[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 100 (Thursday, July 23, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H6219-H6277]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution
501 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 4194.
{time} 1549
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4194), making appropriations for the Departments of
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry
independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes,
with Mr. Combest in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Friday, July
17, 1998, the bill was open for amendment from page 52, line 3, to page
65, line 16.
Are there further amendments to this portion of the bill?
Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
On page 59, before the period on line 12, insert:
: Provided further, That any limitation on funds for the
Environmental Protection Agency or the Council on
Environmental Quality in this Act shall not apply to
conducting educational outreach or informational seminars.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is to supersede
language in the report on page 59 which states that the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Council on Environmental Quality are thus
directed to refrain from conducting educational outreach for
informational seminars on policies underlying the Kyoto Protocol until
or unless the protocol is ratified by the Senate. This amendment would
allow such educational outreach and informational seminars to proceed.
I think most people would agree that there is considerable difference
of opinion concerning the Kyoto Protocol and global warming and climate
change. I think most would also agree that the only possible way to
reach an understanding or potential compromise on such an emotionally
charged issue is if there is a full and free exchange of information
and ideas.
Having said that, though, there is truth in the statement in the
committee report that there can be a fine line between education and
advocacy on an issue. Assuming adoption of the amendment, I would still
encourage the EPA and the CEQ to pay close attention to the line
between education and advocacy and stay on the right side of that line.
Now, as to what the amendment does not do, it does not change any of
the statutory language in the bill regarding Kyoto. The limitation on
page 58 of the bill still prohibits the use of funds to develop,
propose or issue rules or regulations or decrees or orders for the
purpose of implementation or in contemplation of the implementation of
the Kyoto Protocol. I am not fully satisfied with that language because
I think it in fact may block some activities that it should not block,
but I recognize that there should be no imposition of rules or
regulations or decrees until and unless the Kyoto Protocol is actually
ratified.
Regardless of the outcome of the Kyoto Protocol, we all need to know
much more about the issues of potential global warming and climate
change. In order to have an informed public policy debate, the Congress
should be encouraging, rather than stifling, education and outreach and
informational dissemination activities.
This amendment does exactly that. It takes no position on the merits
of Kyoto; it just allows for the educational process and the free flow
of information to continue. I think that any objective person would
recognize that there is nothing wrong with that, and I would urge
adoption of the amendment.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise to oppose the amendment of the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I appreciate very much how much he
has put into the efforts to come to an agreement on this issue. I am
concerned how the EPA will interpret his language. Whether or not the
gentleman's amendment is approved today, I look forward to working with
him and others to find common ground and clarify the intent of the
language.
The Member from Wisconsin is bringing up the issue of preserving an
open debate on environmental issues. Although he and I may disagree on
how we get there, we both agree on the policy of an open and public
debate. My work to make sure we do not implement the Kyoto Protocol
until we implement ratification specifically was to ensure that we do
have the debate, that we do have the debate, as the U.S. Constitution
requires, in the U.S. Senate with its advice and consent.
Since coming to Congress I have supported an open and public debate
concerning environmental issues, including the issue of climate change,
clean air, clean water, Superfund, environmental justice, and other
important environmental issues. I will continue to work to make sure
the EPA does not implement environmental policies through the back
door, through regulatory tactics, especially when it does not have the
legal authority to proceed forward.
There have been some who have claimed the language in this bill
concerning the Kyoto Protocol would stifle the debate on climate
change. As far as my personal goals on this issue, nothing could be
further from the truth. I have been working to ensure that the Kyoto
Protocol is not implemented until Senate ratification, as required by
the U.S. Constitution. This gives us the open debate this issue so
richly deserves.
Let us be clear. The language included in this bill does not do
anything to interfere with valuable research, existing programs, or
ongoing initiatives designed to carry out the United States' voluntary
commitments under the 1992 Climate Change Convention.
