[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 139 (Wednesday, October 8, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8666-H8686]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2158, DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND 
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 1998

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 261 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 261

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 261 waives all points of order against 
the conference report and against its consideration. The rule also 
provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.
  The conference report for the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies 
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998 appropriates a total of $68.5 
billion for fiscal year 1998, which is $1 billion below the President's 
request level.
  As I mentioned in this House VA-HUD bill debate in July, this 
legislation continues to meet our obligations to our veterans. The 
conference report provides $18.9 billion for the Department of Veterans 
Affairs' discretionary programs, $17 billion for veterans' medical 
care, and $272 million for veterans' medical research, including $12.5 
million for research related to Persian Gulf war illness. We owe a 
special debt of gratitude to all our veterans, and these appropriations 
are notable increases above the amounts the President requested.
  I am also pleased that scientific research and our space program have 
been amply funded in this bill. We just marked the 40th anniversary of 
the launch of Sputnik, and with that in mind, I am pleased that the 
conferees have committed the United States toward a significant 
presence in space. The conferees have provided $2.9 billion for the 
Space Shuttle Program, $2.35 billion for the International Space 
Station, and $13.6 billion for NASA, which is $148 million more than 
the President requested.
  I have one last point on the subject of science. I think it is very 
important to point out that this bill provides $631 million for science 
and technology research at the Environmental Protection Agency, 
including $49.6 million for particulate matter and ozone research. As 
proposed regulations are formulated by the EPA, it strikes me that it 
is high time we base these decisions on information from scientists 
calculated with scientific analysis.
  EPA scientific research funding in this bill, especially funding 
directed for particulate matter and ozone research, is absolutely 
necessary at a time when the American people and American businesses 
face the prospect of additional regulations concocted without a shred 
of scientific inspection.
  I want to commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Jerry Lewis] and 
the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Louis 
Stokes] for the bipartisan manner in which they produced this 
conference report. It does not appear that there were any major 
complications during the conference with the Senate, and I am certain 
their good relationship helped to assure this very productive 
conference.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed with 
general debate and consideration of the merits of this very important 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Linder], for yielding me the customary half-hour and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleagues the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] for 
their excellent work on this conference report. I have had the pleasure 
of working with the gentleman from California and the ranking member on 
some small parts of this bill and I can tell my colleagues they have 
done yeoman's work.
  They have managed to fully fund American housing and veterans 
programs as well as the Federal emergency management program and also 
NASA. The conference committee has done an excellent job taking care of 
our public housing programs. As someone who grew up in public housing, 
I can tell my colleagues it is a very important program. It does 
wonderful things for low-income families, particularly families with 
children, and I am pleased to see the conference committee agreed to 
support it.
  Mr. Speaker, this country is facing a terrible loss of affordable 
housing. Three million American families just cannot find affordable 
housing, and the numbers are climbing. In response to this, the 
conference report renews all expiring section 8 contracts and preserves 
affordable housing at a time when we are losing affordable housing. It 
helps ensure that good housing will still be available to low-income 
families, it saves money, and it is a very well thought out policy.
  The conference report also funds HOME grants to cities and States for 
building affordable housing. And one of these HOME grants went to the 
City of Brockton, MA, in my district, which helped 200 people buy homes 
last year. This year this program should help even more people.
  The conference report also helps take care of America's veterans by 
providing over $17 billion for veterans' medical care and $15.5 million 
for research on Persian Gulf war illnesses.
  So thanks to this conference report, the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission is fully funded, as is the Federal

[[Page H8667]]

Emergency Management Association. It also funds the Environmental 
Protection Agency, one of my personal favorites, which helps keep our 
water and our air clean.
  Once again, Mr. Speaker, I just want to congratulate my colleagues 
for putting together such an excellent bill. I urge my colleagues to 
support this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio [Ms. Pryce], my colleague on the Committee on Rules.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia, 
my friend, for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this 
rule and the VA-HUD conference report.
  I would like to commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], 
the chairman, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the ranking 
member, for ably guiding the VA-HUD appropriations bill through 
conference. The final bill they produced speaks very well of their 
efforts.
  This year's fiscally responsible bill shaves $1 billion off the 
President's request and it successfully prioritizes spending to ensure 
that we fulfill our responsibility to our Nation's veterans, provide 
needed housing to less fortunate Americans, keep the exciting 
discoveries of the U.S. space program alive, and provide adequate 
resources to keep America's air clean and water safe.
  There are many accomplishments in this legislation worth extolling, 
but I want to focus on a portion of the bill that is of special 
significance to me as a former member of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD 
and Independent Agencies. Since the 1970's, section 8 rental assistance 
contracts have helped provide private low-cost housing to seniors, 
disabled persons, and low-income families. However, these 20-year 
contracts have begun to expire, leaving millions of Americans unsure of 
the future of their housing.
  The funding in this bill to renew expiring section 8 housing 
contracts is both important and necessary. However, I have long 
maintained that the program itself needs to be restructured to bring 
down the high cost of section 8 housing. In that vein, I joined with my 
friend from Virginia [Mr. Moran] to sponsor legislation this year to 
achieve such reforms. Therefore, I am very grateful to the chairman, 
the gentleman from California, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], 
and our colleagues in the Senate for their hard work to forge an 
agreement on the section 8 reforms included in this legislation. I know 
it was not easy, but I am convinced that it was well worth their 
efforts.
  The timely reforms in this bill will ensure the stability of section 
8 properties so that affordable housing will continue to be available 
for our citizens with the greatest need. The solutions this legislation 
provides will save hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars while 
putting the power to reform the program where it belongs, right in the 
local communities.
  For this achievement, and for the many good things in the VA-HUD 
conference report, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and move 
towards swift passage of the underlying legislation.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise today in reluctant support of the fiscal year 1998 VA-
HUD appropriations bill.
  I wish to thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], my good friend 
and the ranking member, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], 
the chairman, for their support in funding the International Space 
Station project and a robust NASA budget as well as ensuring quality 
public housing for our Nation's low-income families.
  In particular, I appreciate the committee including a comprehensive 
reform of the section 8 program. While issues regarding the mark-to-
market program remain, it is important that the Congress take this 
initial step to reform the program, and I look forward to the 
opportunity when the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, on 
which I serve, moves forward to try to address those concerns as well 
as possibly the Committee on Ways and Means, which may also have to 
address some of the issues.
  However, Mr. Chairman, during previous consideration of this 
legislation in the House, both in this Congress and in the 104th 
Congress, I had successfully offered an amendment to prohibit the 
Environmental Protection Agency from using funds to allow for the 
importation of polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCB's, to be disposed of, 
including by incineration, in the United States. This directly affects 
my district as well as other districts around the country.
  While the amendment that I offered was accepted by the House on both 
occasions, it was unfortunately struck in the conference, and I very 
much regret this decision by the conference committee once again.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. Speaker, the EPA issued a final rule on March 18, 1996, to allow 
the importation of large quantities of PCB waste from foreign nations, 
reversing an EPA ban that has been in place since 1980. Later that same 
month, the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund initiated a legal challenge 
to the EPA decision allowing the importation on PCB's based on the 
principle that it violated the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
  On July 8 of this year, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled 
in a unanimous decision that the 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.''
  I believe it is necessary to codify this decision in the event it is 
reversed on appeal, and that is what my amendment had sought to do. 
However, for now, the court action will forestall the further 
importation of this dangerous chemical.
  PCB's are a dangerous class of chemicals that collect in the body and 
cause a range of adverse health effects including cancer, reproductive 
damage, and birth defects. When incinerated, PCB's release dioxin, one 
of the most toxic chemicals known. PCB's accumulate in the environment 
and move toward the top of the food chain, contaminating fish, birds, 
and ultimately humans. They are the only chemical Congress designated 
for phaseout under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
  Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that my amendment was not included in 
the conference. I assure the chair and the ranking member that I will 
be back next year again to pursue this issue because I think it is 
important both to my constituents and to the country. I do not think 
that PCB's are a good or a service that we ought to be importing into 
the United States.
  But in light of the other issues in this bill, I do rise in support 
of the remainder of the bill and intend to vote for it.
  I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. LaFalce].
  (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Moakley] for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2158, a bill making 
appropriations for fiscal year 1998 for VA, HUD, and independent 
agencies. I am pleased that the HUD budget has not suffered dramatic 
cuts in this era of the balanced budget as it has in prior years.
  Most of the administration's budget requests have been met in this 
conference report for HUD's core programs, for public housing, for 
CDBG, for drug elimination grants, for HOME, for McKinney homeless 
assistance grants, et cetera. Although I would support higher funding 
levels for HUD programs, I believe the conference report represents a 
winning hand, considering the cards that we have been dealt.
  Two issues deserve particular mention: The first, the lack of funding 
for

[[Page H8668]]

new section 8 certificates; and the second, the very complicated issue 
of section 8 portfolio restructuring.
  On the first subject, for the third year in a row, there is 
absolutely no new money for incremental section 8 housing assistance 
even in the face of continued strong evidence that greater numbers of 
very low-income families and working poor are finding it ever more 
difficult to find affordable housing. Some 5.3 million Americans have 
worst case housing needs, and that number grows by leaps and bounds. It 
is most regrettable that this conference report was unable to fund any 
new section 8 assistance.
  On the second issue, section 8 renewals and mortgage restructuring, I 
applaud the approach of appropriators and the administration for their 
hard work and mutual efforts. The Committee on Appropriations took the 
most critical step in this bill. It provides sufficient funding for all 
renewals coming due in 1998, and, working with the authorizing 
committee, they took the necessary steps to provide the legislative 
framework for renewing section 8 contracts.
  This was not done during the reconciliation process, but the 
appropriations bill provides housing policy that is good Federal 
policy, preserves affordable housing, and saves money all at the same 
time.
  I believe that we have balanced all the disparate interests of the 
tenants, owners, communities, and the Federal Government in preserving 
as much affordable housing as possible, reducing the costs to the 
Federal Government, reasonably protecting the financial investments of 
the owners, and protecting the tenants from unnecessary displacement.
  This is one of the most critical problems facing the administration 
and the Congress. It has been solved equitably for all concerned and 
saved $500 million for other domestic priorities in the process. So, on 
balance, this is a good bill, considering our budget constraints, and I 
would urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Evans].
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley] for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt the rule and the 
conference report on VA, HUD, independent agencies appropriations for 
fiscal year 1998.
  As I noted in July when this bill was considered by the House, I 
remain concerned about the adequacy of VA health care resources, not 
only in the next fiscal year but in the next future years as well.
  As most Members know, appropriations for VA health care have been 
essentially frozen. As years pass on, inflation will erode the value of 
this funding. Proponents of this freeze in appropriations for VA health 
care claim that allowing VA medical centers to keep VA copayments and 
third-party collections will replace appropriated funds. In its report 
earlier this year, however, the House Appropriations Committee noted 
that the accuracy of each year's estimated third-party collection 
effort is unknown.
  With regard to the VA having sufficient resources to meet the health 
care needs of our Nation's veterans, the House has failed to enact H.R. 
1362, which authorizes a 3-year demonstration program to provide for 
discounted Medicare reimbursement for health care services provided to 
certain Medicare-eligible veterans at selected VA health care 
facilities.
  Dr. Kenneth Kizer, the under secretary for health, has recently told 
Members that enactment of this legislation is critical to the 
Department of Veterans Affairs. According to Dr. Kizer, without 
enactment of this legislation this year, VA will not have the resources 
needed to provide health care to veterans in future years.
  H.R. 1362 was reported favorably by the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs in July but has languished in the House since then. I urge its 
favorable consideration by the House as soon as possible.
  I am pleased that the conferees have recognized the value of VA 
research not only to veterans but to all Americans and have 
appropriated a total of $272 million for VA medical research. This is a 
sound and wise investment.
  The conference also provides an additional $8 million to meet the 
needs to help the VA to achieve the year 2000 computer compliance. 
Achieving this goal is critical to the delivery of health care and 
other earned benefits to our Nation's veterans, their dependents, and 
survivors.
  So I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], 
chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations, and the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the Democratic ranking member, for their 
support. Likewise, I want to salute the chairman and Democrat of the 
Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis], and Carl Stokes for their efforts on behalf of 
veterans.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and adoption of the 
conference report.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], my friend and the ranking Democrat on 
the Committee on Rules, for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, as the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] said earlier, 
the bill that we have been working for for some time that deals with 
project-based section 8 assistance is incorporated, virtually in its 
entirety, into this appropriations bill. I think this is a very 
important step, as the principal focus of our bill is to reduce the 
cost of the section 8 program and provide the certainty of continued 
housing assistance for those in need.
  Our reform proposal reins in exorbitant rental contracts that can 
reach 180 percent of the fair market rent, and it helps kick the bad 
owners out of the program. Existing debts on all FHA-insured property 
are restructured to lower operating and maintenance costs and bring 
Federal rent subsidies down to local market levels. In return, owners 
of multifamily housing must agree to maintain the property for low-
income tenants for at least another 20 years.
  I think this proposal is a thoughtful and reasonable response to a 
complex and very difficult issue. So I was very pleased to see almost 
all of the elements of this proposal incorporated into this 
appropriations bill.
  I want to particularly thank the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce], 
my copatron, for her tireless work to make sure that this issue got 
resolved this year, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Lazio], and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], of the 
authorizing committee and the House leadership for permitting this 
issue to be resolved through the appropriations process.
  Hopefully, we will be able to start a new chapter in low-income 
housing programs that meet the needs of low-income families, the 
elderly, and the disabled with decent, fiscally responsible, and 
affordable housing.
  I thank the chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley] for yielding me the time, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Linder], I thank the Committee on Rules, and of course the chair and 
minority ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. I think 
this is a very important step and certainly plan to vote for the bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member, 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], for yielding me the 
time.
  I rise, Mr. Speaker, with very, very strong concerns and reservations 
about this VA, HUD, independent agencies appropriations bill for fiscal 
year 1998. I oppose this conference report due to funding increases for 
the international space station above the congressionally approved and 
NASA agreed to cap at $2.1 billion per year. Now that is not enough; 
$2.1 billion is not enough. We have to go in this bill much above that, 
to $2.35 billion, for the space station.
  Now, certainly, I have argued with my colleagues, Republicans and 
Democrats, in this body that a $100 billion space station is too much, 
that we do not return the science, we do not return good science or 
good economics

