restaurants, anything a community needs,
and $9 billion of it was done in 1995. So this is not a limited purpose
program that I am referencing.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?
Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

{time} 1745

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, if we look at that very closely, what we
find is that the resources that could be made available for the
redevelopment of those commercial strips, the rebuilding of the small
business sector in those communities, that is not where those funds are
going.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me give one further
example, if I might. Under the Federal Home Loan Bank Community
Investment Program, if the employees working in a business make less
than 80 percent of the median income in that community, meaning lower
income salaried employees, that business owner can go to the Federal
Home Loan Bank member bank institution and refinance their entire
business debt at a federally subsidized, low interest rate.
Now I can tell my colleagues that is a pretty distinctive advantage
for low-income families. The fact is it may not be utilized everywhere.
I do not understand, but it is currently being done.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, it
is an advantage. It is not enough. The bottom line is, if you are only
dealing with the existing businesses, you still do not create the kind
of opportunities that CDFI was intended to create.
We are talking about bringing new businesses into the mainstream. We
are talking about potential entrepreneurs who right now have the basic
plans but do not have access to the same----
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I agree with the
gentleman that we ought to have more innovative ways. The only thing I
am suggesting here this evening is that we

[[Page H5357]]

need to make sure they work before we put more money in them and there
is question as to how this one works.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I will be brief and just make a couple of points.
First, allegations have been made about improper behavior. Those
allegations should be followed up. If people acted improperly, we
should deal with them in accordance with the law. And I do not think
that there is anybody who disagrees with that. And when somebody on the
other side says, we do not care, that is wrong.
On the contrary, because we believe in these programs, we demand that
they be administered properly. We do care, and we wanted to know about
any illegalities, and we will work with anybody to address those
problems. It is of concern that, as far as I understand it, the ranking
member of that committee was not officially informed about these
problems, and that does not suggest to me a nonpartisan way to address
them. That is point No. 1.
Point No. 2 is, there is an enormous need for capital in low-income
communities. And the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] made a
point a moment ago that needs repeating. I brought forth an amendment
to cut funding for the intelligence communities after I learned that
the National Reconnaissance Office had ``lost $4 billion.'' We were not
successful in lowering funding for the intelligence agencies.
Time after time, cost overruns occur in the military; and through
defense contractors, they continue to get increases in their programs.
What we are saying is, we have a program here where the need is
desperate. Low-income communities in Vermont and throughout this
country need the capital to help small businesses and other
institutions.
If people have acted improperly who are in the administration of that
program, deal with that. But do not kill or paralyze the program
because of the misdeeds of those people.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the gentleman pointed out
again that there was no attempt to work with me, no attempt to talk
with me about problems that have been identified or problems that have
been found. Anybody that knows anything about me knows that I will
investigate, I will find out who is doing what, I will help get to the
bottom of it.
Let me just say this: Questions still remain. I am not opposed to
working with the Chair and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] to
continue investigation, to expand investigation, to look at this from
every angle that we can possibly look at it. I would think that the
thing to do is to not penalize the businesses that would be the
beneficiaries.
Remember what we are doing now in the budget. Remember how we
targeted small businesses with capital gains tax cuts in order to grow
them.
Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time, if I might, may I ask the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Foley], I think what he is hearing on this side is no
tolerance for misbehavior in the administration of that program.
Are we in agreement with that?
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. FOLEY. I understand that.
Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time, and what the gentleman is hearing,
sir, is that we wanted to move forward in a nonpartisan way.
Is the gentleman hearing that?
Mr. FOLEY. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I am hearing
that, sir.
Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time, OK, so let us do that. But can we
have some assurance from my colleague that we should not be punishing
people and small businesses in needs, that we should pass the
appropriation that came out of the committee, and then let us proceed
tomorrow to do the proper investigation and let us deal with that?
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. FOLEY. Let me just reiterate. Fifty percent of the money still
remains in the account to be given out. This amendment would allow an
additional $50 million to continue to loan out to communities.
Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time, I am really aware of that.
Mr. FOLEY. If the gentleman would continue to yield, and may I also
stress the Senate VA-HUD passed out a zero funding for this category
out of their committee yesterday. They zeroed out the account.
So we clearly do not want to do that. We do not want to go backward
in time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a correction
about how much money has been spent on the program?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] controls the
time.
Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time, I would just ask the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Foley], if the Senate has done that, then it is more
important that we come forward with the full appropriation.
I would just urge the gentleman to understand that people on this
side are not tolerant of any improper behavior in terms of the
administration of those funds, and we will work with them to get at the
root of the problem. We would hope, however, that he would support the
full appropriation and allow this important program to go forward.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
in expressing concern if there has been impropriety in the
administration of this program. I do not think any of us has the luxury
or the American people have the luxury of tolerating improper conduct
in the administration of any government program.
Having said that, let me also be realistic and say that there is not
a government program anywhere where there are not some kinds of
problems in them, and it is always our responsibility to try to
identify those problems and to address those problems, and that is why
we have oversight committees. That is why we have, hopefully, people of
goodwill who are elected to office, both on the legislative side and on
the executive side, who have as a responsibility running Government as
cleanly and honestly and as efficiently as we know how to do it.
But there are communities throughout America who need the benefit of
this program, at full funding, not at some reduced level, at full
funding. There are problems obviously in the military. We heard
about exorbitant cost of toilet seats and hammers. We did not go in and
try to zero out or freeze the funding of the military. We identified
those problems and we continue to identify those problems and try to
address those problems.

There are problems of sexual harassment in the military, but we have
not tried freeze the funding of the military because of those problems.
We have tried to address those problems straight on, straight up, go
directly at them, and the reason is that we know that there is an
important public defense purpose that the military serves in our
country.
What I have heard on both sides of the aisle is that there is an
important public purpose that this CDFI program serves for our country.
It was a bipartisan initiative. It was funded through bipartisan
efforts. The makeup of it was influenced by my colleague, the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Flake].
This is not welfare. This is something that advances what all of us
support and stand for, which is the ability of every single community
in our country to participate in the economic vitality of our country.
I am not critical of my colleagues for investigating any
improprieties in this program. We have committed to join in the
investigation because if somebody is wasting money that should be going
to revitalize programs in inner cities, in rural America, in decaying
communities, every single one of us should be outraged about it, and we
are outraged about it if their conduct is improper. But that is not,
that is not, my colleagues, an excuse to freeze the funding for this
program, because then we are saying that the program has no value.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to withdraw this amendment and
allow regular order to proceed.

[[Page H5358]]

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I have listened rather intently to this debate and
certainly much has been said. As a matter of fact, I agree with much of
what I have heard. But it is very difficult to agree with the bottom
line, and that is if the bottom line is to deny people all over
America.
This program is the result of the creativity of Shore Bank, before
the program started, developing some creative initiatives on how you
could get money into low income communities, how you could make sure
that people who had never gotten a loan could get a loan for their
business, people who had never been able to purchase a home could
purchase one through the creativity of the banking process.
Then Governor Clinton saw it, liked it and, as he became President,
became a real proponent of it, talked about it all over America. And
now I hear us saying that because the bath water might have gotten a
little tainted that we are going to throw out the baby, too. Well, the
baby really had nothing to do with tainting the water. I was at a Shore
Bank just this past Saturday, a Shore Bank that is less than two blocks
from my home, who reaches out into communities and asks people do you
really need a loan? Come and let us help you go through the process,
let us help you determine what you need to do, let us help you find out
whether or not you are eligible. And so I join with those who would
suggest that it is in actuality one of the best economic development
programs that America has seen, and to be against it, to reduce the
money, is like saying we like it but we are not really willing to
demonstrate that we like it.