And, education is another function conducted by the EPA. However, it
should educate using balanced information without advocacy. The
taxpayers deserve a balanced presentation of information. This is
especially true when the EPA conducts educational outreach on climate
change. I want to caution my colleagues. There is a very fine line
between education and advocacy.
The EPA should never use taxpayer dollars to advocate their own
agenda when it is not the official policy of the United States of
America.
The EPA must be allowed to serve its primary purpose: To ensure that
we have a clean, safe and healthy environment. We may have differing
views on how to accomplish this goal, but we must be able to air those
differences in the light of day. I will continue to work with my
colleagues and fight for open debate on these important issues. I would
challenge the EPA to join me in accomplishing this rather modest goal.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Obey amendment and in
support of the language that has been put in this bill by the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg). This entire effort is designed to
protect the rights of the American people against an anti-American
effort resulting from the Kyoto Treaty that has been proposed before
the United States Senate. Thank goodness that the American people have
risen up and said we do not want this treaty to be passed and the
Senate has actually listened to the American people.
[[Page H6220]]
It is anti-American because it imposes a lot of strict, costly
penalties on Americans, while allowing many countries, many Third World
countries to continue to pollute our environment at will. Frankly, I am
mind-boggled as to how the administration could look at this as a
positive thing for our people, and then after the people have said no,
we do not want this to be implemented because it will cost us money and
jobs, to then try to implement this through the back door, trying to go
through the EPA to implement some of the rules and regulations, even
though we do not want them.
This is a classic maneuver that the administration has used in recent
years, and when the Congress and the people say no to something, they
find agencies that are currently in existence to try to implement rules
and regulations and circumvent the will of the United States Congress
and the American people.
So I commend my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for
inserting this language to prohibit this back-door effort at costing
the American people money and jobs to implement this anti-American
treaty.
{time} 1600
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, over the last several months, I have participated in
more than 20 hours of discussion during five hearings on the global
warming issue. I am well aware of the impacts which the Kyoto Protocol
may have on this country, but I am also aware of the possible
consequences of global climate change.
When we look at this weather map from CNN of July 20, 1998, we can
start to see the dimensions of the problem where we have had some of
the most unusual weather in this country that people have experienced
ever.
All across this country, people are aware as they are sweating at
home how different the weather is this year than any other year. And as
scientists have looked at it, they have seen that indeed this weather
has been unusually severe this summer.
We have had fires in Florida, floods in the Midwest, tornadoes
destroying entire communities. And we look back at the temperature,
last Wednesday the high temperature was 117 degrees in Phoenix. Today
marks the 17th day in a row the temperatures are over 100 in Dallas.
Does anyone remember last winter? Not even a snowflake fell here in
Washington. From January to June, average temperatures were the warmest
on record. Temperatures in 1997 were the highest on record, and in
1998, so far it is even warmer.
Scientists predict that even more severe storms and unusual weather
patterns will occur if we continue to pour greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere.
I want to repeat: Scientists predict that more severe storms and
unusual weather patterns will occur if we continue to pour greenhouse
gases into the atmosphere, and we are no doubt seeing evidence of this
right now.
Let us look again at some of the headlines. 1998, ``Twister Death
Toll Already 121.'' That is from USA Today last month. Chicago Tribune,
``Tornado's Fury Nearly Wipes Town Off Map.'' June 17, San Antonio
Texas Express, ``Heat Melts Sections of I-35 in Laredo.'' From
Greensboro, the Greensboro News and Record, July 9, 1998, ``Drought,
Fires Ravage State Economies.''
When we look at just the news, what we have is evidence of rapid
breaking warming trends. The 1990s have been the warmest years,
according to scientists. It is not a political statement. The 1990s
have been the warmest years in six centuries. 1997 is the warmest year
ever recorded. This June, or this past June has been the hottest June
since recordkeeping began over a century ago. July is on track to beat
these records.
This is a statement from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. These are not politicians debating issues. These are
scientists who have experience records that cannot be contested.