[[Page H8669]]

for our taxpayers. Now we are going up to a $2.35 billion per year 
space station, and last month the primary contractor estimated cost 
overruns to exceed $600 million, and NASA guessed $800 million cost 
overruns.
  This means that we have to go into other very, very worthwhile 
important programs, Space Shuttle safety, education grants, a host of 
other programs, and take money away from good NASA programs that are 
working to reward cost overruns.
  I think that we need to take a very, very careful look at this 
budget, Mr. Speaker, and enforce some physical discipline. We have fits 
around here when we have $600 toilet seats. This is a $600 million cost 
overrun.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Green].
  Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise, obviously, in support of the rule. 
But let me talk about a little problem I have with some of the reforms 
that the Housing and Urban Development Department is doing.
  I have had an ongoing dialog with HUD over the last 4 areas, and my 
main point of discussion is making sure that in the Houston area HUD 
offers all the program areas that serve the people in Houston, TX, the 
fourth largest city in the country, which they do not.
  The problem we have now is, HUD has a reform plan to refocus, 
streamline, and downsize the Department. In our Houston office we have 
over 100 HUD employees now. Now I hear that we are going to reduce them 
to 14. So those 14 are going to have to do the work of those over 100 
employees.
  We do not even have all the program areas offered now in the Houston 
office, and yet, in this reorganization that has been going on now for 
a number of years, we are not going to have all the program areas 
offered in Houston. If they are offering them with 14 employees, they 
are not going to be able to do the job.
  HUD now, under the HUD 20/20 reform plan, they have developed two 
mission statements. The first is to empower people in communities to 
improve themselves and succeed in today's time of transition, and the 
second is to restore public trust by achieving and demonstrating 
competence.
  These are admirable goals, but I am not sure that releasing 85 
employees or staffers will help achieve those goals and make HUD 
effective in the Houston markets. Again, this is not the first time I 
have said this and it will not be the last. I would hope Secretary 
Cuomo would be able to sit down with those of us who represent the 
Houston area and make sure that HUD can provide all the programs in 
Houston even if it is with reduced employees, but do not make it 
impossible.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 
261, I call up the conference report on 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 261, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
October 6, 1997 at page H8323.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].


                             General Leave

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on the conference report on H.R. 2158, and that I may 
include tables, charts and other extraneous materials.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as we bring H.R. 2158 to the floor, I would like the 
Members to know that while this is a very complex bill that involves 
appropriations for fiscal year 1998 for agencies such as all of our 
public housing programs, for issues that flow around the Environmental 
Protection Agency, issues that are very important to the future of our 
general economy, this very controversial bill comes to us in a 
circumstance where these agencies are faced with the overall effort to 
reduce the pattern of growth of spending for the Federal Government. So 
we are dealing with a shrinking dollar circumstance and very important 
and competitive programs, and yet this bill comes to us in a way that 
very much reflects the best of bipartisan work in the House.
  For that work I want to pay special tribute to my colleague and 
friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], as well as his very fine 
staff that has cooperated so much with us in developing this bill. 
Without their support we would have perhaps a lot of controversy today, 
but instead I think we have before us truly a model reflecting the way 
the Committee on Appropriations, working with their authorizing 
committees, should present bills on the House floor.
  I think the Members should know that in that environment, so many 
important issues competing with one another, about 90 to 95 percent of 
our bill has not been authorized for one reason or another. That is, 
the authorizing committees have not, over several years in some 
instances, been able to move bills through the House and the Senate and 
send those bills to the President's desk for signature. So the bill 
finds itself in a position where much of the language in the bill 
reflects some of the priorities of our authorizers as well, as we go 
about trying to deal with the competition for dollars between these 
various programs.
  Let me illustrate just a bit of that for the Members. The fiscal year 
1998 VA-HUD bill reaffirms our commitment to serving veterans, 
protecting the environment, providing housing for the poorest of the 
poor, and ensuring America's continued leadership in space.
  In spite of the difficult challenges in putting this conference 
report together, the final product represents a balance of tough 
choices as well as common interests.
  The bill meets the important test of keeping the appropriations 
process on track to meet the vital objective of attempting to balance 
the budget shortly after the turn of the century. I might add that 
since the fiscal year 1995 rescission bill, this subcommittee has saved 
the American taxpayer nearly $25 billion from the President's request. 
Yes, I say some $25 billion as we make our contribution to reducing the 
rate of growth as we go forward with these very important programs.
  Let me take just a moment to list some of the bill's funding 
highlights. Within the Department of Veterans Affairs, we have provided 
a total agency budget of $40.452 billion. We have increased the Medical 
Care account over the President's request by roughly $100 million to a 
total of $17.661 billion. That is $648 million over the 1997 level. We 
have increased the Medical and Prosthetic Research account by $38 
million over the President's request to a total of $272 million.
  Within the Department of Housing and Urban Development, we have 
provided a total agency budget of $24 billion.
  Our bill increases housing for the elderly, section 202, by $345 
million over the President's request to a total of $645 million. This 
measure also increases housing for the disabled by $20 million over the 
President's request to a total of $194 million.
  We have increased funding for the Community Development Block Grant 
programs by some $75 million to a total of $4.675 billion. Furthermore, 
we funded the HOME investment partnership program at $1.5 billion. We 
also funded

[[Page H8670]]

the Native American Housing Block Grant program at $600 million.
  Finally, we provided the funding necessary to renew expiring Section 
8 contracts, which have been discussed by more than one of my 
colleagues today. We have also accomplished a critical goal of both 
bodies, as well as the administration, by reducing Federal subsidized 
rent under Section 8 rental assistance programs to more closely 
resemble market rates. In fiscal year 1998 alone, this provision saves 
the committee nearly $560 million. Further, it fairly addresses the 
concerns of residents and taxpayers, as well as building owners who, 
after all, entered into this partnership with the Federal Government in 
the first place.
  Within the Environmental Protection Agency, we have provided a total 
agency budget of $7.363 billion, an increase of $564 million over the 
1997 level.
  We increased the Superfund program by over $100 million over the 1997 
level to nearly $1.5 billion, and provided also $650 million in 
additional Superfund funding which is subject to the enactment of an 
authorization bill in the year ahead of us.
  Further, as a result of recently announced National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards, we have provided $49.6 million for particulate 
matter research, as an underpinning to try to make sense out of those 
standards and the impact they may very well have over time on our 
economy.
  We have funded State and Tribal Assistance Grants at $3.2 billion. 
This represents a $300 million increase over fiscal year 1997 levels 
for important Safe Drinking Water and Clean Water programs.
  Within the National Aeronautics and Space Agency, we have provided a 
total agency budget of $13.648 billion. This amount includes $5.5 
billion for the Human Space Flight account, $5.69 billion for the 
Science, Aeronautics, and Technology account, and nearly $2.4 billion 
for Mission Support.
  We have provided the National Science Foundation with a total agency 
budget of $3.429 billion.
  The Federal Emergency Management Agency has been funded at $829 
million, including $320 million for the Disaster Relief account in that 
package.
  In closing, I want to express one more time my thanks to my ranking 
member and good friend for continuing to work in a spirit of 
bipartisanship and goodwill on this very important measure. Over the 
last several years the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and I have 
worked very closely together in the finest tradition of the Committee 
on Appropriations, and I am grateful to him for that.
  I also want to thank and commend our very capable staff, beginning 
with Mr. Del Davis, who has been of great assistance to Mr. Stokes; to 
Dave Reich as well, Fredette West, Frank Cushing, Paul Thomson, Tim 
Peterson, Valerie Baldwin, Rose Roberts, a detailee who is spending 
time with us and carrying on very important assistance, Alex Heslop, 
Dave LesStrang and Jeff Shockey for their hard work and long hours in 
putting this diverse and complex bill together.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to note that within the Statement of Managers 
there are a few corrections that we want to clarify at this point, 
before I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], if my 
colleagues will be patient with me. I wish to note that there are 
certain items contained within the Statement of Managers that were 
either printing errors or were inadvertently left out of the final 
draft.
  Regarding particulate matter research under the EPA's Science and 
Technology account: on page 114 of the Conference Report and Statement 
of Managers, in the fourth line on the last paragraph, the word 
``near'' should be included so the sentence would read, ``Initiate key 
near-term research.''
  Regarding section 107 grants under Housing and Urban Development, the 
conferees included some $32 million. However, the breakdown of the 
funding levels was inadvertently omitted from the Statement of 
Managers.
  The breakdown is as follows: $4 million for technical assistance, 
$6.5 million for Community Development Work Study, with a $3 million 
set-aside for Hispanic-serving institutions; $500,000 for the National 
Center for Revitalization of Central Cities; $7.5 million for the 
Community Outreach Partnership program; $7 million for Insular Areas; 
and $6.5 million for Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
  Regarding Economic Development projects also under HUD, the fourth 
item down on page 96 of the Statement of Managers should be in the town 
of Arab, Alabama, not Arab, Illinois.
  Regarding including the Hazardous Substance Superfund under EPA, the 
conferees failed to note in the Statement of Managers that $2.5 million 
is to be made available for the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research 
Center.
  Regarding NASA's Science, Aeronautics and Technology account list of 
projects on page 132, the Statement of Managers should include the 
following, which were inadvertently omitted: $2 million for the Bishop 
Museum in Honolulu, Hawaii.
  Mr. Speaker, I include charts and graphs pertaining to my statement 
at this time in the Record:
    