{time} 1800

If we like it, let us fund it.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to plead with the Members of this body, to plead
with the sponsor of this amendment, to plead with him on behalf of poor
citizens who reside in the First Congressional District.
Mr. Chairman, this bill that we are discussing, the Community
Development Financial Institutions Act, the CDFI, did not happen
accidentally. This bill came into existence primarily because folks who
live in districts like mine, the First Congressional District of
Illinois, could not get adequate loans, could not get adequate credit
for their homes and their businesses. We were indeed what one calls a
classical credit-starved community.
Shore Bank, without the support of any governmental institution,
decided that they were going to stand up and turn what most had viewed
as being a lemon, turn it into lemonade. They began to develop an
approach to providing credit to communities and to people that could
not get it heretofore. They began to reach out and say to the people in
South Shore, Jackson Park Highlands, Woodlawn, Grand Boulevard, other
communities in my district that, notwithstanding the heartlessness and
the callousness of the major banks in this city, we will indeed take
your plight and your cause up and we will develop the kind of approach
where you can get loans for your businesses and loans for your homes.
They started this approach. They created this vehicle.
Mr. Chairman, when I was elected in the 103d Congress, when I came
here in 1993 and served on the Committee on Banking and Financial
Services, when this bill was discussed I was most proud. Most proud. As
a matter of fact, this was the high point of my brief career, to have
been able to work with other Members on both sides of the aisle on the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services to make this bill a law.
Mr. Chairman, I have one pen, one pen where a President signed a
piece of legislation, one letter engulfed with that pen, and that is
the pen that the President gave to me when he signed this legislation.
I think it is symbolic, Mr. Chairman, for a person who fought all their
lives on behalf of poor people to be able to vote and to work on a
piece of legislation that this body passed into law to create this
particular bill, to create this particular measure.
Mr. Chairman, we can talk about a few Federal employees who might
have done the wrong thing and, yes, we should look at them. If they did
wrong, then they should be fired. But let me tell my colleagues the
other side of this.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rush] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Rush was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, what my colleagues are attempting to do right
now is to stop a young businessman in my community right now who is
struggling. He is a successful entrepreneur, has a clothing store,
Jacob's Store for Men, he has been located on 79th Street in my
district for about 5 years, and he has been a success. He has got five
employees, all working people with families, and his business has been
so successful that he wants to expand. He has gone around to all the
major banks in the city asking them, pleading with them, look, I have
been in business 5 years, I have got employees, I have got five
employees with a family, my business is good, will you give me a loan
so I can expand?
Each time, the door has been closed on Jacob and his store for men.
Shore Bank is the only one that right now is considering giving this
small businessman an opportunity, a leg up, to help expand his business
and keep that success going and also in order to make sure that he
continues to have families fed because they are in his employ.
This particular example can be multiplied time and time again. I
would invite the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] and anybody from
the other side, anybody on this floor and in this body, if they doubt
the success and the impact of Shore Bank, let me take them into my
community. Let me have them walk down the streets of South Shore and
look at the apartment buildings where they have invested their moneys
and turned apartment buildings around. Let me take them to the
factories where they have helped factory workers.
Do not throw the baby out with the bath water. If my colleagues have
a problem with how this program is being run, let us correct the
problem. Let us not target South Shore Bank because that is what it is
all about, is South Shore Bank. Do not target South Shore Bank. Let us
solve the problems and keep this money and keep this budget and keep
this agreement alive.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier, much of this information and
these expressions of concern were not available to the committee when
we discussed it at the appropriations level and this increased
appropriations was recommended. Nonetheless, I am very interested in
this program and its potential positive effect on the communities out
there. I want to make sure that the committee is doing all that it can
to make certain that funds made available by way of an appropriate and
objective application process get to the very people we are all
concerned about here.
With that, that the committee does want to continue to look very,
very carefully, Mr. Chairman, I do not pretend to have the expertise of
the people on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services that
suggested that perhaps there should be an increase and the budget
process did that as well, but I am not sure they had all this
information, either.
In the meantime, while I would discontinue my own personal remarks
regarding this matter, I would like to yield to my two colleagues here
who have been leading the way in connection with this and pursue this
to the point that satisfies them as we close down the discussion on
this amendment.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. FOLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We are engaged in what
I hope is fruitful conversations with the other side of the aisle on
this issue.
I think clearly the discussion has centered on some concerns that we
have regarding the program. I think statements made by Members of the
minority have indicated they too are concerned with some of the aspects
of

[[Page H5359]]

the program. I would be agreeable to creating a mechanism by which we
freeze, or at least accept, the $50 million offer on our amendment if
we would have within the next 90 or whatever days, until October 1, an
investigation, to indicate the problems, a set of guidelines that would
be adhered to in future grants. If we can adopt those types of
standards as the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson] and I have been
discussing, if we can discuss those standards, then we would allow the
amendment to enact $125 million on completion of those issues.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the ranking member of that committee
rejects that offer. Let me just say that I would certainly advise the
members of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services to reject
that offer.
I would be supportive of doing everything that the gentleman has
talked about, even though I was never contacted about concerns, even
though I was never told about an investigation, even though I was never
in any way brought into this. I am perfectly willing to expand the
investigation, to go beyond even where the chair of this subcommittee
has gone in an effort to find out what happened. But I would want the
$125 million that was appropriated by the Committee on Appropriations
to remain intact and only if the investigations reap the kind of
information that shows that there has been fraud, there has been
absolutely wrongdoing, then I would join the gentleman in reducing the
amount. But not the offer that has been made, no.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time for just a
moment, I might suggest that what is really being discussed here in
good faith on the part of all the parties is the prospect of developing
language that could fit into a manager's amendment as we go to the
conference on this matter. I would not want to reject that out of hand.
I would hope no one would who is concerned about making sure these
moneys get to the people that we would intend them in the first place.
I did not know about these questions in depth when the Committee on
Appropriations worked on the bill as well.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, let me stress that this is not about
mischief, this is not about giving demerits. This is about willful
intent. This is about misconduct. This is about trying to mislead
Congress and, therefore, the American people in our oversight. This
deals with the highest officials at CDFI.
What I am saying is, enough is enough. How can we increase funding
for a program that has fought oversight and has significant problems?
We can clear this up, and I do not know if it is 30, 60, or 90 days,
but the Treasury Department has to get out of denial.
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. BACHUS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, as the chairman
of the Committee on General Oversight and Investigations, we cannot
have oversight as some cat and mouse game where we have to ask the
right question in the right way. If we do not, we get a misleading
answer, we get no answer, or we get a promise of an answer. This is
serious. We owe the American people oversight, and also we owe them an
honest process of awarding these grants.
Good recipients, good intentions, but we also have to have an honest,
open, good process of making these awards. I will simply say that we
have got to address this problem. It is a problem that we have and the
administration has, and it has to be addressed and it cannot be glossed
over.

{time} 1815

And, as my colleagues know, my patience is being tried on this, that
we do not really have a problem or this is all politics when we have
the creation of these documents against legal advice.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it, and let me just say that I
from the onset I think helped set a tone here with regard to not
attempting to defend actions where individuals manufactured papers to
present to the subcommittee, and I think we are of one mind with regard
to resolving that, wherever it leads. At the same time, I do not think
that we would for a problem in an arms program disarm the soldiers, and
I think that is the concern we have when we see the pleading with
people like the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rush] and others, and I
would just say that we are of one mind with regard to this, and this is
an issue included in the budget negotiations which most of us were not
part of. I trust that maybe our colleague, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis] and he says no.
So I think, as we go forward, I think the understanding is that we
have gained some, I think a major concession here today in terms of
this, if that was the concern. I do not know that my support was ever
lacking with regard it, but if we could go forward with this, with this
understanding that if these questions or criteria that our good friend
from Florida has articulated are not satisfied in the sense of before
the closure on this particular bill with regard to conference, then I
would think that there would not be the support evidenced in the House,
and we would agree.
So I think that is; I mean if we in fact now choose to in fact adopt
an amendment that would substantially limit this and truncate the
program, there would be no opposition to negotiate based on what is a
subcommittee action.
Senate, I might say at this time, and I appreciate the gentleman
yielding, but that is the dilemma. So if we could get with this
understanding that I think we have from the gentlewoman from
California, the gentleman from New York, and myself and others, I think
we would be fully in support of resolving the questions with regard to
the criteria outlined from the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I believe
we are getting close to the point of coming to an agreement that will
cause the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and myself as we go to
conference on behalf of Members of the House on both sides of the aisle
who are concerned about a very important program being dealt with in a
straightforward way with objective standards and so forth; when those
expressions come to us, I think we will be ready to commit that we will
carry that voice to the conference. But indeed we have had a very
extensive discussion, a very healthy discussion, I think.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from New York, and
then we will go from there.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, the question I ask is that we have a full
understanding of what it is we will be taking to the conference. So on
the one level we are hearing that we would agree to $50 million, and
then we would have this interim period between now and October 1, at
which we would do an analysis of those issues which are outstanding,
while in the committee print we are talking about $125 million where we
would do that analysis, and if that analysis proves that all things are
all right to move forward, then the whole 125 would kick in as of
October 1, the new budget cycle.
Am I correct in that understanding, or am I incorrect?
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BACHUS. As I understand, I think part of the budget agreement was
funding at $125 million. I do not think any of us anticipated on this
side of the aisle or on that side of the aisle that we had the problem
that we now know we have. The Secretary of the Treasury can address
this problem and take immediate action, and he needs to set a standard
over there, and he needs to, quite frankly, punish those who have done
wrong. And as my colleagues know, I think we can commend to him, he can
take action, and we can get this program back on track.

[[Page H5360]]