But for the moment let us set all of that aside. The American people
know that the climate is changing. The American people can tell us that
it is hotter than ever in some parts of this country; that the weather
has been crazier in some parts of this country. People know this. And
yet there are those who would not let the government of the United
States even study why this is happening in relationship to global
warming.
Language in the VA-HUD bill does not allow contemplation of
implementation of the Kyoto Treaty. It does not allow the relevant
agencies to prepare to develop rules or regulations. Basic public
education on the science and implications of climate change would be
prohibited under the language of this bill. This language puts a gag
order on the relevant agencies and stifles informed debate on global
warming, which is why the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is relevant.
This practice of not letting the public know the debate, this surely
is not the way, this cannot be the way to assure the future of this
planet. We have to prepare for all possible eventualities in order to
protect the planet for future generations. We cannot be here in this
Congress just for ourselves. We have to remember the next generation,
and the next generation, and the next generation. It is very clear that
global warming is a fact of life and it is hurting this country and the
world.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I agree, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has
already said, that no rules, no regulations that relate directly to the
implementation of the Kyoto Protocols should be done in any direct way
prior to the ratification of that treaty. But all his amendment does is
make certain that all activities that are presently authorized by law
in various other places will not be stopped on the basis of their
having some implication for or some imagined implication for the Kyoto
Protocols at some time.
Climate change and global warming are terms that we have heard a lot
about recently. We know that there has been an enormous change in the
ozone layer, a huge gap in the ozone layer that has left the whole
continent of Australia in a position where they have to move heavily
clothed, or at least they are advised to do so, because there is not
that protection against radiation that has been with this planet for
all of human existence.
Mr. Chairman, we also know, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich)
pointed out, that some of the hottest summers in the last six centuries
have occurred. My figure might be slightly different, but I think at
least six of the 10 hottest years in this century have been within this
decade. This is a trend that is going on as we speak.
National Geographic Magazine, in its last edition, had an article
about extensive research by glaciologists in Antarctica where they have
now looked through the record of previous ice ages and seen that the
whole west Antarctic ice shelf is in danger of collapsing, which could
end up in a very short period of time, in a matter of decades at most,
raising the water table in this world, the water level in this world by
feet. Not just inches, but feet.
So I think that the Obey amendment gives us the best chance. We
cannot be in this position of only operating on the basis of what will
get us through the next election. We have to think that even though our
final exams in this body come every 2 years, we have got to think in
terms of what is going to be happening 10 years and 20 years and 30
years down the road.
The Kyoto Protocols, from my point of view, clearly have flaws in
them. They are too weak in many ways. They do not make certain that
economic growth in emerging economies in the Third World is done with
careful attention to how that energy is being used.
Were we to use energy in just one more nation, the Nation of China,
at the same rate per capita that we are using, in the same way that our
great economy uses energy, if we do not make the changes that will
allow us to use energy much more efficiently, to produce much less in
the way of greenhouse gases, if China were to produce and use energy in
the same manner per capita as we do, we would have no chance, no chance
whatsoever of turning this global warming around and getting control of
it and stopping the rate at which human activity has affected the
normal climate changes that this planet has gone through over a long
period of time.
[[Page H6221]]
So, I would hope very much that the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) would be adopted so that we make
certain that we do not, in our ``know-nothingism'' here, that we do not
end up refusing to take what precautions, to add whatever research, to
do those activities already allowed by law so that we can use energy in
a much more efficient manner. I do not believe the Kyoto Protocols are
anti-American in any way whatsoever. They may be flawed but they are
certainly not anti-American. They are pro-planet.
I hope the Obey amendment will be adopted.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond a little bit about the issue of
whether or not this is, in fact, the warmest June ever on record.
According to Dr. John Christy of the Earth System Science Laboratory at
the University of Alabama in Huntsville, who raised questions after
hearing reports by the Associated Press and the National Public Radio
last month, Dr. Christy researched the local records just, for example,
at the Alabama State University climatology office and found that there
were 6 years, 1914, 1921, 1936, 1943, 1952 and 1953, with warmer Junes
than 1998, all of which were in many previous decades prior to this.