[[Page H8671]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08OC97.000



[[Page H8672]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08OC97.001



[[Page H8673]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08OC97.002



[[Page H8674]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08OC97.003



[[Page H8675]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08OC97.004



[[Page H8676]]

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference agreement, 
and I urge my colleagues to vote for it. I must say there are several 
areas where I wish that we could have done more, but given the 
budgetary restraints within which we had to work, I believe the 
conferees have done a very commendable job.
  First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to salute the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis], the chairman of the subcommittee. Without his 
fairness, persistence and sense of humor, I might say, the task of 
putting this agreement together would have been immeasurably more 
difficult.
  I also want to commend the majority staff, in particular Frank 
Cushing, Paul Thomson, Tim Peterson, Valerie Baldwin, Jeff Shockey, 
Alex Heslop and Rose Roberts also for the patience, professionalism, 
and courtesies they have demonstrated throughout the development of 
this legislation.
  I also want to acknowledge the invaluable assistance I have received 
from the minority staff in the persons of Del Davis and David Reich, 
whose professionalism and advice and counsel have been enriching to me 
at all times, along with Ms. Fredette West of my own congressional 
staff who has also been invaluable.
  Our chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], has already 
indicated a number of the more important details of the conference 
agreement. I just wish to make a few additional observations about this 
package.
  Recognizing the great contributions made by our Nation's veterans, 
this agreement provides more for the Veterans Health Administration and 
for the VA in total than either the House or the Senate bill did. 
Although total funding for the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development has been reduced from the amount in the House-passed bill, 
most of this change is a result of including Section 8 reforms, the so-
called mark to market provisions, that resulted in substantial savings 
to the program, those provisions worked out in long negotiating 
sessions involving the administration and the authorization committees.

                              {time}  1530

  I am grateful that the conferees were able to retain the higher 
Senate figure, $550 million for the HOPE VI program and the higher 
House figure of $1.5 billion for the HOME program.
  The conferees also recommend a total of $138 million within HUD's 
Community Development Block Grant program for economic development 
activities. Some of these funds have been designated for specific 
purposes, and a significant portion are available at the discretion of 
the Secretary.
  In many instances the designated funds will leverage State, local, 
and private funding, resulting in synergies that will greatly assist 
communities across the Nation. I am convinced that this relatively 
small amount of money will reap benefits far in excess of these funds 
invested in our cities and towns.
  This agreement also reflects discussions held with White House 
officials before the conference was concluded. Although we were unable 
to provide everything that the administration indicated was required, I 
believe that the conferees went a long way to address their concerns. 
The largest single item in this category is the inclusion of $650 
million for the Superfund program as an advance appropriation for 
fiscal year 1999, subject to authorization.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage the administration to work closely with the 
legislative committees of jurisdiction so we do not face a similar 
situation next year.
  Regarding funding for the Environmental Protection Agency, I am 
pleased to report that the conferees recommend nearly $7.4 billion in 
1998 funding, an increase above the amounts in both the Senate and the 
House bills, and more than $500 million above the 1997 total. In 
addition, there are no anti-environmental riders in this legislation.
  There are other programs of great importance to the administration, 
the Corporation for National and Community Service and Community 
Development Financial Institutions. Although we could not provide the 
entire budget request, we were able to provide significant increases 
above the current year.
  The conferees faced a difficult situation concerning the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration. Just before the conference NASA 
indicated it needed $430 million more than their budget request for the 
International Space Station program. Although NASA was proposing to 
take the funding from other existing NASA activities, due to the 
detrimental impact that this could have on certain NASA programs, this 
request was not fully acceded to.
  The conference agreement notes congressional concerns with the 
ongoing problems plaguing the Space Station, and directs NASA to take 
several actions to get the project back on track. Until these actions 
occur, some funding for the station will be withheld.
  Mr. Speaker, once again, in concluding my remarks, I want to thank 
the gentleman from California, Chairman Lewis, for the very evenhanded 
way in which he has guided this bill. I have taken great pleasure in 
serving on this committee with him and, as the ranking member, have 
been appreciative of the bipartisan manner in which he and I have 
approached our responsibilities relative to getting this legislation 
from the House over to the Senate and then back to the House. For that 
reason, I am very proud to be able to support this bill that is before 
the House today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg], a member of 
the committee, for his statement and a colloquy.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I want to thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time, Mr. Speaker.
  I rise to address an issue that I believe strikes at the integrity of 
this committee. It came to my attention just last week, and it has 
serious implications on what we have done regarding fair housing 
activities.
  Last week HUD announced the award of fiscal year 1997 funds under the 
Fair Housing Initiatives Program, also known as FHIP. As we know, the 
FHIP provides support to private, nonprofit organizations to assist in 
enforcement of the Fair Housing Act.
  For fiscal year 1997, both the House and Senate committees 
specifically directed HUD to use FHIP funds only, only to address those 
forms of housing discrimination that are expressly proscribed by the 
Fair Housing Act. The report emphasized repeatedly that the Fair 
Housing Act makes no mention of the practices of property insurance. It 
further instructed that the FHIP funds not be allocated for purposes of 
enforcing the Act against insurers.
  HUD's announcement, in direct contradiction to this committee's 
intent, awarded numerous grants specifically for activities including 
investigating property insurance and otherwise seeking to enforce the 
Fair Housing Act against property insurers. In taking this action, HUD 
appears to have ignored completely this committee's directive. This is, 
in my judgment, a very serious matter that has implications beyond 
fiscal year 1997.
  The House in the legislation before us once again stated its intent 
that FHIP funds appropriated under this measure should not be used to 
address insurance practices.
  Mr. Speaker, for the past two fiscal years this committee, including 
myself and my good friend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the 
ranking member, have worked together to craft report language to 
everyone's agreement. We did not do this to have it ignored by HUD. 
Report language is meant to be adhered to, and I intend to question HUD 
about their intent and apparent neglect of our wishes.
  The House Committee Report on the fiscal year 1997 VA-HUD 
appropriations legislation stated:

       The Committee intends that funds appropriated to the Fair 
     Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) for enforcement of title 
     VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, which 
     prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing 
     of housing and in the provision of brokerage services, be 
     used only to address such forms of discrimination as they are 
     explicitly identified and specifically described in title 
     VIII. Recognizing that there are limited resources available 
     for FHIP activities, the Committee believes that

[[Page H8677]]

     FHIP funds should serve the purposes of Congress as reflected 
     in the express language of title VIII.
       The Committee notes that HUD's Office of Fair Housing and 
     Equal Opportunity has undertaken a variety of activities 
     pertaining to property insurance under the authority of the 
     Fair Housing Act. HUD recently testified that, due to 
     Congressional concern about such activities, it does not 
     intend to focus its regulatory initiatives on property 
     insurance. The Committee is encouraged by this statement, but 
     remains concerned about HUD's use of funds for other fair 
     housing activities aimed at property insurance practices.
       HUD's insurance-related activities duplicate state 
     regulation of insurance. Every state and the District of 
     Columbia have laws and regulations addressing unfair 
     discrimination in property insurance and are actively 
     investigating and addressing discrimination where it is found 
     to occur. HUD's activities in this area create an unwarranted 
     and unnecessary layer of federal bureaucracy.
       The Fair Housing Act makes no mention of discrimination in 
     property insurance. Moreover, neither it nor its legislative 
     history suggests that Congress intended it to apply to the 
     provision of property insurance. Indeed, Congress' intention, 
     as expressly stated in the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 and 
     repeatedly reaffirmed thereafter, is that, unless a federal 
     law ``specifically relates to the business of insurance,'' 
     that law shall not apply where it would interfere with state 
     insurance regulation. HUD's assertion of authority regarding 
     property insurance contradicts this statutory mandate.

  This language, which was repeated almost verbatim in the Senate 
Committee report, makes extremely clear that no fiscal year 1997 funds 
appropriated for the FHIP were to be used to target the practices of 
insurance companies.
  On February 7, 1997, I wrote to HUD to seek confirmation that the 
Department's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity [FHEO] would 
adhere to the directive expressed in the committee report. I 
specifically asked: ``Will the FHEO Office honor any requests for FHIP 
funding for activities relating to enforcement of the FHA against 
insurers?''
  In a letter to me dated March 13, 1997, HUD's Assistant Secretary for 
Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations responded: ``All requests 
for funding under the fiscal year 1997 FHIP Notice of Funding 
Availability [NOFA] will be screened for proposed activities. The 
Department will not fund activities relating to enforcement of the 
FHAct against property insurers.''
  The letter also provided confirmation of intended adherence by the 
Department to the Report directive by responding to other questions as 
follows:

       Question. Will the FHEO Office identify, in its public 
     announcement of FHIP awards, whether any portion of those 
     awards might be used for activities relating to applications 
     of the FHA to insurance?
       Answer. Yes, the NOFA will state that activities relating 
     to application of the Fair Housing Act to property insurance 
     will not be funded under any of the three Initiatives for 
     which Congress has allocated funding in FY'97--i.e., Private 
     Enforcement Initiative, Fair Housing Organization Initiative, 
     or Education and Outreach Initiative. In addition, the 
     application kit also will emphasize that such activities will 
     not be funded, including as an ``in-kind'' contribution to 
     the budget. Further, the Office of FHEO will place a special 
     condition on all FY'97 awards regarding this restricted use 
     of funds.
       Question. How will the FHEO Office monitor whether any 
     portion of its FHIP awards are used for activities relating 
     to application of the FHA to insurance?
       Answer. While the FHEO Office will make it clear that such 
     activities will not be funded, the Office will monitor 
     whether any portion of the FY'97 FHIP awards are used for 
     activities relating to application of the FHA to insurance in 
     several ways: (1) requiring submission of work products which 
     would show the scope of planned activities, such as training 
     outlines, conference agendas and materials, and testing 
     methodologies; (2) a thorough review of reports submitted 
     regarding actual activities under the grant, such as 
     enforcement logs, quarterly progress reports and financial 
     statements; and (3) on-site monitoring of grantees. 
     Monitoring visits include interviews with grantee staff and 
     testers, examination of financial and personnel records, 
     review of testing and other enforcement records.

  Subsequently, in a letter to me dated May 13, 1997 the Assistant 
Secretary qualified the above quoted answer by stating that the 
Department would seek to ensure that FHIP fund are ``not used for 
narrowly focused enforcement purposes'' and that FHIP funded projects 
``would not be focused upon a single issue, such as insurance 
discrimination.''
  Then on September 30, 1997, HUD announced 67 awards of fiscal year 
1997 grants under the FHIP. Out of the total of $15,000,000 in funds 
awarded, HUD announced that almost one third, an amount of $4,170,002, 
was awarded for activities including investigations, testing, and other 
enforcement-related projects specifically targeting insurance 
companies. This is in direct contradiction of the statements in HUD's 
March 13, 1997, letter to me. More importantly, it flatly contravenes 
the intent expressed by Congress in the House and Senate Committee 
Reports on HUD's fiscal year 1997 appropriations.
  Such a flagrant defiance of Congressional intent suggests the need 
for serious consideration about continued funding for the FHIP. I note 
that the House Committee Report on the fiscal year 1998 VA-HUD 
appropriations legislation states:

       The Committee is encouraged by HUD's recent testimony and 
     correspondence stating that the Office of Fair Housing and 
     Equal Opportunity does not intend to use FHIP funds to 
     solicit or fund applications that would address enforcement 
     of the Fair Housing Act against property insurers. As the 
     Committee has previously emphasized, given the limited 
     resources available for enforcement of title VIII, it is 
     appropriate that funds should serve the particular purposes 
     expressly identified by Congress in the statute. The 
     Committee appreciates HUD's acknowledgment of these budgetary 
     priorities and looks forward to the agency's continued 
     cooperation in adhering to them.