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. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr.
Bachus].
Mr. BACHUS. I do think he has a role to play, and he needs to play
that role. And the agreement that my colleagues have outlined I think
is our agreement, but I just hope they are as serious as we profess to
be about this.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, my understanding that what we are agreeing
to is that it would be full funding as of October 1 if those issues are
resolved?
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from California [Mr.
Lewis] will continue to yield, those problems need to be addressed, and
they need to be taken seriously, and there needs to be serious action
taken.
Mr. FLAKE. We agree with the gentleman. I do not think anyone over
here has disagreed.
Mr. BACHUS. Then we have an agreement.
Mr. FLAKE. So then the gentleman would actually go with report of the
committee based, and then have the gentleman from California [Mr.
Lewis] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] agree to the language
that would, in fact, allow that to kick in, the issues that the
gentleman considers to be outstanding are resolved between now and that
time.
Mr. BACHUS. That is correct.
Mr. FLAKE. Is that correct?
Mr. BACHUS. That is correct.
Mr. FLAKE. And with the 125, which is in the committee report.
I think we can agree to that.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the agreement that was just discussed by
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake] that will take us into
conference in the way that the Committee on Appropriations had designed
with 125, with language that would define the way in which it kicks in,
is fine with me. If we can work on that deal and get the specific
language, as long as we go in with the amount that the gentleman has
put in, then I am satisfied.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I think that I have listened throughout
this very lengthy debate regarding this issue this evening, and of
course, like the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], I have deferred
to members of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer
Credit because they are the ones who authorize this program, and they
have the expertise with reference to it.
The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and I, without knowledge of
some of the things that have been discussed on the floor this evening,
fully funded this program in the amount of $125 million, feeling that
the program had the kind of merit that deserved that kind of funding,
and we, of course, were not privy to many of the details that have been
brought to the floor tonight.
What we would urge all the parties here to do is to accept the
recommendation of the ranking member of the Subcommittee on General
Oversight and Investigations, the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Waters]. I say that for this reason. The gentleman from California [Mr.
Lewis] and I are the ones who are going to be in conference. He and I
have to try to protect the program and also at the same time be able to
accomplish what the chairman of the Subcommittee on General Oversight
and Investigations wants to see done, and I have no disagreement with
what he wants to see done in terms of the kind of an investigation and
whatever action it warrants being taken. But we will seriously
jeopardize the program if we do not leave the full $125 million in
there.
I do not think that we want to in conference jeopardize the program,
so I think what we would want to do is to leave the $125 million in and
make it contingent upon the proviso that my colleague has made
reference to here this evening.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from California would
yield, or conditioned upon.
Mr. STOKES. Or conditioned upon is fine.
Mr. BACHUS. But let me say this, and I want to reiterate this, what
we know and what the IG has described happened over there----
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I believe
we are right at the edge of a general agreement here, and if I can, I
think this side has been discussing this.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus]
for an exchange with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I think that a lot of things have already
been investigated and decided, and there is some action that could be
taken this week. That is my fervent hope, and I hope the Secretary of
the Treasury will show some good faith in setting standards.
But I think we have an agreement.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let us
proceed in this fashion:
I will yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] to have him
outline what they believe may be an agreement between the parties here,
and if it seems to make sense, then the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Stokes] and I will talk about it.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis]
has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Lewis of California was allowed to proceed
for 5 additional minutes.)
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Foley].
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would be agreeable to discussing an
amendment that would include the language: ``$125 million would be
appropriated for this program pending a full investigation, an
objective evaluation of the program now and in the future, the adoption
of uniform standards for awarding grants and using an objective numeric
scoring system for allocating those grants, that the conditions and the
investigation and all that is described be agreed to and met by October
1 or the funds would hereby be reduced to the $50 million as underlined
by my amendment pending.''
So we would have $125 million made available for the program pending
those conditions, full investigation, objective evaluation of the
program now and in the future, uniform standards for awarding grants
and using an objective numeric scoring system.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I do not think the gentleman specified by
whom the investigation would be conducted.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from California will
continue to yield, I would assume the oversight committee of the House,
the Treasury and the Inspector General's office.
Mr. STOKES. I see.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BACHUS. Let me say this.
I would say to the Treasury Department that they can facilitate this
by some prompt action on their part.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WATERS. The general points that my colleagues have made are the
outline of some kind of agreement that appears acceptable to all of us.
My colleague's suggestion about the prompt involvement of Treasury is
something I do not know how to frame in this agreement. I hear them,
and I do believe that if we adopt or if we accept the general outline,
there is a need; Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, there is a need for
both sides to get together and basically finalize this agreement. The
general agreement seems fine. We need to get together, finalize it. If
we move forward in that way, I think we have something.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H5361]]

Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I think the only thing I would argue, and I
am in total agreement, but it would seem to me that in order for this
to work, Mr. Chairman, it is imperative that the chair of the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation and the ranking woman on
that committee get together and come to an agreement on what the
specifics are that they are investigating, and when we come to that
agreement, that is what they both will be looking for, which of course
implies that they will have to work together to make it happen.
I think we can all agree to this, I think it makes good sense, I
think it moves it forward, and I certainly want to thank my colleagues
for having the kind of spirit for wanting to work through this because
I think it is an important piece for the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Stokes] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] who I think will
do their very best to assure that it is funded, and I only argue that
it can only be done in a bipartisan fashion as it was from the very
beginning.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, could I
get the attention of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] for just a
moment?
I am thinking that have it might make sense for the gentleman from
Ohio and I to agree to ask unanimous consent to set this aside, this
matter aside, until 7 o'clock, in which these parties will come back
with language and will revisit this item and agree upon the language or
not. If we agree upon it by unanimous consent, we can include it in
this amendment and eliminate the money problem and move forward. If we
cannot by then, then we will just have an up or down vote on the
amendment. What does the gentleman think about that?

{time} 1830

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would suggest that it might be in order for
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] to request unanimous consent to
withdraw his amendment without setting a time certain for its being
reoffered. The Committee could continue with the deliberation on the
bill, at which time, when ready, the gentleman from Florida could
resubmit an amendment, properly worded in writing.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, this gentleman only knows of
one other amendment. I would love to have the Members get their work
done no later than 7 o'clock. In the meantime, I think the Chair's
recommendation is a very good one.
Mr. FOLEY. May I inquire of the Chair, will my amendment as currently
being considered be allowed to be made in order and a part of the bill
if I withdraw my pending amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee is at the end of the bill now. The
gentleman may still offer an amendment at this portion of the bill, if
properly modified, or the same amendment again.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis]
has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Lewis of California was allowed to proceed
for 5 additional minutes.)
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I believe we have an agreement here. I
believe if we spend an additional amount of time to take advantage with
each other in a written document, we have a good faith agreement to
investigate this. I think we have all acknowledged that it is serious,
and we have a framework that this appropriation is going to be
conditioned upon our investigating, and Treasury making us a full
report and making some standards and setting up a good procedure.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, based upon the chairman's statement, is the
chairman saying that he would withdraw his amendment at this point?
Exactly what is he willing to do?
Mr. BACHUS. I think from a technical standpoint, that is what I will
do. I am relying on the good faith of Treasury, and we are going to go
forward with this investigation. I would hope that they will simply
acknowledge this misconduct, which I think the IG has, and that this
program gets cleaned up.
Mr. STOKES. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I would just
like to say that I appreciate very much the approach taken by the
chairman, and I think both the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis]
and I, in deference to the fact that the gentleman is willing to
withdraw the amendment, will certainly be willing to work with the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] and the gentleman from Alabama
[Mr. Bachus] and others relative to the type of an agreement that has
been discussed openly and, I think in essence, agreed to on the floor.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the
amendment is the amendment of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley],
and he would have to withdraw his amendment. I believe the gentleman
wants to have a clear understanding between both sides that there is a
strong expression of concern about procedures that have been involved
here. They want to make sure that future applications are carried
forward with some objective standards, et cetera, that which we have
discussed on the record.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. FOLEY. I want to make certain. I will withdraw the amendment. I
want to make certain this language is attached to the bill as I read
and outlined, that the $125 million appropriation will be conditional
upon a full investigation by an appropriate body, objective evaluation
of program now and in the future, that the uniform standards for
awarding grants using an objective numeric scoring system is included;
and the final thing that I did not add before, that anybody found
guilty of a violation of law as a result, a violation, would be dealt
with appropriate to law.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the
ranking member of the committee.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me start by stipulating I know virtually
nothing about this program and I have no stake in it. I would like to
see the agreement worked out that we have just heard.
I think our concern, I want to make sure that the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Foley] has an opportunity to put the concept before the
House that has just been agreed to in principle. The concern, as I
understand, is that we need time to work out the language between these
two gentlemen, because they know the ins and outs of this better than
anyone else. I think the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] needs the
assurance that we are willing to allow that concept to come to the
floor, but we need to understand that that is subject to agreement on
the exact language. I do not think there will be a program. The reason
we need the time is because we are not certain that the language works.
That is the point.
Mr. BACHUS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, I
would be more comfortable with these two gentlemen working out that
agreement, as opposed to oversight.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield
again to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley].
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to know I have some assurance.
Otherwise I will press my amendment that is pending at the desk, and
allow the gentleman to perfect an amendment that will come back to me,
in my direction. I preserve my right to have a vote on my amendment.
Mr. STOKES. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, I
have absolutely no reservations about being willing to work with the
gentleman and the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] toward working
this agreement out in a satisfactory manner based upon what I think in
essence is being agreed upon here between the respective parties on the
floor.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis]
has again expired.

[[Page H5362]]