He also went on to tell us that the National Weather Service in
Birmingham, Alabama, admitted that its State data only went back to the
year 1958. So consequently, it is real hard to understand how the
National Weather Service could possibly be speculating that this would
be, in fact, the hottest June when its measures did not go back prior
to that.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to note that we are
discussing global warming. The Obey amendment addresses an important
question, and that is whether or not EPA should be lobbying and should
be pushing a treaty that has not been ratified by the United States
Senate. I think that to allow EPA to do certain intelligence
informational services that do not violate the laws against lobbying
makes good sense, but I think to allow them to go further makes very
poor sense.
I want to commend the author of the language in the Committee Report
and the bill for having done this. I do not know whether there is going
to be global warming or not, and I do not know anything about
climatology. I would, however, observe that I have been studying this
question for a long time. I probably know about as much as anybody else
in this Chamber who does not know anything about it either.
I would observe that I was over at Kyoto, and over there nobody knew
anything about it at all either. Some of the scientists who came
forward to talk about global warming just a few years ago were
predicting a new age of glaciation in which the world was going to get
colder. I guess they found that it is more profitable to be on the side
of global warming. That appears to be the more popular view.
I think that we ought to look at this from the standpoint, first of
all, of the Constitution, of our proper responsibilities to see what
the real situation happens to be. The real situation is that until the
Kyoto agreement is ratified, it does not mean anything.
It also ought to be observed that the Senate of the United States has
told this administration, by a vote of 95 to nothing, that they are not
going to ratify. By the way, that is bipartisan because there was
nobody who voted against it; everybody voted for it. They made it very
plain they are not going to ratify it until it is very clear that that
particular treaty affects everybody and that the United States is not
going to be the only nation in the world which is compelled to cut back
as much as 30 percent on our use of energy, to sign a treaty which is
going to bind nobody else the same way it binds us.
The Europeans say, well, we are going to be bound and the British are
going to get out in some neat devices because they have gone to North
Sea natural gas. The Germans are going to point out how they do not
have to comply very much because they have the fine situation where
they have taken over and closed a bunch of old, inefficient fuel
systems.
The Soviet Union says, we will not be bound. Most of the former
Soviet bloc countries say we will not be bound and we will not sign.
Nobody in Africa and the developing countries will be signing, and they
will not be bound.
It is interesting to note that India, which is a massive emitter of
CO-2, is not going to be bound.
It is also interesting to note that our friends in China have told
me, in a discussion I had with our delegates, that they will never be
bound; they are always going to be a developing country.
So that leaves Uncle Sap, the United States, which proposes to be
bound by a treaty which is going to cause enormous economic hardship.
This is not going to be ratified by the Senate. We can just bet our
bottom dollar on that particular point.
{time} 1615
So, first of all, there should be lobbying by EPA in favor of this.
The Obey amendment makes splendid good sense, and I would hope that
everybody here who is interested in the well-being of their
constituents and the continued economic development of the United
States would take that same view.
But the hard fact of the matter is that EPA ought not and the
administration ought not and the other agencies of the Federal
Government ought not be able to move forward to implement a treaty that
the Senate of the United States is not going to ratify, because 95-to-0
they found it is not in the interest of the people of the United States
or the economic and other welfare of the people of this country.
So I would urge this body to cease a debate which is without
significance in the proceeding before us, about global warming, which
has not yet been proven, and about adoption of a treaty, which is not
going to be adopted, and simply adopt the Obey amendment, see to it
that we curtail lobbying and other activities, including implementing
by regulatory or statutory action a treaty which is, A, not in the
interest of the United States and, B, which is not ratified and not
going to be ratified.