  In light of HUD's recent actions, there no longer appear to be 
grounds for believing that the Department will, in fact, act in 
``continued cooperation and adhering to'' our budgetary priories. This 
is a very serious matter that I strongly feel should be addressed 
promptly, including, if necessary, through cutbacks in funding for the 
Department.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in a brief 
colloquy with my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am pleased to see 
that the conferees saw the need and the value to conduct a near-term 
research program for PM2.5 immediately. Specifically, as an initial 
phase of the program, the conferees noted the ongoing efforts to 
conduct research as well as the need to conduct new research with the 
goal to start and rapidly complete before the next NAAQS review in 
2002. This would be in coordination with NAS and target broad-based 
research program, intensively peer-reviewed research in line with the 
near-term priorities that the gentleman cites, and to fully reanalyze 
the key epidemiologic studies in this program.
  We have heard estimates that successful completion of this near-term 
research would be in the range of $5 million. I would ask the chairman, 
does this agree with the estimates that have been suggested to him?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield, the gentleman is correct, the near-term research is vital, 
and $5 million is a good estimate of what would be necessary to carry 
out this research.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, would the Health 
Effects Institute, HEI, be an example of the type of independent 
research institute that was suggested in the conference report that 
should have priority to undertake this work?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. 
Speaker, the gentleman is correct. It would be the intent of the 
conferees and this conference report that institutes such as HEI would 
receive priority in the process laid out in the conference report.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I thank the distinguished chairman for his time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. STOKES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], a very hard-working and highly 
respected member of the subcommittee.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank our ranking member, the gentleman 
from Cleveland, OH [Mr. Stokes] for granting me this time, along with 
our chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], who has been 
very gracious.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage the chairman in a colloquy on the 
proposed VA cemetery, Veterans Administration Cemetery in Guilford 
Township, Ohio. I am concerned about the potential conflict that could 
arise between Federal and local land and water uses between Medina 
County and Wayne County related to the development of that new veterans 
cemetery.

[[Page H8678]]

  As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural 
Development Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies of the 
Committee on Appropriations and a member of this VA-HUD subcommittee as 
well, I have heard from many local officials and citizens in the 
community concerned about farmlands preservation being essential to the 
maintenance of a sound rural economy in this region of Ohio.
  Before the final Federal water contracts are negotiated, I would urge 
the Veterans Administration to meet with township and other local 
officials in both counties to ensure that local land use is respected, 
the impact of the proposed VA water acquisition on productive farmland 
is assessed, and the best water source for the new national cemetery is 
developed.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, first let me say that I very 
much appreciate the gentlewoman's work on our committee. She is a most 
effective member.
  She and I have discussed the fact that water rights are really State 
and local issues, but at the same time, the gentlewoman is in a perfect 
position to make this point at a very appropriate time. I concur with 
the gentlewoman from Ohio, and encourage the VA to act expeditiously to 
resolve this conflict.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman 
very much for his leadership on this entire measure. Congratulations on 
a fine bill, and I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], 
the ranking member, as well.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen], a very diligent 
and effective member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference agreement. I 
especially want to congratulate the gentleman from California, Chairman 
Lewis, and the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Stokes, the ranking member, for 
their hard work on this bipartisan agreement, and thank their staffers 
for their excellent work in cooperation.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill contains essential funding for our Nation's 
veterans for protection and preservation of the environment, and for 
meeting the housing needs of our older citizens, as well as citizens 
with disabilities, and for exploration and scientific research.
  While I am pleased that this agreement provides full funding for our 
veterans health care system, I remain concerned about the way the VA is 
distributing these funds among their new network system and the effect 
it may have on our veterans in the Northeast, their access to medical 
care. That is why I am pleased that this agreement asks the General 
Accounting Office to review the network system and provide Congress 
with a report in 9 months on its findings. I look forward to the GAO's 
analysis.
  In addition, this conference report contains increased funding for 
the EPA's Superfund program, and having visited 11 sites in my district 
over the last 2 weeks, I am very pleased that the committee has 
provided an additional $100 million, for a total of $1.5 billion. As I 
have said on previous occasions, there remains a desperate need to 
reform the Superfund program. With this agreement Congress is telling 
the EPA that we are committed to cleaning up these sites, and at the 
same time urges the EPA to work with Congress to reauthorize this 
important program.
  As detailed in a recent GAO report, the current program spends less 
than 49 cents of every dollar on actual cleanups. This is simply not 
acceptable. When our citizens ask where the money is for cleanups, the 
answer is, the money is there, it is just not used, or in many cases 
not being used wisely and effectively. I remain optimistic, 
nonetheless, that by working together this program can achieve its goal 
of cleaning up all sites across America.
  In summary, Mr. Speaker, this is a good, balanced conference report. 
I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], a very valuable and hard-
working member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to express my gratitude 
to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the ranking minority member, 
for his hard work on this committee and the leadership he has provided. 
I have held him in high regard ever since I came here, and I appreciate 
his good efforts, and for yielding this time to me. Likewise, I would 
express my appreciation to the chairman of the committee for the 
excellent work he has done on this bill. I am pleased to join him and 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] in supporting it.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise for a colloquy with the chairman.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in a 
colloquy with my colleague and member of the committee.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. First of all, I thank the chairman for agreeing to 
participate in this colloquy to discuss how EPA will proceed with the 
particulate matter research program. This program will determine the 
scientific soundness of EPA's newly announced national ambient air 
quality standards, and will ensure that the regulations promulgated 
under these standards are based on solid scientific evidence.
  As we know, EPA has been criticized for its handling of the current 
research program. This criticism has undermined the credibility of the 
stated research results, and this in turn has called into question the 
recently finalized standards. While we want to move forward on air 
quality improvement, it must be justified, because the economic 
dislocation associated with the promulgation of new regulations is very 
real.
  The chairman is to be commended for the inclusion of the $49.6 
million in the conference report for the express purpose of developing 
a fair and comprehensive particulate matter research program. He is 
also to be commended for directing the National Academy of Sciences to 
develop and oversee the implementation of this research program and to 
periodically report back to the Congress. This process should give 
credibility to the program and foster confidence in research results, 
thereby laying a consensus scientific foundation for the standard-
setting and promulgation of regulations.

                              {time}  1545

  Since the National Academy of Sciences has until April 1998 to 
complete this planning agenda, and since EPA will continue research 
activities until then, I would like to clarify how EPA will proceed 
with this research program in the interim.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that it is very likely that EPA will obligate 
some of the 1998 research funds before the completion of the National 
Academy of Sciences' planning agenda. It is important that when EPA 
does obligate funds, it does so in the spirit of the gentleman's 
directive, applying the principles of diversity and scientific 
integrity, and I ask if the gentleman would agree.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I 
would respond by saying to my colleague that I very much appreciate his 
involvement in this critical issue, a critical issue to us, those of us 
who focus on this problem in the Congress, but to the country as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I would respond further to the gentleman by saying that 
I agree that EPA has worked closely with us in developing the 
particulate matter research program outlined in H.R. 2158. They have 
pledged to fulfill the requirements in the statement of managers to the 
best of their ability. I expect them to exercise sound judgment in the 
distribution of funds and be prepared to reorient certain of their 
efforts upon completion of the NAS research plan.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is my understanding 
that the research program described in the report is intended to build 
on activities currently underway at EPA at the National Institute for 
Environmental Health Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, the 
Health Effects Institute, and many other public and private entities.

[[Page H8679]]

  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from California whether we can 
be assured that EPA will establish diversity among the researchers such 
that all stakeholders should feel comfortable with the composition of 
the research community which would give credibility to the results of 
the research.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield 
further, certainly the gentleman is correct. The legislation, in fact, 
directs EPA to ensure that quality researchers participate in broadly 
based, comprehensive, competitive, and peer-reviewed research programs. 
Only when we bring together a diverse community of the best scientific 
minds on this matter, both inside and outside of government, can we 
feel assured that science is being used to lay a credible foundation 
for policy.
  Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the gentleman allowing me to 
participate in this colloquy.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman from California for his leadership in this matter and for 
these clarifications.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], the chairman of the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee.
  (Mr. STUMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report on H.R. 2158, and I particularly want to commend the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Lewis], the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, 
HUD and Related Agencies, for his insistence that veterans programs be 
funded at adequate levels.
  Mr. Speaker, I also commend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] for 
his effort on behalf of the veterans, and I urge my colleagues to 
support this report.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Brown], the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Science.
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] for the 
excellent work that they have done in bringing this bill before us.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be overly enthusiastic, but in the 
roughly 32 years that I have worked with this committee, I think from 
the standpoint of the Committee on Science we have probably reached 
some sort of a peak of efficiency and effectiveness and concern and 
sharing. I want to say that I am grateful for this situation and hope 
that it can continue.
  I, of course, as the chairman indicated, am the ranking member on the 
Committee on Science, which deals with a number of the programs 
contained in this bill, NASA, FEMA, EPA, NSF, as far as the research 
elements are concerned. I want to say that I feel that in every case 
these programs have been treated with sensitivity. Where there are 
problems within the agencies, they have been recognized and efforts 
have been made to guide them in the right direction.
  And we will continue to have problems, of course, with some of these 
agencies, NASA and EPA, perhaps amongst the most, and we will need to 
continue to give them guidance and assistance in achieving their goals.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to also indicate that for many, many years I have 
had a deep interest and a high priority in the areas of housing and 
veterans' concerns. I served 8 years on the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, and, again, I compliment the committee for the excellent way 
in which they have handled these. I am not as directly involved, but I 
am as deeply concerned about these programs as I am with the programs 
with research.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to our continued cooperation. I will 
not indicate the scientific items on which I am extremely grateful for 
the chairman and the ranking member's concern, but I think they know 
what they are. But overall, I think the important message is that this 
committee in this bill has done more for research and development than 
the Administration has asked for. I have been critical of the 
Administration because I felt that it was shortchanging some of these 
very important investments, and we are now on the right track.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record an article from the latest issue 
of Science magazine, the organ of the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science, which is headlined: ``Friendly Finish Looms on 
Spending.'' Mr. Speaker, this article points out, if I may quote the 
first couple of sentences, ``Congress is proving kind to most federal 
science and technology programs as it wraps up work on the 1998 
budget.''
  I include the full article for the Record.