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
speak for 5 additional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Prior to granting the gentleman's unanimous-consent
request for an additional 5 minutes, the Chair needs to make certain
that it is clear that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley], upon
obtaining unanimous consent to withdraw his amendment, could offer
another proper amendment and the right to offer that amendment would be
in order.
However, the Chair must also indicate to the gentleman, without any
anticipation that it would occur, that it could be legislating on an
appropriation and be subject to a point of order if in fact the point
of order was raised and which would not be waived in advance.
The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] has requested an additional
5 minutes.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleague,
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], I believe we have in essence an
agreement between the two sides regarding an outline of that which they
would like to have discussed with the administration and reviews that
should go forward, et cetera, between now and the time we go to
conference. I would suggest that the gentleman and I are willing to
make a commitment that we will carry this message forward to the
conference, and proceed as expeditiously and effectively as possible.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, I have just consulted
with both the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] and the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake], and they have no objection to the
gentleman and I working this matter out on their behalf.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Foley], just so it is clear, what we are talking about is
that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and I will be the people in
the conference who have listened to this debate thoroughly. We
understand the parameters of the agreement between both sides. I think
everybody wants to see this program operate effectively. The gentleman
has outlined the basics of this. I hear no objection.
With that, with those parameters that are on the record, we intend to
carry the gentleman's voice to conference, which is the appropriate
place for us next to deal with this, and that, of course, is part and
parcel of the gentleman's consideration of withdrawing the amendment. I
am not interested in prejudicing the gentleman's amendment per se, but
I think the questions raised here are important and we are happy to
pursue it.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, clearly it is my intent to obviously make
certain that the language I have asked for is agreed to. I would trust
the chairman would give me the assurances that what we have discussed
would become part of the bill as we move forward on the floor.
Mr. STOKES. If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Chairman, I have
no problem with the basic concepts. There are a couple of questions in
my mind that if the gentleman wants to have us reduce this to writing
would clarify it. For instance, I posed the question a few moments ago
relative to who would conduct the investigation. I think that ought to
be clear, so we ought to know who is going to conduct the
investigation.
We ought to also have a team framework in there so that under the
conditions the gentleman has proposed we do not run into October, and
the gentleman expects at that time because the investigation has not
been completed there is an automatic reduction down to the $50 million
point. I think things of that sort ought to be clarified, and I think
as honorable men, we can work those things out.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bachus], the gentleman who is chairing
this subcommittee of oversight, has suggested that Treasury is very
satisfactory to him. But I might suggest further, and the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has made by way of background here a very
excellent suggestion for our purposes; that is, that we could, in the
interim, on perhaps a separate track, have our S&I people evaluate this
and in a very short time give us the information we need as we go
forward to conference.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, one thing I want to make clear is there has
been some reference here to criminal acts, or anyone prosecuted
criminally. The oversight committee does not do that. This Congress
does not investigate people criminally. So I certainly do not want
anything in this agreement which says that this body in any way
investigates people, that we have any criminal goal, because that is
not it. I do not want to mislead anybody into believing that I am
undertaking any criminal investigation, or that we are going to wait
for that, or that we are going to encourage that. That is something
else.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, all I was going to suggest is that it was my
understanding right now that the only amendment that is in order
offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] at this point is an
amendment without what would be language on an appropriation bill.
If he withdraws that amendment with the assurance that that same
amendment could be offered again, he would, as I understand it, lose
nothing. And yet if in the time between now and then, the gentleman and
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] can work out the language that I
think everybody is in general agreement upon, then that additional
language at that point could be added because there would be no
controversy about it.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
think this bill is going to go out of the House presently, tonight or
tomorrow. I think what needs to be done is it needs to be added in
conference.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the bill will be going out of
the House tonight, I am quite sure. Frankly, I think we are receiving
instructions here that can take us to conference. In the meantime, I
think we ought to make some formal requests regarding investigations.
Mr. Chairman, let us move forward.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley]
is still pending before the committee.
Does the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] seek time to make a
unanimous-consent request?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily
withdraw the amendment pending negotiations. If we do not conclude
successfully in the next few moments, Mr. Chairman, the language that I
believe we have agreed to, then I would resubmit the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hefley

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Hefley:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. 422. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by reducing the aggregate amount made available for
``DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT--Management and
Administration--salaries and expenses'', and increasing the
aggregate amount made available for ``INDEPENDENT AGENCIES--
Environmental Protection Agency--leaking underground storage
tank program'', by $31,000,000 and $11,210,700, respectively.

Mr. HEFLEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.

[[Page H5363]]

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today because I have LUST on my
mind. I think the American people are concerned about LUST as well. Of
course, when I say LUST, I am talking about the Leaking Underground
Storage Tank trust fund, or LUST, as the program is called.
As the gentleman from California knows, the LUST program provides
cleanup resources for environmentally hazardous leaking underground
storage tanks that have been abandoned, or where the owner cannot
afford to clean it up. The money in the trust fund was incurred through
a sales tax on motor fuel, and most of it goes directly to the States
for cleanup.
Recent estimates calculate there are over 165,000 of these sites
across the country.

{time} 1845

That does not include the ones that have yet to be discovered. These
contaminated sites are located in both urban and rural areas, areas
where our groundwater comes from or mainly where our children play.
By increasing the funding level up to the President's request, and I
would make a point of that, Mr. Chairman, that I am talking about
increasing the funding level in this environmental program to clean up
the underground storage tanks to the President's request of $71.2
million, we can continue the progress we have made in cleaning up these
sites. And I think every Member of this body would want increased
funding for contaminated environmental cleanup back home in their
districts.
The money would come from a decrease in the committee request for
HUD's management and expenses account. When the House voted
overwhelmingly to pass H.R. 2, the Housing Opportunity Act, it was
under the guise of a smaller HUD bureaucracy, yet we have increased
HUD's M&A account by $31 million in this bill. I realize sometimes
there are costs involved with downsizing and devolution, but I think
most of us would agree that only in Washington does it cost more to get
less.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, this amendment gives us the opportunity to do
two things we have promised the American people. First it takes money
and power out of Washington by giving it to the States and, second, it
provides more money for direct environmental clean up rather than
further burdensome regulation.
I urge my colleagues who voted for housing reform and consider
themselves to be environmentally conscious to support this Hefley
amendment.

Point of Order

Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment.
I make a point of order against the amendment because it increases an
appropriation for an unauthorized program, thereby violating clause 2
of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part: ``No
appropriation shall be reported in any general appropriation bill, or
be in order as an amendment thereto, for any expenditure not previously
authorized by law.''
Mr. Chairman, the authorization for this program has not been signed
into law. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
This particular rule, Mr. Chairman, protected the paragraph in
question during the reading of the bill, but that point is past. This
situation is identical to that raised on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento]. Had he been permitted to consider
his amendment, I would not now be making a point of order. Since he was
not allowed to, I must insist on my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] wish to
be heard on the point of order?
Mr. HEFLEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I would agree that I think it is a shame that we got
through that section this morning, and it surprised a lot of us on how
quickly we went through that. There were some good amendments that were
not able to be considered. So we went to the legislative counsel and
had our amendment restructured. We hoped it would be taken care of and
would take care of your concern about the point of order.
Also in the bill on page 51, beginning with line 9, it says ``for
necessary expenses to carry out leaking underground storage tank
cleanup activities authorized by section 205 of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986.'' What this tells me is
that this is authorized and, as such, the point of order should not be
granted.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
Under the precedent of July 12, 1995 cited on page 142 of House
Practice, as followed and enunciated a few moments ago with respect to
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], the
Chair sustains the point of order under clause 2(a) of rule XXI. The
gentleman from Colorado has not cited a current authorization.
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
After this discussion and debate, it is good to rise to enter into a
colloquy that concerns an issue of great importance to the veterans in
my State but that also honors my predecessor, Sonny Montgomery and I
hope this will lead to some work that will complete an effort that he
began. That is the Sonny Montgomery VA Medical Center in Jackson,
Mississippi.
I would like to ask for the support of the chairman in working with
the administration in our efforts to collocate the Jackson, Mississippi
Veterans' Affairs Regional Office and the G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery
Medical Center. With this consolidation of facilities we can provide
one-stop service to our veterans and also save taxpayer dollars.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PICKERING. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, first I very much appreciate
the gentleman bringing this matter to our attention. We are all more
than aware of the fantastic contribution his predecessor, Sonny
Montgomery, made not just to the entire House but especially to the
veterans of America.
I believe that he and I can work together on this matter he has
brought to my attention and to ensure better service to our veterans
throughout the Southeast, but especially to Mississippi.
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
I would like to add that if we finalize the collocation of these
facilities, it will require that we finish the construction of the
third floor of the VA Regional Office in Jackson. The VA estimates that
it will require approximately $1.45 million to finish the construction
of the third floor in this building.
Mr. Chairman, the VA is currently paying $590,221 annually to rent
the equivalent office space in this area. It is because they have
failed to complete the construction of the third floor. The VA projects
the completion and collocation would pay for itself within five years
and provide savings over $500,000 in the years following.
By ensuring the completion of this project, we not only fulfill our
pledge to our veterans but we will better serve the taxpayers by being
good stewards of their money. Mr. Chairman, I believe this project just
makes good business sense.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, one more time, if the
gentleman will continue to yield, we very much appreciate the
gentleman's leadership in this area. I certainly will join with the
gentleman from Mississippi in working with the administration on this
important project.
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. It is my
understanding that since this project is under $4 million, the
administration can move forward on its own. I ask the gentleman to
encourage the VA to do so and for his continued oversight and support
to complete this project.
Finally, part of this facility, as I mentioned earlier, is named in
honor of my most distinguished predecessor, G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery.
He has been known as ``Mr. Veteran'' throughout his career, and the
completion of this work, the completion of this facility will provide
for the welfare of the

