[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

  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 200, 
noes 227, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [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.

                          ____________________