                      [From Science, Oct. 3, 1997]

                   Friendly Finish Looms on Spending

                           (By Andrew Lawler)

       Congress is proving kind to most federal science and 
     technology programs as it wraps up work on the 1998 budget. 
     The National Science Foundation (NSF) can look forward to a 
     5% boost in research, spending for defense R&D will rise 
     enough to cover inflation, and most technology programs that 
     the Republican Congress loved to hate only a year ago have 
     sailed through both houses.
       But some of the details are not so rosy. Cash-strapped 
     NASA, for example, faces another delay in the space station. 
     Congress also ordered the Department of Energy (DOE) to 
     postpone for at least a year the restart of a troubled 
     reactor used by neutron scientists at Brookhaven National 
     Laboratory in Upton, New York. And it failed to grant NSF's 
     wish to build a polar cap observatory near the magnetic North 
     Pole.
       Here are some highlights of the appropriations bills that 
     emerged from joint House-Senate conferences last week. They 
     must still be approved by each body and signed by the 
     president:
       NSF: The good news is that the agency's research account 
     will increase by $113 million to $2.55 billion. The bad news 
     is that NSF must spend $40 million of that increase on a 
     plant genome initiative, a project promoted by agricultural 
     lobbyists and championed by Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) that was 
     not part of NSF's request (Science, 27 June, p. 1960). The 
     agency's education programs will receive $633 million, a 2% 
     rise that doubles the request.
       The toughest decisions came in the agency's account for 
     large facilities. Legislators did not fund a $25 million 
     polar cap observatory to study solar-upper atmosphere 
     interactions, asking for more information on the proposed 
     site near the magnetic North Pole in northwest Canada. 
     Senator Ted Stevens (R-AL) wants the facility built at an 
     Alaskan defense lab, which scientists say would greatly 
     reduce its value. But conferees added $4 million to complete 
     the twin Gemini telescopes and maintained initial funding for 
     the $200 million millimeter array. And they voted $70 million 
     for a new South Pole station, a compromise between the 
     Senate's $25 million increment and the House's $115 million 
     that would have funded the full cost of construction. They 
     also dropped a House plan to give $5 million more to two 
     supercomputer centers being phased out.
       NASA: The space agency received $13.65 billion, $100 
     million above the request and close to the 1997 level. But 
     that windfall won't go far, as the agency failed to win 
     approval to move money from other accounts into the station 
     budget to meet cost overruns. Lawmakers like Senator Barbara 
     Mikulski (D-MD) worried that other programs--particularly the 
     space shuttle and science efforts--would suffer as a result, 
     so it severely restricted the agency's flexibility. 
     Congressional sources say the language is intended to force 
     the Administration to request a bigger NASA budget, but NASA 
     managers aren't heartened. ``We're in a bad situation,'' says 
     one. ``This would force a slip in the station's schedule.''
       Mikulski also insisted that NASA use more competitive 
     methods to distribute money set aside for programs such as 
     New Millennium, a new program administered by the Jet 
     Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, that aims to 
     test advanced technology for future space science missions. 
     That move could open the door for Johns Hopkins University's 
     Applied Physics Laboratory in Mikulski's home state.
       DOE: There were few surprises in DOE's final 1998 budget, 
     which meets the Administration's $2.36 billion request for 
     science programs. Conferees did give high-energy physics and 
     nuclear physics slight increases, and added nearly $25 
     million for several pork-barrel projects in biological and 
     environmental research. DOE can continue to clean up the 
     leaking High-Flux Beam Reactor at Brookhaven, but is 
     forbidden from spending money on restarting it for 1 year, 
     Martha Krebs, DOE energy research chief, says the reactor 
     would not have been ready for a restart then anyway, but that 
     decision on its future is due in January. However, opponents 
     may try to extend the provision next year.
       Environmental Protection Agency: The agency's science and 
     technology account appears likely to receive $15 million more 
     than the president request and $80 million above the 1997 
     level. But the $630 million figure includes $23 million more 
     for a research program on the health effects of particle air 
     pollution, with advice from the National Academy of Sciences. 
     The conferees discarded

[[Page H8680]]

     proposals from the House to funnel this money through other 
     agencies and a Senate plan to set up university-based 
     research centers.
       Defense Department (DOD): Funding for basic science at DOD 
     has survived a roller-coaster ride to finish at about the 
     same level--$1.08 billion--as this year. Applied research 
     funds will increase 8.9% to $3.1 billion. This category 
     includes grant money for university research activities, 
     which increases by 7% to $230.8 million. Total R&D at the 
     Pentagon rises 3.5% to $37.9 billion. In addition, the 
     conferees have retained several popular biomedical programs, 
     including $135 million for breast cancer studies and $45 
     million for prostate cancer research. ``It's a mixed bag,'' 
     says analyst George Leventhal of the Association of American 
     Universities.
       Meanwhile, the massive bill that includes funding for the 
     National Institutes of Health was still in limbo after 
     legislators met last Friday. Biomedical advocacy groups hope 
     the conferees will split the difference between the House's 
     offer of a 6% increase and the Senate offer of a 7.5% raise.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Legislative Appropriations.
  (Mr. WALSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference 
report, and I congratulate the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], 
the chairman, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the ranking 
member.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], the chairman of the Committee on 
Banking and Financial Services.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, with reservation I rise today in support of 
this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin by offering my appreciation to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], my friend and colleague, as well 
as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the ranking member, for their 
work in completing what is clearly a strong bipartisan agreement.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, for 
his exceptional work in helping craft a solution to the problem of 
expiring section 8 multifamily housing contracts. The dedication of the 
gentleman from New York and the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
to sound housing and community development policy is a credit to their 
respective chairmanships.
  Mr. Speaker, so there is no misunderstanding, current section 8 
programming symbolizes Congress being placed by prior Congresses in a 
catch-22 where good public intentions have, in too many cases, crossed 
wires with imperfect private sector motivations, which in turn have 
been exacerbated by unrealistic legislation.
  The deferred obligations implicit in section 8 housing present 
Congress with an untenable choice: Either walk away from projects that 
serve hundreds of thousands of needy people, many of whom are elderly, 
or accept funding obligations far in excess of those originally 
conceived.
  The end effect of the current program has been the classic scheme of 
advancing programs for the moment, with huge deferred funding 
liabilities. Those liabilities have now come due and are stretching the 
congressional budget process in an unseemly as well as expensive 
manner.
  Mr. Speaker, from the authorizing committee's perspective, we have 
attempted to devise an approach correcting the deferred liability 
schematics of the past. It is clear that the status quo is unfair to 
taxpayers and unfavorable to tenants. Owners, on the other hand, have 
unintentionally been provided cost-plus incentives to maximize return 
without necessarily paying adequate attention to property maintenance.
  The section 8 reforms presented by the Senate for consideration by 
the Committee on Appropriations were clearly improvements over the 
current system, but the House authorizing committee, in negotiations 
with the Senate, took the position that the public treasury would still 
be at risk and tenants in jeopardy unless systems were put in place 
that took owners out of the driver's seat.
  Hence, the authorizing committee developed a legislative approach 
based on three broad premises: One, full and fair competition among 
administrative entities with a greater emphasis and utilization of 
nonprofit institutions; two, greater empowerment opportunities for 
program participants and the assumption that the greater the choices 
allowed tenants, the greater the accountability of landlords; and, 
three, stronger protections against potential fraud and abuse by 
building checks and balances into Administration decision-making.
  Some of our approaches were embraced by the appropriations 
conference. We cannot say, however, that our concerns have fully been 
met or that we have been pleased with all of the processes of 
consideration that have taken place.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me just say I must express some concern 
with the significant number of targeted special purpose grants included 
in this report. At issue are questions of judgment as well as the 
proper constitutional role of the Congress, which may in the end be 
embarrassed by a President exercising proper line-item veto authority.
  Mr. Speaker, with reservation I rise today in support of the fiscal 
year 1998 VA, HUD and independent agencies appropriations conference 
report.
  Let me begin by offering my appreciation to my friend and colleague 
from California, the subcommittee chairman, and the ranking member from 
Ohio for their work in completing the bipartisan agreement we have 
before us today.
  I must also thank the Housing Subcommittee chairman from New York, 
Mr. Lazio, for his exceptional work in helping craft a solution to the 
problem of expiring section 8 multifamily housing contracts. His and 
Mr. Lewis' sincere dedication to sound housing and community 
development public policy are a credit to their respective 
chairmanships.
  So there is no misunderstanding, current section 8 programming 
symbolizes Congress being placed by prior Congresses in a catch-22, 
where good public intentions have in too many cases crossed wires with 
imperfect private sector motivations which in turn have been 
exacerbated by unrealistic legislation. The deferred obligations 
implicit in section 8 housing present Congress with an untenable 
choice: Either walk away from projects that serve hundreds of thousands 
of needy people many of whom are elderly, or accept funding obligations 
far in excess of those originally conceived.
  The end effect of the current program has been the classic scheme of 
advancing programs for the moment, with huge deferred funding 
liabilities. Those liabilities have now come due and are stretching the 
congressional budget process in an unseemly as well as expensive 
manner.
  The goal of the multifamily restructuring legislation contained in 
title V of the conference report is to reform today's system, but also 
to assure that taxpayers and tenants are better protected in the 
future.
  In my view, this can only be done if it is clear to landlords that 
their ownership is jeopardized both by financial profligacy and by ill-
service to tenants. Hopefully, the conference report lays out a 
legislative scheme which allows the Government to more easily say 
``no'' and to allow intervention by nonprofits, as well as alternative 
voucher approaches. In my judgment, without the possibility of 
Government intervention and vouchers, imperfect landlords will be given 
free rein.
  A key element under the multifamily restructuring program is the 
determination of rents for comparable properties, or market rents. The 
conference report provides that ``where applicable'' comparable 
properties should be located in the same market area as the section 8 
project. Thus, the conferees recognize that it may not be possible to 
find comparable properties in some areas. This is particularly true for 
projects in rural communities, and especially for specially designed 
properties for the elderly. In those cases the appraiser could look to 
other areas to locate comparable properties.
  From the authorizing committee's perspective, we have attempted to 
devise an approach correcting the deferred liability schematics of the 
past. It is clear that the status quo is unfair to taxpayers and 
unfavorable to tenants. Owners, on the other hand, have unintentionally 
been provided cost-plus incentives to maximize return without 
necessarily paying adequate attention to property maintenance.
  The section 8 reforms presented by the Senate for consideration by 
the Appropriations Committee were clearly improvements over the current 
system, but the House authorizing committee in negotiations with the 
Senate, took the position that the public treasury would still be at 
risk and tenants in jeopardy unless systems were put in place that took 
owners out of the driver's seat.

[[Page H8681]]