[[Page H5364]]

veterans that he so loved and will also allow us to honor his example
and his legacy.
Once again, I thank the distinguished chairman and appreciate his
time and support.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted the House to know that my striking the
last word was not an indication that I had any additional amendments.
To my knowledge there are no more amendments on this measure.
But I did want to take a few moments, while some of our other
colleagues are working out some details, to review where we have been
during most of today, a short part of yesterday. I must say that in my
experience in the Congress, I have never quite experienced before a
process like the one I have been through with my colleague the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] this year.
As we indicated in both of our opening remarks, we deal with a very
complex and very difficult bill. It is an item that has more
discretionary spending than any pool of money around the Congress,
outside of that money that is available within the Subcommittee on
National Security. We are talking about in the neighborhood of $70-plus
billion.
We are dealing with major problems and programs that relate to
veterans' medical care, as we have discussed extensively. We have all
of the housing programs that affect the elderly and the disabled, the
poorest of the poor in our country. And we are doing what we can to see
that the monies available are handled in a way that they are most
responsive to those individual citizens in the communities where they
live and where they work.
Beyond that, of course there are some magnificent things that are a
part of our committee's work, that are demonstrating the success of
America at this moment. Those Americans who have been watching our
mission to Mars are one more time not just excited but absolutely
overwhelmed with the capability of our leadership and NASA and their
work in developing that foundation that allows man's reach into space.
I am fascinated to look further at the science that is coming out of
many of those programs. Few people take the time to really focus upon
some of the results that take place, but time and time again in our
missions to space, within space station, what we have learned by our
space shuttle efforts, certainly what we are learning on Mars, we are
making phenomenal breakthroughs that affect not just science and
technology in an esoteric way, but in a dramatic way impact our ability
to affect the health of our people, the improvement of our ability to
deliver effective medicine and programs of medical health to our
citizens. Truly, within this mix that is this complex bill, some great
things are happening.
All of this I frankly believe is possible in no small part because
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and I have been able to move
forward, not necessarily agreeing 100 percent on every issue or every
dollar available, but recognizing that the final solutions are for the
benefit of the American people and we both have that commitment in
mind.
So I wanted to close my remarks and comments regarding this bill by
expressing one more time my deep appreciation to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Stokes], to his entire committee, Members from his side of
the aisle on the committee, but also their very fine staff who have
been more than responsive to our efforts. It has been a nonpartisan
effort on behalf of all of us, and I want the House to know that we all
owe a debt to my colleague the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, let me take just a moment, as my distinguished chairman
has taken, to sort of summarize where we are after having begun this
bill some time early afternoon yesterday. I think anyone who has
watched these proceedings since we began this bill yesterday will
recognize what both the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and I
have said, and that is that this is a tough bill. It is a very
difficult bill. I think they also will be able to see why the gentleman
from California [Mr. Lewis] and I felt it so important to work together
on a bipartisan basis to bring this bill to the floor and be able to
try and get through all the debate on the floor and bring it to a final
conclusion.
One of the things that has made our job a little easier is the fact
that the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and I not only have a
very personal relationship as colleagues in this body but we are
personal friends. It is a relationship that we both enjoy, and the fact
that we have utilized that friendship and that respect for one another
as colleagues to work together to bring this very important bill to the
floor is the culmination of several months of very difficult work to
produce the bill. It could not have been done without the cooperation
of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the very fine staff
that he has on the majority side, and through the cooperation we have
received from both the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and from
his staff, we have been able to bring this bill to the floor.
The President has indicated, as we brought this bill to the floor,
that he felt this was a good bill and that it was one that he would be
able to sign. I think the President hopes that in conference we will be
able to improve some of the areas of the bill, and we hope that as a
result of the conference we will be able to bring back to the House an
even better bill.
In those areas where we, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis]
and I have had differences, I think Members can see that those
differences have been one of degree and that where we disagree, we have
done so without being disagreeable. But this is a good bill, when we
talk about a bill that is aimed toward improving the conditions of life
of veterans and for persons living in public housing, for persons who
are dependent upon our great sciences through NASA and through the
National Science Foundation, Consumer Safety Protection, some 22
agencies of the Federal Government that receive their funding through
this particular bill.

{time} 1900

This is an important bill and one that I hope the whole House will
tonight vote upon and give us a good vote to go to conference in.
In conclusion, I would just once again say to my good friend from
California [Mr. Lewis] what a pleasure it is to work with him on these
matters.
And I also want to express my own appreciation to the minority staff.
They have done an excellent job in helping those of us on the minority
side of the committee to be able to perform our functions.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Foley] to come up here, because we are ready to close this
down, and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] may want to
listen as well.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota if
he is going to say some nice things about the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding to me,
and I was going to say some nice things about the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Stokes] and about the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and
their work on this.
We have had during the day here some disagreements on some of the
housing issues and so forth, but it really is helpful, given the
parameters in terms of the housing and the other programs on the
environment that we have moved forward on this bill.
Obviously, one of the issues here that is outstanding is the CDFI
issue. And I am wondering, because the language is difficult, what the
effect would be on the chairman and the ranking member if, for
instance, the principals involved here were to come with correspondence
to the chairman, given the circumstances.
Because I think what the purpose here of this language is is to try
to add guidance to the subcommittee chairman and to the ranking member
as to

[[Page H5365]]

the conditions for the Community Development Financial Institution
issue that has been raised.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, we are lacking an agreement at this moment.
The other side has felt, and I probably would tend to concur, that we
cannot arrive at sufficient language at this time. So I would be
prepared to recall my amendment at the desk, the original amendment,
and have an up or down vote on it.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, we have spent so much time going through
this that, in other words, to keep the option open on the dollars
available. I agree generally with the gentleman that is the impetus of
this, but I think there is concern about the crafting of it and putting
it into language that would potentially be statute.
If I could keep the attention of the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Foley] for a moment. If we could come up with correspondence that would
in fact take the sentiment and the impetus of what the gentleman from
Florida has put forward and cosponsor or sign that as correspondence to
the appropriation leadership in our body, that would, I think, serve
the purpose.
I understand it is not the type of victory of getting something into
legislation, but it has the impetus and, more importantly, I think is
the accomplishment the gentleman from Florida has wanted in terms of
gaining the type of understanding and concern from Members like myself
and others tonight with regard to that.
Without the dollars we are not really in a position to, in fact, live
up to what had been the budget deal that not many of us were involved,
but it keeps that alive and would accomplish the goal the gentleman
wants. Perhaps not in the same framework, but it would accomplish what
he has brought forth tonight.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would
ask the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] if he wishes to respond.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, we started out with something very simple.
We were willing to allocate another $50 million for the appropriation
for this program. We have significant concerns. We laid out what I
thought was very simple language: investigation, enumerating guidelines
for the agency. I did not think anything was so complicated that we
could not agree and insert it in the bill as language.
I have been told, no, we do not know who is going to investigate, who
should investigate, what sanctions may be meted out. We cannot get
people to agree. The White House is not in the room so we cannot
negotiate for them.
So, quite simply, I am trying to protect what I believe is my right
on an amendment to say $50 million is as much as I am willing to go at
this time until we clear up these issues. Now, again, if I could get
the assurances and we can add this amendment as I drafted and as is in
the record.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, my concern
is that the gentleman can press his amendment, however, it may or may
not pass. Nonetheless, it does not do the job of getting this question
to the conference in the way that I think the gentleman wants to get it
there.
I believe there is agreement on both sides of the aisle that, if the
gentleman will work out a letter together or separately, that between
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and myself we will in good faith
take this matter forward to the conference. I think that is a very
important step, but I would not lose it lightly.
So I am suggesting to the gentleman that maybe there is a better way
in terms of really making the point I am trying to make here instead of
pressing the gentleman's vote.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I
appreciate the gentleman's offer to withdraw. We are stuck on whether
or not we are going to have specificity in language or whether or not
we are all generally agreed and we trust our leaders to do the work.
We really do trust not only our ranking member but we trust the
chairman. If it is one thing that I have heard here this evening, it is
that two Members, one Republican, one Democrat, one ranking member, one
chairman, talk about their relationship, how well they have been able
to work together, how well they have been able to resolve differences.
We place full trust and confidence in our ranking member and then,
across the aisle, this chairman that has demonstrated on more than one
occasion not only his willingness to work out problems but certainly
his expertise and his leadership in doing it.
So I would ask both sides of the aisle to join with us and place our
trust with these two Members to go to conference with general direction
to resolve this in the best interests of the people that we all want to
serve and the beneficiaries.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I confess I am eager to get
this resolved so that the chairman of the committee and I and a few
others may retire to another part of the Capitol complex, having not
been able to get there today.
The point I want to make is this. I have been persuaded that
disciplinary action might well be appropriate. What I worry about is,
given constitutional doctrines that apply, if we get too explicit in
legislation directing the administration to take either law enforcement
or administrative disciplinary action, the potential disciplinee could
claim legislative interference.
I think it is very clear many of us will urge that appropriate
disciplinary action should be taken. But if we start mandating that in
legislation, we start doing the potential victim a favor, because we
will start seeing due process arguments about inappropriate
intervention.
So that is another reason I think for going at this in the way that
would be suggested, I hope, by the chairman.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman has made a very important point, and we will take that into
consideration as well.
I would be interested in the comments of the gentleman from Florida
regarding my suggestion that direction to the conferees is very
important by the chairman and myself, and I am not sure the gentleman
wants to lose that.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. FOLEY. I am compelled, Mr. Chairman, to take the chairman at his
word. I believe the chairman is looking out for the best interests of
what I am attempting to do.
I have heard from the gentleman from Ohio, who I respect as well, who
has given assurances that we will deal with this issue in conference;
that we will seek an appropriate investigation; that we will get
answers to these questions; that we will devise a scoring system for
this agency that will result in the appropriate granting of aid to
these well deserved groups.
And given the assurances of both chairmen, and what I believe to be
the agreement of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] and
others who have been party to this long discussion regarding this
agency, I would withdraw my amendment; I would agree to the terms
specified by the chairman; and I would hope that this effort to move
the bill will result in the things that I, the gentleman from Alabama
[Mr. Bachus] and others feel most appropriate.
We do not back down lightly, because I feel there have been
significant violations; that we have failed to identify appropriately
funds that have gone to agencies without documentation; and I would
suggest that Treasury would be very interested in pursuing these
charges. I believe they are. I do not believe anybody is trying to
stonewall this investigation.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H5366]]

Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I just want to take a moment to commend the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] for the manner in which he has
pursued the arguments related to his amendment here this afternoon and
throughout the entire debate.
I think it has been evident to all of us that what he is attempting
to do is to bring the kind of quality to the program and the kind of
credibility to the program that would enable us to have full faith and
confidence that the program is being run as it was deemed to be run
when Congress enacted it. I think all of us join with him in wanting to
see any type of wrongdoing eradicated and this program put once again
back on the type of track it should be.
I want to give the gentleman my full assurance that I will work with
the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] in every respect to carry out
the gentleman's wishes and desires with reference to settlement of this
matter in accordance with the gentleman's understanding with the
gentlewoman from California, the gentleman from New York and the other
members of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and I will
do everything I can to see that we have settled this matter in a way
that the gentleman will be comfortable with.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Ohio and the gentleman from Florida. I appreciate the efforts that he
has put forth here, and I want to say to the body in my closing
comments that earlier in the day today we found ourselves moving very,
very expeditiously through this bill. In fact, everybody was
astonished, especially the chairman.
Having said that, we have taken a good deal of time on a matter that
all of us now understand to be very, very important to the development
and the success of a very important program. Because of that, the time
used was extremely valuable, I believe, and I appreciate the
cooperation on both sides of the aisle.
It is clear that this too is an issue that does not have a partisan
concern but, rather, bipartisan interest on behalf of those people who
would be recipients of this program.
The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments, the Clerk will read
the final three lines of the bill.
The Clerk read as follows:

This Act may be cited as the ``Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998''.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the committee report
accompanying the VA-HUD appropriation bill because it contains report
language that would delay the continued implementation of VERA, the
veterans equitable resource allocation system. VERA provides for
veterans health care to be allocated according to locations and
concentrations of veteran populations. The committee report language
does not allow for the allocation system to go forward, and thereby
prevents health care dollars from being distributed fairly and evenly.
Essentially, over the last two decades there has been a major shift
in veteran populations with more and more veterans settling in the
South and West. El Paso, in the 16th District of Texas which I
represent, is part of the southwest network, Veteran Integrated Service
Network 18 which includes Arizona, New Mexico, and west Texas. El Paso
has over 70,000 military retirees alone, and is comprised of up to
56,000 veterans at any one time. Moreover, Texas as a whole, has the
second largest veteran population in the country. The El Paso and Texas
Veteran populations clearly reflect the substantial shift of veteran
populations in this country to the Southwest.
VERA provides the mechanism for the Veterans Health Care
Administration to look at these changes in the demographics of veteran
populations and determine where resources should be allocated. As
veterans move across our country, so should resources to support the
health care needs of veterans. Without these additional resources to
address greater needs, our facilities are strained, and accessibility
and quality of care goes down.
Resources for health care must move as our veterans move. Unless this
committee language is removed, vital veteran health care resources will
not flow and track this movement in veteran populations. This will
result in overcapacity and underuse in some areas, while desperately
needed services for veterans like those living in my district will be
strained.
This is not a matter of politics or partisanship, but rather a matter
of equity and fairness. Veterans where ever they are found, are
entitled to the healthcare that our country promised our men and women
who sacrificed on behalf of our country. In addition, we must recognize
the real and significant shifts in our Nation's populations. Unless
resources are distributed to reflect this reality, insufficient
resources will be dedicated where needed, and we will fail in our
obligation to our Nation's veterans.
As a veteran, and a member of the Veterans' Committee, I urge your
support for this change in committee language. Let us do what is right
for all veterans, and allow the equitable allocation of these limited
resources to take place.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to express my concerns that
the Appropriations Committee failed to grant the President's request
for increased funding for Superfund cleanup in the VA/HUD independent
agencies appropriations bill. The proposed increase of $650 million was
agreed to as part of the balanced budget resolution. It would enable
communities across our country to expedite the cleanup of hundreds of
hazardous waste sites, which are threatening the health of our
residents.
In my district alone, there are 9 Superfund sites and roughly 1,000
known contaminated sites. A suburban area as densely populated as
northern New Jersey cannot handle any further delays in cleanup. While
we are already doing all we can to live with, and clean up, the
contamination in our region, we cannot afford to delay cleanup any
longer.
As a result of the committee's failure to appropriate this additional
funding, the EPA estimates that 120 cleanups around the country will be
delayed indefinitely. The President had proposed initiating cleanup at
200 sites in fiscal year 1998, and to complete the cleanup of 500 sites
by the year 2000. Unfortunately, the committee's failure to fully fund
the President's budget request will mean that work will begin at only
80 sites next year, even though the other sites are ready to be
remediated.
One of the sites on the President's priority list for cleanup is the
Industrial Latex Corp. site in Wallington, NJ. This site, which is
highly contaminated with PCB's and other hazardous materials, is
located in a densely populated residential area in my district. Local
children have used the site as an ill-advised playground, and numerous
fires have occurred over the years at the site. The first phase of the
project, demolishing the buildings and removing buried drums and vats,
was competed in November 1995. And the design for the second phase of
the cleanup, treatment of the contaminated soil, is also complete.
The contract for final cleanup of this site is ready to go out to
bid. However, if we fail to fulfill the budget agreement's requirement
to provide additional funds for Superfund cleanup, the residents in
Wallington, and in hundreds of other communities across the country,
will continue to be threatened.
I strongly urge all of my colleagues to work to include this
increased funding when the bill goes to conference committee. It is
critical that we help the millions of Americans living near these
hazardous sites to improve their quality of life and improve their
surrounding environment. These sites need to be cleaned up as quickly
as possible to remove the serious health risks facing these residents.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today to express the
reasons for opposition to the amendment that was to be offered by the
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt]--to disregard report
language included in the fiscal year 1998 VA-HUD appropriations bill
pertaining to the veterans equitable resource allocation [VERA] system.
Because this Member had filed an amendment to block implementation of
the VERA system in fiscal year 1998, in this House chamber,
negotiations this afternoon involving this Member resulted in an
agreement regarding a revision to the subcommittee's VERA report
language which I had supported. While the agreement will still require
the timely completion of a General Accounting Office [GAO] report to
study the impact of VERA on the individual veterans integrated service
networks [VISN's], the political reality of a vote count permits the
House conferees on this appropriations measure to remove that portion
of the committee report language funding all VISN's at fiscal year 1996
levels while the GAO study is being done. It is vitally important that
this GAO report be completed in a timely manner in order to give the
executive branch and Congress time to react to the GAO report findings
before the fiscal year 1999 budget preparation season in order to
ensure that all veterans receive the best health care possible.
This Member has publicly expressed his concerns about the negative
impact that the new VERA system will have on Nebraska and other
sparsely populated areas of the country. In fact, this Member conveyed
these concerns to the House VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee earlier
this year during testimony on the VA-HUD and independent agencies
appropriations bill.

[[Page H5367]]