  Hence the House authorizing committee developed a legislative 
approach based on three broad premises: first, full and fair 
competition among administrative entities with a greater emphasis on 
utilization of non-profit institutions; second, greater empowerment 
opportunities for program participants on the assumption that the 
greater choices allowed tenants, the greater the accountability of 
landlords; and third, stronger protections against potential fraud and 
abuse by building checks and balances into administration 
decisionmaking.
  In this regard, it is interesting to note that the House authorizing 
committee's legislation scored savings of $759 million in fiscal year 
1998 according to CBO, almost $200 million more than the Senate 
legislation. The Appropriations Conference unfortunately chose to lean 
to the Senate approach. Nevertheless, from an authorizing committee 
perspective, we are pleased that reform is underway and that some of 
our approaches were embraced by the Appropriations Committee.
  We cannot say, however, that our concerns have been fully met or that 
we have been pleased with all the processes of consideration that have 
taken place.
  Finally, I must express my concern with the significant number of 
targeted special purpose grants included in the conference report. For 
instance, almost 130 separate communities or projects will receive 
exclusive funding grants totaling more than $100 million in carve-outs 
under the $138 million Economic Development Initiative program. I must 
urge my colleagues to carefully consider the implications of 
stipulating so many projects for funding. At issue are questions of 
judgment as well as the proper constitutional role of a Congress, which 
may, in the end, be embarrassed by a President exercising proper line-
item veto authority.
  We in Congress are simply obligated to recognize that there is a 
place for professionalism in executive departments like HUD where 
individual program priorities should be set. Congress' role should be 
to pass broad laws with definitive policy parameters. Individual 
program decisions, on the other hand, should largely be left to the 
executive branch.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kucinich], my friend and distinguished colleague who shares the 
representation of Cleveland, Ohio, with me.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Lewis] for the work which he has done on this 
important appropriations bill. I also thank the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Stokes], my friend, for sharing his knowledge and understanding of 
the process with me to enable me to more effectively participate as a 
freshman.
  Mr. Speaker I rise in support of the conference agreement on the 
fiscal year 1998 VA-HUD appropriations bill. This bill provides $13.6 
billion for the programs in the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, which fully funds the President's request, including 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's aeronautics 
program, and also provides for the work associated with Lewis Research 
Center, which I am proud to say is served by the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Stokes], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette], the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Brown], and myself and the entire Ohio delegation.
  I am pleased that the conference agreement provides increased funding 
for the International Space Station. This action by the Congress will 
help to keep the Space Station on schedule.
  The bill also provides essential support for Mission to Planet Earth, 
the NASA program which will enable a system of Earth observing 
satellites to study global climate change.
  In this Congress, we have seen important debates about the future of 
NASA and the International Space Station. This fiscal year 1998 
appropriation will enable the agency to continue its progress on 
exploring the last frontier, the frontier of space, while bringing back 
to Earth the technological benefits of that exploration.
  Mr. Speaker, for this I commend this bill to my colleagues and urge 
its support. And I want to express my continued appreciation to the men 
and women of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for 
their vision, for their attention to detail, and for their commitment 
to our country.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley].
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to be sure that my understanding of 
the provisions in the bill before us is correct. As I read the bill, it 
appropriates $2.15 billion for the Superfund program, but $650 million 
of that money is effectively held in reserve. I ask the gentleman from 
California if that is correct.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, 
that is correct.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me further be sure 
that I understand the two events that are necessary to unlock the 
funding. First, the money will only be available after October 1, 1998; 
is that correct?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would again 
yield, that is correct.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, second, let me be 
very clear in how I ask this question. The money will only be available 
at that time if we enact comprehensive Superfund reform; is that 
correct?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue 
to yield, the language requires that Superfund be reauthorized by May 
15, 1998, in order to receive the additional funds. It certainly is my 
intent that such a reauthorization be comprehensive reform of the 
Superfund law.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, is the committee 
trying to tell us that it shares our strong desire for fully funding 
toxic waste cleanups?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. OXLEY. So if we fix it, the Committee on Appropriations will fund 
it?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his time. We will 
get a new law as soon as we can.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus].
  (Mr. BACHUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, the Subcommittee on General Oversight and 
Investigations of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services 
undertook an investigation of the CDFI fund in the past year. As a 
result of that investigation, the two top officials of that fund have 
resigned. I have been working with the Committee on Appropriations to 
legislate some safeguards to end the type practices which resulted in 
their resignation. Among these practices, one that continues to go on 
is they still are paying outside consultants, one, $217,000 for a 15-
month period. I am happy to report to this body today that the 
Committee on Appropriations and this conference report, this conference 
report has addressed most of these concerns.
  There is, however, one concern that I think we are leaving hanging 
out there. I do not think it was an intentional thing. I think it was 
just the conference language unintentionally may not have taken care of 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lewis] for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy concerning this 
practice of hiring outside contractors.
  Mr. Speaker, is it correct that the VA-HUD conferees sought to 
curtail the exorbitant use of management consultants and outside 
consultants at the CDFI fund? As we know, they spent a little over $2 
million this past year.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BACHUS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. BACHUS. That being the case, would the gentleman join me in a 
request to the Department of Treasury that it immediately bring its 
contracting practices at the CDFI fund into conformance with the intent 
of the VA-HUD conference report language, that being that contractors, 
outside contractors not be paid more than the ES-3 rate?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield, that is my intention and I will be happy to join the 
gentleman.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I have shared with the gentleman my concern, 
and I ask the gentleman and the committee to support me in separate 
legislation to achieve the goal of limiting

[[Page H8682]]

abusive contracting practices at the CDFI fund. I intend to introduce 
legislation.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the 
gentleman's leadership on this matter. I will be happy to join him.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California.
  Mr. Speaker, the Banking Oversight Subcommittee has conducted a 
review of the procedures of the CDFI fund administered by the 
Department of the Treasury. I think it is safe to say there is a 
consensus that the CDFI fund operated with very few safeguards against 
abuse during its first round of awards in 1996.
  I am pleased that these concerns have been addressed in the VA, HUD, 
and independent agencies conference report. However, this conference 
report fails to address one area of concern.
  One area of abuse by the CDFI Fund brought to the attention of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee is the exorbitant use of so-called 
management consultants by the CDFI Fund. In less than 2 full fiscal 
years, the CDFI fund has paid out approximately $1.2 million to these 
management consultants. Our review has shown that contracts were handed 
out without full or open competition to a network of contractors. 
Certain of these contracts are truly sweetheart deals: one consultant 
alone was paid $216,713.41 for part-time work over a period of 
approximately 15 months.
  I appreciate that the VA, HUD, and independent agencies conferees 
seemed to recognize this problem and attempted to place limits on the 
amounts the CDFI Fund pays to outside contractors. The conference 
report to H.R. 2158 provides funds for the CDFI fund ``including 
services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not 
to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for ES-3.
  Unfortunately, the conferees seemed to have failed in their goal of 
closing this loophole. The conference report language will have no 
impact whatsoever upon abuse of contracting authority by the CDFI fund 
as it is limited solely to the CDFI fund's use of contractors retained 
under 5 U.S.C. 3109. Although much confusion remains concerning the 
procedures used by the CDFI fund in selecting outside contractors and 
fixing their compensation, the one thing that has been established is 
that the CDFI fund did not rely upon 5 U.S.C. 3109 in retaining its 
contractors. As a result, the conference report fails to place any 
limitations upon the CDFI fund's use of contractors.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Price], a very distinguished and valuable member of 
the subcommittee.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this 
conference report. As a new member of this subcommittee, I am grateful 
to both the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] for their evenhanded bipartisan work in putting 
together this difficult piece of legislation.
  The bill has broad support from both parties and in both Chambers. In 
numerous ways this conference report addresses our Nation's critical 
priorities. For example, the report increases the appropriation for 
veterans' medical care to $17.7 billion, higher than either House 
initially approved, with $600 million coming from medical care cost 
recovery sources.
  The report increases funding for the HOME program at the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development to $1.5 billion, $109 million above 
last year's level. The HOME program allows those providing affordable 
housing to use Federal block grants to leverage private sector money 
with a minimum of unnecessary regulation. It is an efficient and a 
practical way to open up homeownership to thousands of Americans. I am 
pleased that in a tight budget year we were able to find additional 
resources for HOME.
  Funding for the EPA at a level of $7.4 billion is more than $500 
million above the fiscal 1997 level. The budget for EPA includes $3 
million for research and monitoring of Pfiesteria, an environmental 
threat that even now, the full dimensions of that threat are not known 
to us. In addition, nearly $50 million of the funding at the EPA is for 
research on fine particulate matter. Many of us may have differences 
over the new clean air regulations. No one can argue with the necessity 
of doing research to determine exactly what standard is justified.
  Within the FEMA section, I was pleased that language that would have 
restricted States and municipalities from using disaster relief to 
clean up streams and parks and beaches was removed, giving full 
flexibility for the use of these funds which have been critical in 
allowing my State to recover from last year's devastation caused by 
Hurricane Fran.
  The National Science Foundation receives a healthy 4.7 percent 
increase to a level of $3.4 billion. I am particularly pleased that in 
that NSF budget we have given good support to the Advanced Technology 
Education program, which for the first time has the NSF working 
effectively with our Nation's community colleges.
  I am very appreciative, Mr. Speaker, of the leadership of the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Leach] and the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Lewis], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Stokes]. I want to add my appreciation for the excellent 
staff work that has been done on this bill, as fine as any I have ever 
seen. The help I received, particularly from Frank Cushing and Valerie 
Baldwin on the majority side, Del Davis and David Reich on the minority 
site, has been absolutely invaluable.
  I urge my colleagues to support this conference report. I assure them 
they can do so with confidence.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], distinguished ranking member of the full 
Committee on Appropriations, who has been of great assistance to both 
me and the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] as we developed this 
bill and took it through to the point where we now bring it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me make clear that I think that this bill 
is very much short of what we need in a variety of areas, including 
environmental protection, housing and veterans' care. The problem, 
however, is that this committee was constrained in its ability to meet 
those needs by the budget agreement, and given that fact, I think the 
committee has done a perfectly reasonable job.
  I am especially pleased by the fact that the committee did not do 
what is often done in this place, which is to dump amendments that are 
adopted in the House once they go to conference on important matters. I 
am happy that the committee retained the spirit of the amendment that I 
offered when this bill was on the floor, which removed a good many 
millions of dollars for the insider deal on the wind tunnel and instead 
transferred that money to veterans' funding so that we could do a 
better job of providing for veterans' health care.
  I am pleased that the committee retained the spirit of that amendment 
in conference and wound up providing a higher amount for veterans' 
health care than was in the original administration request or the 
committee bill. I appreciate that action on the part of the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] 
and the committee.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have no further requests for time. I will just take a moment once 
again to express my appreciation to my chairman, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis] for the excellent manner in which we have been 
able to work together and bring this legislation to the floor. I think 
both of us take a great deal of pride in the fact that we think that 
our work together is a model for this institution and the manner in 
which bipartisanship can bring to the floor the kind of legislation 
that all of us can support. I do support this conference report, and I 
do urge all my colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Let me echo my colleague's remarks about the bipartisanship of the 
work that we have done together. I want to express my appreciation to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], ranking member of the full 
committee, certainly the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], my 
colleague. I am very appreciative of the help of the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], as well as all of our staff.

[[Page H8683]]

  I would just note one item. The bill is a very complex bill, as we 
have suggested. We have operated in a circumstance where a very high 
percentage of our bill has not been authorized, in some instances for 
several years. It is very important, to help us with that work, that 
our authorizing committees go forward with their work as well. We will 
try to work with them positively in the next Congress or the next go 
around. Without authorization, it is very difficult to reflect all the 
needs of the Members of the House.
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the health care needs 
of Northern California's veterans, as the debate on the Conference 
Report to the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill 
comes to a close. Included in the bill is the Department of Veterans 
Affairs' plan for veterans health care in Northern California. I 
recommended that the conference committee which negotiated the final 
version of bill accept and fully fund this plan, and I am pleased that 
they did.
  Serving the health care needs of Northern California's veterans has 
always been and will always be one of my top priorities. The Loma 
Prieta earthquake of 1992 rendered the veterans' hospital in Martinez, 
CA unusable, and for the last several years I have worked with my 
colleagues in the House, the veterans in my district and the Veterans 
Administration to ensure the veterans in the area receive the medical 
care that they deserve. Since the Martinez Hospital closed, I have 
relied heavily on the input and feedback from the local veterans 
community, represented by Operation VA. Without question, Operation VA 
has been the voice of the veterans community, and their tireless 
commitment to this cause has kept the issue in the forefront for the 
last several years.
  This has been a long hard fight. In 1994 and 1995, I worked with my 
colleagues in the House to secure funding for a new veterans hospital 
to be built at Travis Air Force Base, but several studies were 
commissioned that recommended against construction of a new hospital at 
Travis. The recommendations of the most recent study, completed by 
Price Waterhouse, did not adequately address the needs of Solano 
County's veterans. Working together with area veterans, led by 
Operation VA, through hard and dedicated work, we were able to convince 
the VA and Congress that the Price Waterhouse recommendations were an 
insult to the men and women in the Travis area who are dependent on the 
VA to address their health care needs. We persuaded the VA to re-
evaluate the needs of the Travis area veterans. To that end, they 
recommended the Air Force give one-third of Travis's David Grant 
Medical Center's inpatient beds to the VA creating a wing that will be 
staffed by VA doctors and they recommended a comprehensive VA 
outpatient clinic at Travis.
  This bill includes funding and a commitment that will allow Travis to 
become a viable veterans health care center. This is a bittersweet 
victory because while we fell short of our ultimate goal of a full 
fledged hospital at Travis, we were able to secure much more than the 
Price Waterhouse report recommended and our Congressional opposition 
was willing to provide us. I will continue to fight to make sure that 
the long-term health care interests of Solano County's veterans are 
addressed and I will work to make sure everyone involved honors their 
commitments.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my strong support for 
a provision in H.R. 2158, the fiscal year 1998 VA-HUD funding bill that 
would significantly improve the health care provided to the veterans of 
Western Pennsylvania.
  Language included in this measure would allow the University Drive VA 
Medical Center (VAMC), located in Pittsburgh, PA, to go ahead with 
plans to renovate a number of the hospital's patient rooms and support 
facilities. The improvements are planned for the main building of the 
University Drive facility, which has not been significantly changed 
since it was built in 1954. The renovations will bring the medical 
center up to VA minimum standards for life safety, patient privacy and 
handicapped accessibility. Additionally, these changes are required to 
more adequately meet the needs of the increasing number of female 
veterans who are being treated at the medical center.
  This project would improve the overall quality of health care 
provided at the University Drive VAMC, a facility that plays an 
important role in VA health care, not only in the Pittsburgh area where 
I live, but across the entire Veterans Integrated Service Network 4 
(VISN 4) region. In addition to serving as the primary medical facility 
for many of the veterans in my district, the University Drive facility 
serves as a major medical-surgical tertiary care center for the entire 
western Pennsylvania VA health care network. The facility also operates 
a number of specialty services, such as liver transplantation, that 
benefit veterans across an even wider geographic area.
  Even though the University Drive VAMC holds significant 
responsibilities within the VA health care system, current conditions 
at the facility are making it increasingly difficult for hospital staff 
to continue to provide high quality medical care. This past Spring, I 
revisited the facility and toured the main building where the 
renovations are planned. The conditions that I found, which would be 
alleviated under the renovation plans funded by this bill, would not be 
tolerated for a single day in a private hospital environment, let alone 
the years that such conditions have been present at University Drive.
  The University Drive facility has patient rooms with such limited 
space that a patient must be removed from the room when another patient 
is brought in on an emergency room gurney to share that room. In other 
patient wards, as many as 16 veterans share quarters, with limited 
space and only hanging cloth screens between them. Congregate bath 
facilities create additional dilemmas for patients and hospital staff, 
especially with the number of female veterans being treated at the 
facility increasing. These and other problems associated with the aging 
building not only inconvenience patients, but also put unnecessary 
obstacles in the path of hospital employees and their efforts to 
provide quality medical care to these veterans. Such conditions are 
certainly not consistent with how we should be honoring and caring for 
our nation's veterans.
  The VA health care system is a very important part of the Pittsburgh 
community. Our area has one of the largest populations of veterans in 
the Nation. Thus, VA benefits and services, including health care, have 
played a large part in the lives of many of our residents.
  One of the things I am proudest of about the people of western 
Pennsylvania is that they understand the gifts our Nation's veterans 
have given to them. They realize that it is because of the sacrifices 
our veterans have made on battlefields around the globe that our Nation 
has been able to prosper, and this prosperity has allowed us to enjoy, 
among other things, a medical system that is one of the best in the 
world. I am pleased that H.R. 2158 would finally allow the veterans of 
western Pennsylvania to share a piece of that medical prosperity, a 
benefit that they helped secure for the rest of the Nation, and one 
that is long overdue to the veterans of western Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to 
commend the Chairman and Ranking Member of the VA/HUD and Independent 
Agencies Subcommittee for their hard work on this important funding 
bill. In addition to the crucial funding for affordable housing, 
especially Section 8 units for low-income and the elderly, the measure 
includes provisions which will promote economic growth and development 
in communities throughout the Nation. I want to express my personal 
thanks for an important investment that my colleagues agreed to make in 
my home city of Newark. Let me especially thank Chairman Jerry Lewis, 
Ranking Member Louis Stokes, and my good friend and New Jersey 
colleague Rodney Frelinhuysen, for their responsiveness to our request 
to include $3 million for the restoration of Weequahic Park, a site 
which has great potential for stimulating our local economy and 
enhancing the quality of life for local residents.
  Improvements in Weequahic Lake, which falls within Newark's 
Enterprise Community boundaries, make it accessible for families, 
school children, church groups and other members of the community.
  We are all aware of the severe budget restraints under which Congress 
is operating, but I believe that investments in housing and in our 
communities are sound investments which will bring considerable future 
returns. I urge approval of the VA/HUD conference report.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
on H.R. 2158, the VA-HUD-Independent agencies appropriations act for 
fiscal year 1998. This bill provides needed funding for, among other 
agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
  First of all, as chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee which has jurisdiction over EPA and FEMA, I want to thank my 
colleagues on the Appropriations Committees for their cooperation. In 
particular, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) 
for his leadership as chairman of the House Appropriations 
Subcommittee. As usual, he and his staff have worked hard to 
accommodate colleagues and produce a reasonable bill. While in a 
perfect world no Appropriations bill would include authorizations or 
policy-making provisions, provisions in this bill have generally 
attempted to take into account concerns of the authorizing committee.
  With regard to EPA's clean water and drinking water programs, I would 
make a few comments and clarifications. I appreciate the efforts of the 
conferees to provide a level of funding ($1.35 billion) for the Clean 
Water

[[Page H8684]]

Act's State revolving fund (SRF) that is higher than the level 
requested by the administration. The record compiled by our committee 
and other speaks for itself; adequate funding to capitalize and 
maintain clean water SRFs pays enormous dividends in terms of 
environmental protection and economic development.
  I am also pleased to support provisions allowing the so-called 
``cross-collateralization'' between the CWA SRF and Safe Drinking Water 
Act SRF. This flexibility can be extremely helpful to states as they 
strive to administer clean water and drinking water programs to meet 
infrastructure needs. I would note that Senate-passed language was 
modified in conference to clarify that nothing in the provision 
authorizes the transfer of funds between the SRFs or in any way 
conflicts with the combined financial administration provisions 
in Section 130(g) or transferability of funds provisions in section 302 
of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. In addition, nothing 
in this provision affects in any way the jurisdiction of or 
understanding between the House Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee and the House Commerce Committee relating to the clean water 
act, the safe drinking water act, and the two SRF's.

  I would also like to clarify provisions regarding the State and 
tribal assistance grants and accompanying joint explanatory statement 
of managers. The conferees included funds for wastewater and drinking 
water system needs in Clearfield, Mifflin, Snyder, and Fulton Counties. 
Unfortunately, the statement of managers inadvertently omitted the 
community of Wallace-Boggs as the recipient of $1,250,000; I have been 
assured the intent of the conferees was simply to include the language 
in the report of the House Appropriations Committee which did in fact 
specify Wallace-Boggs as the recipient. In addition, the reference in 
the statement of managers to Adams Township should instead be to Union 
Township. I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues on the 
Appropriations Committee for the opportunity to correct this technical 
error.
  Regarding Superfund, I would simply make a few observations. I am 
encouraged by the contingent appropriation of an additional $650 
million if specific reauthorization of the Superfund Program occurs by 
May 15, 1998. The Superfund Program doesn't simply need more money. In 
fact, more money without reform can cause more harm than good. 
Superfund needs comprehensive, statutory reform and redirection. For 
too long, the program has been ineffective and unfair, resulting in far 
too few cleanups and too much litigation. I am hopeful the May 15, 1998 
date will help our efforts to move comprehensive reauthorization and 
reform legislation through the Congress and to the President as soon as 
possible.
  I would also note that the conferees have properly limited the use of 
Brownfields Grants. Brownfields initiatives are important, but EPA 
currently has no authority to spend superfund money for remedial 
actions at facilities that are not on the national priorities list. In 
addition, Congress must first review and authorize the use of revolving 
funds before the executive branch proceeds down that path.
  Regarding appropriations for FEMA, I am pleased that the conferees 
resisted language proposed by the Senate prohibiting the use of 
disaster relief funds in certain instances. I share the conferees' 
concern regarding the escalating Federal cost of natural disasters but 
feel that solutions to this problem are better considered as part of a 
more comprehensive and deliberative reauthorization process.
  In contrast, I would note that the uses specified in the statement of 
managers for portions of the pre-disaster mitigation fund are not 
authorized. Indeed, existing authority for such a fund is extremely 
narrow and it seems extremely likely that the vast bulk of the $30 
million appropriated for this fund will be spent on unauthorized 
projects. I would encourage the appropriations committees and FEMA to 
work closely with the authorizing committees as these provisions are 
implemented and as we consider legislation to provide appropriate 
authority for pre-disaster mitigation efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for far too long, the veterans of 
east central Florida have had to travel great distances to receive 
quality inpatient medical care. This is an intolerable situation which 
I have worked hard to change. In the Fall of 1998, a new VA clinic will 
be opened in Brevard County which will help meet the outpatient medical 
needs of local veterans. This will be the first ever permanent facility 
to serve area veterans in east central Florida.
  However, the long drives for hospital stays currently continue. That 
is why I led the effort in the last Congress to allow the VA to 
contract with local health care facilities for inpatient care. This 
year, language I wrote with my colleague Bill McCollum establishing 
this pilot program was included in H.R. 2158, the fiscal year 1998 VA/
HUD Appropriation Bill. The program was funded at the level of $5 
million in the House bill. This language was not included in the Senate 
version, but the final House-Senate agreement included the provision.
  This pilot project represents the wave of the future, a new and more 
efficient way to deliver quality health care to those who have 
sacrificed so much for our freedoms. No longer should the brave men and 
women who served their country selflessly have to travel long distances 
for quality care. I am confident that this project will be a great 
success, and will lead to more widespread contracting efforts in the 
future.
  I strongly support this conference report and I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``yes'' on behalf of our Nation's veterans.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I have strong reservations about 
the legislative approach the conference report takes toward resolving 
the problem of expiring section 8 multifamily housing projects under 
HUD. The House first recognized this problem in the 104th Congress by 
including in the House Budget Resolution language addressing the so-
called mark-to-market dilemma. However, the Senate rejected the 
provision included in that act. Although the House has been working on 
this issue for the past two years, I remain concerned that legislation 
of this magnitude was formulated outside of the regular legislative 
process. Given the complexity of the program, lack of available data, 
and the short amount of time to negotiate, the authorizing committees 
or with outside groups have not vetted many of the details. I believe 
the conference report legislation may lead to unforeseen, unintended 
consequences.
  The legislation included in the report raises a number of problems, 
including: First, the likelihood that owners will not participate in 
this program before their contracts expire because of the uncertainties 
surrounding the tax consequences of mortgage restructuring; second, the 
inadequate protection and representation of the taxpayer, third, an 
over-reliance on HUD, the only Federal Agency to be classified as high-
risk, which would effectively control the office that administers this 
program and affects billions of taxpayers' dollars; and fourth, the 
lack of full and fair competition to select the most qualified entity 
to work one-on-one with owners in the restructuring process, leaving 
housing finance agencies with a virtual monopoly.


                        unknown tax consequences

  The uncertainties surrounding the tax consequences of mortgage 
restructuring may undermine the legislation's effectiveness and 
ultimately reduce the savings of the reforms. The most responsible 
mark-to-market approach would motivate owners to restructure their 
mortgages before their contracts expire. Such proactivity on the 
owners' part is vital to the savings of the legislation. Under the 
conference report, owners will likely not participate in the program 
before their section 8 contracts expire because the tax consequences of 
mortgage restructuring are uncertain. Therefore, I am concerned not 
only that the reforms will not achieve the expected savings but, also 
that a better bill would achieve more savings.
  On September 17, 1997, the Subcommittee on Housing and Community 
Opportunity held a hearing regarding the tax consequences of FHA-
insured, section 8 multifamily housing mortgage restructuring. In that 
hearing, Ken Kies, Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation 
testified that:

       Absent legislation or a Treasury announcement clarifying 
     the Federal income tax treatment under any of the HUD 
     restructuring proposals, it is likely that many project 
     owners will not elect to restructure the FHA-insured 
     mortgages before the expiration of their section 8 contracts 
     for fear of incurring immediate tax liabilities. . . . 
     However, it is clear that if all project owners restructure 
     their mortgages under any of the proposals it is likely that 
     some of these taxpayers will recognize taxable income as a 
     result of the transaction. The possibility of such 
     recognition likely will inhibit many project owners from 
     electing to restructure their mortgages under a proposal.