Mr. Chairman, the VERA plan would provide medical care funding to
regions across the country, by employing an allocation formula that
ties funding for each of the 22 geographic regions to the number of
veterans they actually serve. Such a new system, under the VERA
formula, would eventually result in at least a 4-percent decrease in
funds for the region that includes this Member's State of Nebraska,
with other reductions perhaps forthcoming in the longer term.
Mr. Chairman, colleagues, here is the important point for my region:
The VA must provide adequate facilities for all veterans throughout the
country regardless of whether they live in sparsely populated areas
with resultant low usage numbers for VA hospitals or in large urban
areas. A national infrastructure of facilities and medical personnel is
needed to serve our veterans wherever they live. This Member finds the
prospect of a decrease in quality and accessibility of medical care for
veterans in sparsely populated areas to be completely unacceptable.
Veterans in Nebraska and Iowa also deserve to have adequate medical
services; they must not be neglected or treated inequitably just
because they live in a relatively sparsely settled region.
Mr. Chairman, again, this Member expresses his objections to the
Nethercutt amendment as originally proposed and reluctant agreement to
the change in the subcommittee report language on VERA, but only out of
political realism.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I will vote for passage of this
bill with reluctance.
Congress should not continue to add more funds to appropriations
bills that exceed what the administration suggests is needed. This
appropriations bill provides $666 million more than the administration
requested in their budget.
The bill provides $25.1 billion for the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, $8.8 billion more than fiscal year 1997 and $550
million more than the president requested.
The bill represents no solution to the ``section 8'' funding that
will be a huge financial challenge in the next several years.
One other area that could well assist the conference committee to
reduce appropriations to last year's levels are the substantial
reserves now being held as ``contract reserves'' for section 8 tenant-
based contracts. The accounting firm Price Waterhouse has audited the
reserve numbers. Their preliminary estimate of the net excess section 8
budget authority minus HUD's proposed uses is $7.2 billion. GAO
estimates the ``reserves'' could be much higher. We need better
information from HUD. Congress should not continue to accept sloppy
management in our Government departments.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to language in the
committee report accompanying the VA-HUD appropriation bill that would
effectively stop the Veterans Health Care Administration from
implementing the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation System or VERA.
VERA is a budgeting change that would allow VA health care dollars to
follow the veteran, wherever the veteran moves within the country.
Veterans, like the general population, move, and our limited health
care dollars should move with them. Under the old system, VA hospitals
in areas of the country to which veterans are migrating must treat more
patients with the same level of funding.
Veterans in my congressional district are served by the South Texas
Veterans Health Care Network. The network serves one of the highest
percentages of service-connected veterans, the highest number of low-
income nonservice connected veterans, the largest women veterans
population, and a very large group of winter Texans. The old formula of
funding health care facilities at historical levels plus medical
inflation does not account for all of these veterans.
The old system makes no provision for Winter Texans who seek care at
local facilities. These facilities must do the work without appropriate
funding, straining the resources available to all veterans.
VERA makes sure that the dollars are available to provide veterans in
South Texas and other portions of the country the health care services
they need and deserve. All veterans must be treated equally regardless
where they live in the country.
It is imperative that the VA be allowed to implement the VERA. We
must shift the health care dollars to the facilities that are serving
these priority veterans. We must allow the health care dollars to
follow the veteran.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, for many years prior to enactment 1987, I
worked to create new Federal programs to provide assistance to homeless
people in shelters and living on our Nation's streets. It is the 10-
year anniversary of the enactment of the McKinney Act. I was and am
proud of the achievement in 1987, but I am deeply troubled that we are
still here in 1997 seeking to alleviate the problems of homelessness
with still growing needs.
HUD's McKinney Homeless Assistance Program plays a vital role in
enabling communities to develop long-term, effective solutions to
homelessness.
During the last 3 years, HUD has initiated an array of new policies
to address the critical problem of homelessness in the United States.
The main points are a coordinated community-based process of
identifying needs and building a system to address those needs, and
increased funding to give communities the resources needed to build the
comprehensive system. Through their notices of funding availability
[NOFA's], HUD has begun the process we are legislatively working on as
a block grant--to coordinate the community system. However, without
solid funding, as the motion to recommit would help provide--the
systems will not be as strong, nor will they be able to serve the
actual need.
The problem of renewing funding for past grants, one that presented
itself in the current round of funding, has proven to be difficult
because of the tremendous need just to keep funding current commitments
in our communities.
The motion to recommit would add an additional million-- * * *
We continue to see increased demand. In its annual survey, the U.S.
Conference of Mayors found that 20 percent of all requests for
emergency shelter went unmet because of a lack of resources. Emergency
shelter requests increased in the 29-city survey by an average of 5
percent, with the requests for assistance from homeless families
increasing by 7 percent. On average, people remain homeless for 6
months in the survey cities. The No. 1 reason, among many reasons to be
sure, is the lack of affordable housing. And now, with the impact of
welfare reform starting to be felt, it is more than evident that we
must marshal the necessary resources to keep American citizens off the
streets.
I support this motion to recommit and urge its adoption.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my disappointment that
the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies failed to include
funding for the Low Income Housing Preservation and Resident
Homeownership Act [LIHPRHA] in its fiscal year 1998 appropriations
bill.
Although Chairman Lewis and others have raised concerns about the
LIHPRHA program, many of these concerns are based on a draft GAO report
which has yet to be released. I do not believe it is wise or fair to
eliminate funding based upon a report that has not been reviewed by
either advocates or critics of the program. I also believe that before
voting to eliminate a program, this House should have the opportunity
to adopt reforms that respond to the concerns raised. Certainly, before
any significant changes or cutbacks are made to the program, we should
consider the benefit LIHPRHA has provided to thousands of low-income
Americans.
This program has proven very beneficial to many families in the
congressional district I represent. In Chicago, transfers of privately
owned HUD-assisted housing from tax driven limited partnerships to
resident or community-based ownership provides significant benefits to
residents and communities. Northwest Towers Apartments, in my district,
is such an example. In 1996, the Northwest Towners Residents'
Association purchased their building utilizing a capital grant under
the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill. This property is located
adjacent to the Chicago loop in a rapidly appreciating area. The
purchase of this property by the resident council has preserved
affordable housing for low-income residents in a highly desirable
neighborhood. In Illinois, six other properties have been transferred
to resident council ownership under LIHPRHA with similar success.
In addition, the resident purchase has contributed to the well-being
of the community. For example, the Residents' Association has
established a Neighborhood Networks Computer Learning Center. The
Learning Center is assisting residents who currently are receiving
welfare benefits to make the transition to the workplace.
I believe it is important to point out the contributions made by
resident and community-based owners to the social needs of residents
and the community. The LIHPRHA program has been instrumental in
promoting such opportunities. I will urge my Senate colleagues to
support this program and would like to work to ensure the future
success of LIHPRHA.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2158, the VA-HUD-
Independent Agencies Appropriations for fiscal year 1998. Although I am
concerned about some provisions in this measure, the Appropriations
Committee has generally been supportive of many of VA's programs.
My primary concern relates to the provision in H.R. 2158 which
specifies a freeze on appropriated dollars for VA health care. As years
pass, inflation will erode the value of this funding. Proponents of
this appropriation claim that the new scheme allowing VA medical
centers

[[Page H5368]]

to keep veterans' copayments and third-party collections will replace
appropriated funds. In its report, however, the Appropriations
Committee notes that the accuracy of each year's estimated third-party
collection is unknown. How, then, can we ensure that resources will be
available to provide medical care to those veterans who need it?
Nonetheless, the committee notes that there are now tremendous
incentives for VA medical centers to increase their collections and
that additional funding for health care services is possible if medical
centers reduce the administrative costs of collections. I strongly
support this view as well as the Appropriations Committee's direction
to VA to develop allocation policies that will increase collection
incentives. Additionally, I appreciate the committee's commitment to
review the subject of collections and incentives yearly.
The committee report points out that VA will be challenged by the
necessity to treat more patients at the same time employment levels
decrease. Although the Veterans Health Administration has made
tremendous progress in its efforts to transition from an acute-care,
hospital-based system to one focused on care in an outpatient setting,
the committee appropriately notes that these efforts must continue if
veterans are to receive the quality service they have earned.
Also of importance is the committee's expressed concern about the
Veterans' Health Administration's Veterans Equitable Resource
Allocation [VERA] system. The committee appropriately notes that this
system could adversely affect the quality and accessibility of care
being provided to veterans in Northeastern States and requests the
General Accounting Office [GAO] to, within the next 4 months, study and
report on the effects of the VERA implementation. I additionally
strongly support the committee's direction to the VA to fund all
Veterans Integrated Service Networks [VISN's] at least at the fiscal
year 1996 level. Although the VERA system may have a great deal of
merit, the potential negative effect of this system on certain veterans
demands that the system be implemented only after very careful study.
Integration of VA medical centers is another issue that demands very
careful consideration. I have urged VA to pursue consolidation of
services at the Lakeside and West Side medical centers in Chicago with
caution, and the Appropriations Committee expresses similar concern
regarding plans for the integration of the VA medical centers at
Tuskegee and Montgomery, AL. I support the committee's direction that
VA not proceed with this integration until Congress and GAO have had an
opportunity to review a detailed plan of the integration which the VA
must submit.
In its report, the committee mentions an innovative proposal underway
in Detroit, MI, to establish a VA partnership with a private, not-for-
profit, highly integrated health care system which will assist VHA's
development of a sophisticated, medical information infrastructure. The
development of this system is critical to the reorganization of VHA's
health care delivery system, and I commend the committee for its
support of this effort.
VA's medical and prosthetic research program has long been one of the
most highly respected in the country, and I am pleased that H.R. 2158
provides the funding necessary to continue this important research.
VA's achievements in this area have benefited not only America's
veterans but all of America's citizens, and VA researchers have more
than earned the support included in this appropriation. I particularly
want to note the committee's instruction that funding for research into
Parkinson's disease be increased. Many excellent opportunities for
joint research are available which would enable the VA to expand its
research into this debilitating disease which affects so many of our
aging citizens.

I want to express my support for the committee's comments urging the
VA to continue developing a medical research service minority
recruitment initiative in collaboration with minority health
professional institutions. This important initiative should be a top
priority in the Veterans Health Administration. Additionally, VA should
certainly comply with the committee's recommendation that Ph.D.
research scientists be exempt from potential reductions in the number
of GS 14-15 positions in the research program. The loss of these
talented middle managers is adversely affecting VA research and must be
stopped.
In addition to health-care initiatives, there are several benefit-
related provisions in H.R. 2158 which deserve support. For example, the
appropriation includes funding for loans to nonprofit organizations to
assist them in leasing housing units exclusively for use as
transitional housing for veterans following treatment of substance
abuse. The measure also includes additional funds for retention of VA
staff to improve the timeliness of processing veterans claims and for
higher than anticipated contracting costs of the year 2000 computer
problem. Finally, I compliment the committee on its continuing efforts
to ensure that VA defers further efforts on the Veterans Services
Network [VETSNET] program until the year 2000 computer problem has been
solved. Because the effects of a VA failure to make the required year
2000 corrections would have a catastrophic effort on our Nation's
veterans, this challenge must be met even if other important
modernization projects must be delayed.
I thank the chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations, Bob
Livingston, and the ranking democrat on the committee, David Obey, for
their support for America's veterans. The chairman and ranking democrat
of the subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies have also
earned the sincere thanks of the veteran community. I know you were
dealing with a very difficult budget situation, and your hard work on
behalf of veterans must be recognized.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask your support for the Pallone
amendment to the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies appropriations bill. The
amendment would send $650 million to EPA to expedite the cleanup of
toxic waste sites.
Mr. Chairman, just last February, the Government Reform Committee
held a hearing on the Superfund Program, the Federal program to clean
up toxic waste sites. My Republican colleagues claimed the hearing
would show it takes more time to clean up Superfund sites now than it
did under previous administrations.
But that's not what we learned during the hearing. We discovered
instead that the Superfund Program suffered from neglect and hostility
in its early years under a Republican administration. We discovered
that the Clinton administration has overcome this legacy of neglect,
essentially reinventing the Superfund Program, and--most importantly--
cleaning up more Superfund sites in 4 years that were cleaned up in the
previous 12. Despite these facts, Republicans still criticize EPA's
speed in cleaning up toxic waste sites.
Isn't it ironic that with all that criticism about the speed of
Superfund cleanups, we now face an EPA appropriations bill that cuts
$650 million from the Superfund budget request. That's $650 million
agreed to in the bipartisan budget agreement, $650 million allocated to
EPA's Appropriations Subcommittee to expedite Superfund cleanups, and
$650 million that will be spent instead on special interest projects.
EPA would have started cleaning up 200 Superfund sites next year with
that $650 million. Under this bill that number will be cut by more than
half. Southern California alone would have seen EPA cleaning up toxic
waste sites in Riverside, San Bernardino, Fullerton, Baldwin Park,
Monterey Park, and Santa Fe Springs. Instead, this bill will force EPA
to play Russian Roulette, picking some sites for clean up and letting
the rest wait another year.
Mr. Chairman, 68 million Americans live within 4 miles of a toxic
waste site. For the sake of those 68 million Americans, I ask your
support for the Pallone amendment.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the fiscal year
1998 VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act. I want to
commend the committee for working in a bipartisan fashion to craft a
good bill with many beneficial attributes. As a member of the Veterans
Affairs Committee and an ardent supporter of veterans, I want to speak
to this section of the bill. I am pleased that the overall bill
provides for an increase in funding for veterans programs.
Specifically, the bill appropriates $40.359,576 billion for the
Department of Veterans Affairs. This is $273 million more than the
fiscal year 1997 level and over $143 million over the fiscal year 1998
budget request.
Over 26 million veterans and their families receive benefits from the
Department of Veterans Affairs. This increase in appropriations will
assist them in their efforts to improve their lives. When our veterans
answered the call in faithful service, the Nation promised to write
them a check for certain lifetime benefits. It is the solemn duty of
Congress to make sure this check does not come back marked
``insufficient funds.''
In tough budgetary times, I want to commend the committee for its
efforts to provide our veterans with necessary benefits to sustain a
better quality of life. I share the fervor of Congress in balancing the
budget, but not one that fails to adequately provide for our veterans.
We cannot attack the services we owe to our veterans. They made the
supreme sacrifice for our Nation, and we should repay them and their
families in kind with adequate benefits, services, and a due continuum
of care.
I am pleased the bill provides $19,932,997,000 for the veterans
benefits. This represents a $333 million increase over fiscal year 1997
for the Veterans Benefits Administration. This will provide our
veterans with much needed compensation and pension benefits, education
and training benefits, and critical housing assistance.

While I applaud the efforts to provide increased funding levels for
the Veteran's Benefits Administration, I have some concerns

[[Page H5369]]

about the level of funding proposed for the Veterans Health
Administration. I believe it represents a serious shortfall for
veterans health care. This is one of the most important benefits our
veterans receive. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that the veterans
medical care delivery system is adequately funded to meet the health
care needs of our veterans. I know that the budget includes a proposal
to permit the VA to retain third party insurance payments and user fee
collections. These funds, estimated to be $604 million by the budget
agreement, would be used to account for the shortfall in the budget for
veterans medical care. I am a strong proponent of this concept and it
is my hope that the Congress will enact legislation enabling the VA to
do this. However, if this does not occur, a mechanism must be in place
to ensure that we do not experience a shortfall in the medical care
delivery system for our veterans. I plan to support the Solomon
amendment which would incorporate a ``fail-safe'' mechanism to protect
much needed funding for veterans medical care.
We must remain aware of our responsibility to maintain a system that
best meets the changing needs of today's veterans. We are dealing with
payment for services rendered. Like any contract the government makes,
we must do all within our power to live up to. Dollars may be scarce,
but we must make this our priority. With this in mind, it is my hope
that we can continue to cooperate in bipartisanship to serve those who
have so diligently served us. Members of Congress have always been
strong supporters of veteran--not only in word but in deed. Let us
continue in that vein today.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments, under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hastings of Washington) having assumed the chair, Mr. Combest, Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
2158), making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs
and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies,
commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, pursuant to House
Resolution 184, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion To Recommit Offered By Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts moves to recommit the bill
H.R. 2158 to the Committee on Appropriations with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith
the following amendments:
On page 24, line 22, strike ``$4,600,000,000'' and insert
``$4,700,000,000''.
On page 25, line 19, strike ``$50,000,000'' and insert
``$70,000,000''.
On page 27, line 6, strike ``$50,000,000'' and insert
``$75,000,000''.
On page 27, line 8, strike ``$30,000,000'' and insert
``$40,000,000''.
On page 30, line 12, strike ``$823,000,000'' and insert
``$883,000,000''.

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and
printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.

{time} 1915

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this bill I think deserves
credit to both the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and members of the committee and
committee staff for the efforts that they have made to come up with a
kind of bipartisan spirit here.
On the other hand, I do believe that there is a significant issue
that deals with the low level of funding in this bill across the board.
The truth of the matter is, we heard a lot of speeches over the course
of the last 24 hours as the VA-HUD bill came up. Those speeches
pertained, in large measure, to the underfunding of a lot of veterans'
programs.
The fact of the matter is, after all of these bills have been passed,
after all of the amendments have been contained, there is still $450
million worth of underfunding in veterans' programs.
In terms of the motion to recommit and its specifics that we have
called for, we have asked that $100 million be spent on the HUD
Community Development Block Grant program as an indication of the kind
of underfunding that exists in that agency.
I serve as the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Opportunity, and I can tell my colleagues that we are not
funding the housing needs of the people of this country in any way,
shape, or form in comparison to what the need is. Specifically with
regard to homeless programs, over the course of the last 3 years we
have seen homeless programs cut by over $260 million; $260 million.
I challenge any Member of the Congress, any Member of the House to go
to his home district and go visit a homeless shelter. Homeless shelters
in the middle of the summertime are generally empty. This is the first
time in the last 20 years where, in almost every congressional district
across the country, you go into homeless shelters today and you are
going to find them chock-a-block full of homeless people, homeless
families. We have simply not provided the kind of funding that is
necessary to provide for those homeless families.
We say that we want a balanced budget. I want a balanced budget, But
I do not want to balance the budget on the backs of the poorest and
most vulnerable citizens of this country; and that is, essentially,
what this bill does.
We have seen a recognition that we want to, as a Nation, and I see
the Speaker talk about the fact that he wants to rebuild Washington,
DC. If my colleagues talk to the mayors of cities and towns across our
country, the No. 1 issue that they will claim that they face in terms
of economic development and the creation of jobs is brownfields. We see
the need for not only allowing brownfields to be cleaned up, but
allowing for economic development of brownfield sites across America.
This motion to recommit contains within it a $25 million initiative
funded through the EDI at HUD to allow for economic development of
those brownfield sites. Talk to your mayors, talk to your city
councils, talk to the people at the ground level that are responsible
for building up those cities in the blighted urban areas of our
country, areas that have been contaminated by corporations that have
for years and years put so much poison on our city streets and on the
fields of our cities.
The fact of the matter is that, for the first time, not only are we
going to see those sites cleaned up but we have the opportunity to
allow those cities and towns to come back. Those are the initiatives
that are contained.
In addition, we are providing funding to allow for senior citizens to
gain more independence within their housing programs. The largest
single growing population of America is, in fact, our elders. And all
too often, they are restricted in terms of their movements, in terms of
their independence, because of their housing situations.
This amendment would allow for a small initiative to enable
supportive services for senior citizens, to enable them to go out and
live more independently. So if my colleagues want to stand up for the
rights of senior citizens, if they want to stand up for the rights of
our mayors and our city councils across this country to clean up
brownfield sites, if they want to stand up and say that we do not
believe that we ought to abandon our homeless, this bill currently, in
its form, as a result of the amendment process, is coming in $200
million below the 602(b) allocation.
All we are trying to suggest is that my colleagues can still stand up
and say to the people of their districts that they are fighting for a
balanced budget.

[[Page H5370]]

The amendments that we have in the motion to recommit only take up
$160 billion. The $200 billion that is left over in the bill will still
come in under budget, but it will not come in by virtue of turning our
back on the poorest of the poor in terms of our homeless. It will not
come in by turning our back on the brownfield sites of this country
that I think offer us an opportunity to really go out and rebuild
America's urban areas.
That ought to be the policies of this country. It ought to be the
policies of this House. I urge the Members to support the motion to
recommit.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak
extensively on this matter. We have spent much of the day and yesterday
talking about the very difficult bill we face, the reality that there
is many a trade-off between complex programs. That does not suggest
that in every instance a bill changes on the floor, that we ought to
spend every single dime of somebody's perceived remainder 602(b).
I am not really surprised that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy], my dear friend, would like to spend all of our 602(b). It may
be that from time to time we come together on even balancing the
budget. But in the meantime, without any further ado, I would ask my
colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on
the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order
that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The question of passage of the bill is an automatic vote and will be
5 minutes.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 193,
nays 235, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 279]

YEAS--193

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NAYS--235

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boyd
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
Markey
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stokes
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--6

Ehlers
Matsui
Schiff
Solomon
Weygand
Young (AK)

{time} 1941

Messrs. GOODLATTE, THUNE and LAZIO of New York, Mrs. CHENOWETH and
Mrs. KELLY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 279, because I was detained
in unexpectedly heavy traffic, I missed the vote. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question is
on the passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 397,
nays 31, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 280]

YEAS--397

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss

[[Page H5371]]

Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)

NAYS--31

Barr
Campbell
Cox
Crane
Doggett
Duncan
Filner
Hefley
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kingston
Klug
Largent
Markey
McIntosh
Miller (FL)
Minge
Paul
Petri
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Sensenbrenner
Thornberry

NOT VOTING--6

Murtha
Schiff
Solomon
Weygand
Woolsey
Young (AK)

{time} 1951

Mr. RAMSTAD changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________