  Moreover, under the conference report's legislation, up to 26 percent 
of the owners may be forced to choose foreclosure over a bifurcated 
mortgage restructuring or debt forgiveness because of the different tax 
treatment of the events. A foreclosure would result in increased costs 
to the taxpayers as well as a loss of valuable affordable housing stock 
for low-income families, seniors, and persons with disabilities. I do 
not want to force a decision based on tax issues that could result in 
low-income families--particularly seniors--being thrown out into the 
streets. I want the owners to be no better, nor substantially worse 
off, than they would have been had they not chosen to participate in 
this program.


            LACK OF TAXPAYER PROTECTION AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL

  The conference report legislation does not adequately represent and 
protect taxpayers against fraud and abuse. In 1996, the HUD inspector 
general concluded that HUD's Office of Multifamily Housing was ``not 
equipped to

[[Page H8685]]

provide reasonable stewardship over taxpayer funds expended for its 
programs.'' In addition, the Department's poor record in administering 
its existing programs has earned it the designation by the General 
Accounting Office of being at ``high-risk'' for waste, fraud and 
abuse--the only Cabinet-level Agency in history to receive such a 
designation. In this context, HUD is simply ill-equipped to handle 
complex financial restructurings so that the American taxpayer is 
protected. For this reason, I fought for a provision in this 
legislation to create an Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance 
Restructuring [OMHAR], a temporary office within HUD for purposes of 
administering the mark-to-market program. For any chance of success, 
the program must be administered by a highly professional staff with 
the proper technical knowledge, functioning as much as possible at 
arms-length from the standard HUD bureaucracy.
  The Office will be led by a Director appointed by the President, with 
the advice and consent of the Senate, who must have proven experience 
in restructuring complex financial transactions. The President is 
required to choose the Director within 60 days after enactment of this 
legislation. Funding for the Office shall come from HUD salaries and 
expenses so there will be no net increase in expenditure of taxpayer 
funds in connection with the operations of the Office. The Office is 
limited in scope and mission, established solely to administer the 
mark-to-market program. Confusion and the possibility of ``mission 
creep'' or of being burdened with secondary objectives are thereby 
avoided. Although the Office will sunset at the end of fiscal year 
2001, I expect Congress will need to reauthorize the Office through 
fiscal year 2003, at which time the majority of project-based contracts 
will have expired.
  OMHAR is the taxpayer's proxy to assure that the restructuring 
process is administered as professionally and efficiently as possible. 
For this reason, the Secretary must not interfere with the independent 
functioning of this Office. I am disappointed that Congress has missed 
an opportunity to create a truly independent entity that would not be 
forced to answer to the HUD Secretary. However, as an alternative, this 
legislation requires the Director to report to Congress immediately on 
any action or directive by the Secretary that has an adverse impact on 
the functioning of the Office, or that may undermine its effectiveness. 
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, 
the relevant authorizing and oversight subcommittee, I have every 
intention of closely monitoring the Department in this regard in order 
to ensure that the interests of the taxpayer are not ignored.


             LACK OF TAXPAYER PROTECTION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL

  The conference report legislation may also negatively impact taxpayer 
interests at the local level due to the selection process created for 
choosing participating administrative entities [PAE's]. Under the 
legislation, PAE's will work with owners to restructure their 
mortgages, making decisions on the size of the second mortgage and the 
amount that the mortgage must be written down to create a sustainable 
bifurcated mortgage. Both of these items will be paid for by the 
American taxpayer out of the FHA fund. Therefore, the PAE should be the 
most qualified entity for the job. As discussed in the conference 
report, such may not be the case. Instead, the selection process in the 
report gives housing finance agencies [HFA's] an effective monopoly. If 
an HFA meets minimum qualifications, it must be selected, even if 
another entity is more qualified. Although in many cases HFA's will be 
the most qualified entities, there is no reason to give them a 
priority.
  Optimally, HFA's should form partnerships with other entities, such 
as experienced nonprofits, to better meet the needs of the 
restructuring program. When an entity is controlling millions of 
dollars of the Federal Government's budget, it should be the most 
qualified entity available. We owe that to Americans who work hard 
every day to pay their taxes. They expect Congress to spend their tax 
dollars wisely and efficiently. I do not believe that will be done if 
PAE's are not chosen in an open, competitive process. It is my hope 
that Congress will reconsider this provision in the near future.


                tenant empowerment and self-sufficiency

  One important principle, for which I am gratified that the House 
conferees adopted the authorizing committee's position, is the greater 
emphasis on choice-based assistance. Vouchers bring a market mechanism 
to federally assisted housing by motivating owners to maintain their 
properties and compete for tenants. I seek to empower tenants before 
owners or bureaucrats. Tenants with vouchers often have a greater 
opportunity to reach self-sufficiency by choosing where to live. Rather 
than being forced to live in projects that are be run-down and in 
dangerous neighborhoods, tenants can make decisions based on the school 
system, the proximity to job opportunities, community safety, and the 
condition of the apartments. I fully expect that, for a large 
percentage of eligible projects, project-based assistance will be 
converted to vouchers, in large part because the legislation allows a 
5-year transition period for gradual movement toward tenant-based 
assistance. This transition will provide owners time to rehabilitate 
projects and change their image in the communities in order to be 
financially viable after such a conversion.


                               conclusion

  Regardless of the uncertainty surrounding the unforeseen consequences 
of enacting the conference report legislation, the Appropriations 
Committee feels the need to enact legislation immediately to fill a 
$500 million shortfall in funding for nonhousing programs. Most parties 
involved admit that this legislation will need substantial revisions 
within the next year. Congress should not pass incomplete, flawed bills 
solely to generate savings for other programs but should, instead, pass 
good legislation that truly solves the problem.
         House of Representatives, Committee on Banking and 
           Financial Services,
                               Washington, DC, September 23, 1997.
     Floyd L. Williams,
     National Director of Legislative Affairs,
     Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Williams: I am writing to seek your guidance on 
     certain tax matters involving one of the most complex issues 
     facing the Banking Committees of both the House and the 
     Senate. As you may know, I refer to the restructuring of the 
     FHA-insured Section 8 multifamily housing portfolio. 
     Recently, I introduced H.R. 2447, the ``Multifamily Housing 
     Restructuring and Affordability Act of 1997,'' which creates 
     a program for mortgage restructurings. Senator Mack has 
     introduced S. 513, which has similar objectives.
       With some differences, both bills provide for the use of 
     bifurcated mortgages in restructuring existing debt. Inherent 
     in this approach is the belief that the restructured debt 
     would be excluded from the application of IRS Code Section 
     7872, based on the temporary regulations under section 
     1.7872-5T(b)(5) regarding below-market interest rate loans. 
     One of the required provisions under these temporary 
     regulations is that these below market-interest rate loans be 
     made available under ``a program of general application to 
     the public''.
       The proposed House and Senate legislation apply to projects 
     with FHA debt that meet the following criteria:
       1. rents must exceed the rent of comparable properties in 
     the same market area;
       2. the project must be covered in whole or in part by a 
     contract for project-based assistance; and
       3. the project must be financed by a mortgage insured under 
     the National Housing Act.
       In his written testimony before the House Subcommittee on 
     Housing and Community Opportunity on September 16, 1997, Mr. 
     Ken Kies of the Joint Committee on Taxation raised as an 
     issue the possibility that ``the HUD refinancing program will 
     not qualify under this regulation on the basis that it is not 
     a program of ``general application,'' but only an offer made 
     to certain owners.'' Since an integral component of the 
     success of any legislation is an understanding of the likely 
     tax consequences to owners associated with restructuring 
     their Section 8 mortgages, your clarification of the meaning 
     of ``general application'' in this regard is critical.
       I would appreciate your immediate attention to this issue 
     as legislation is moving forward quickly. If the approaches 
     envisioned in either H.R. 2447 or S. 513 do not meet this 
     ``general application'' requirement, please provide guidance 
     as to what technical modifications are needed. If you have 
     any questions or comments, you may contact Shanie Geddes or 
     Joe Ventrone at 202/225-6634. I look forward to your 
     response.
           Sincerely,

                                                   Rick Lazio,

                                        Chairman, Subcommittee on,
                                Housing and Community Opportunity.
         House of Representatives, Committee on Banking and 
           Financial Services,
                                    Washington, DC, June 18, 1997.
     Hon. Robert E. Rubin,
     Secretary, Department of Treasury,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Rubin: During yesterday's testimony before 
     the Senate Subcommittee on Housing Opportunity and Community 
     Development, HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo stated that the 
     Department of Treasury believes that the bifurcated mortgage 
     restructuring ``tool'' included in S. 513, ``The Multifamily 
     Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997,'' 
     would result in an immediate taxable event for most owners. 
     The Secretary went on to note further that ``while this 
     provision purports to address owners' tax problems, it is 
     unworkable--thus defeating the larger purpose of the 
     legislation.''
       Apparently, there remains considerable confusion as to the 
     tax treatment of a soft-second mortgage in the restructuring 
     of FHA-insured mortgages subsidized by Section 8 project-
     based assistance. The issue of taxation in the mortgage 
     restructuring is vital to the success of any bill that deals 
     with the Section 8 crisis. You addressed this concern in your 
     work on the tax provisions included in the Administration's 
     legislation: H.R. 1433--Housing 2020: Multifamily Management 
     Reform Act, which was introduced

[[Page H8686]]

     in the House by myself and Congressman Joseph Kennedy at the 
     request of the Administration. A workable bill must 
     proactively bring project owners to the bargaining table 
     early. Based on Secretary Cuomo's testimony, it is unclear 
     that S. 513 would prevent participants in the program from 
     being subject to negative tax consequences in the future, 
     thus discouraging proactive restructuring.
       A workable tax treatment of restructuring is critical in 
     this matter. Otherwise, we risk simply perpetuating the FHA 
     multifamily restructuring demonstration programs included in 
     FY1996 and FY1997 appropriations. If the House is to agree to 
     consider FHA multifamily restructuring legislation in 
     expedited procedures (i.e. during the budget reconciliation 
     process), the solution must not be simply an academic 
     exercise that implements incremental change.
       Please provide the Subcommittee with a clarification of the 
     Administration's position on the taxation of soft-second 
     mortgages as included in S. 513. Your timely response is 
     critical to solving this dilemma.
           Sincerely,

                                                   Rick Lazio,

                                         Chairman, Subcommittee on
                                Housing and Community Opportunity.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous 
question on the conference report.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the 
conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 405, 
nays 21, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 505]

                               YEAS--405

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barr
     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
     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
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     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)
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--21

     Ballenger
     Campbell
     Cox
     Crane
     Ehrlich
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Kanjorski
     McIntosh
     Minge
     Neumann
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Roemer
     Royce
     Rush
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Smith (MI)
     Souder
     Upton

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Farr
     Foglietta
     Gonzalez
     Hilliard
     Lewis (KY)
     Rangel
     Schiff

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan, Mr. SCARBOROUGH, and Mr. RUSH changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. NORTHUP, Mrs. ROUKEMA, Mr. ROHRABACHER, and Mr. BLUNT changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________