That is the voice of good sense, and I hope that my colleagues will
listen to it, not because it is me saying it, but simply because if my
colleagues reflect on the interest of their country they will come to
that conclusion. I urge adoption of the Obey amendment.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and in reluctant opposition, because I have a great deal of
respect for the previous speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell), and his work on this issue.
As I understand it, the Obey amendment would say educational
activities would be allowed but advocacy activities would not. And
perhaps I could even end up supporting this amendment. What I am
concerned about, though, and was hoping to perhaps inquire of the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) on some of the boundary lines
between those two concepts.
For example, in my home State, in Indiana, there was a conference
held in the last month at which every single one of the speakers spoke
about the urgent need to do something to end the problem of global
warming and urged support for the Kyoto Protocol. So there were no
speakers providing an analysis of the cost, no speakers providing an
alternative view of some of the science.
I wanted to ask the gentleman, if he would be so kind, how much
leeway is there in the concept of educational activities versus
activities that would be advocacy?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Frankly, there is, in the human situation, always a lot of
leeway. The Congress does not have the ability to serve as a nanny in
dealing with every agency of government who might get out of hand to do
something illegitimate.
The language of this amendment is pretty clear. The agency is
expected to provide education, not advocacy. I would think that any
time that the agency engages in an activity which goes beyond the line
of the objective of providing information, I would think
[[Page H6222]]
that people on the side of the issue who think that they have been
skewered by it would bring it to the attention of the Congress, and I
would think the Congress would react accordingly.
I am not in the business of censorship, and I cannot be in the
business of defining ahead of time whether some idiot in some agency is
going to do something which they are not supposed to do under the law.
All I can say is that the language is quite clear. My comments in
explaining the amendment are quite clear. And if the agency goes across
the line into advocacy, it does so at its peril.
Mr. McINTOSH. Reclaiming my time, I hope the gentleman would agree
with me, if it were an educational program such as the one in
Indianapolis, where all of the speakers were advocates for the treaty,
that that would cross the line and now we are establishing a standard
that says they have to at least have some balance.
Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I do not want to
comment on a conference that I was not in attendance at. I do not know
whether the gentleman's characterization of that meeting in
Indianapolis is accurate or not. I assume it is, but I do not know that
to be the case. And so I simply am reluctant to provide an adjective
describing anything that I do not know anything about.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments,
and reclaiming my time, the concern that I have, and it is with
reluctance, because I think the Obey amendment has drawn an appropriate
line; where educational activities would be okay, advocacy is not,
rulemaking is not; and all of the other activities that are prohibited
in the Knollenberg amendment would continue to be prohibited.
But I am worried that Vice President Gore has sent a signal to the
agencies that regardless of whether Kyoto is implemented or not, he and
the President expect them to move forward in addressing this problem.
And I think we have to correct for that, and we have with the
Knollenberg amendment, by saying, no, they cannot use taxpayer funds to
advocate for the adoption of Kyoto; they cannot use taxpayer funds to
regulate, to implement Kyoto.
So I guess I am very strongly in support of the Knollenberg language.
I appreciate the work that the gentleman from Wisconsin has done to try
to clarify that mere educational activities would be allowed. It is
with some reluctance that I think we need to be more specific so we do
not cross over into that line of advocacy.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield once again, I
would simply note that nothing in this amendment would change the
underlying law which prohibits Federal agencies from lobbying for or
against legislation pending before Congress, and I assume that applies
to indirect as well as direct lobbying.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I have been having this discussion with the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) in committee now for quite some time, and I
rise in support of the Obey amendment. During the past 4 months, in the
Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and
Regulatory Affairs of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
we have had at least five hearings. And what some have deemed to be the
Clinton administration's back door of implementation of the Kyoto
Protocol, we have been exposed and seen all kinds of frightening
figures and numbers and portraits of devastating scenarios played out
by a wide variety of witnesses on the possible effect the protocol
would have on our economy and our jobs.
Let me assure this body, as we have assured the gentleman from
Indiana and his committee, we have no intention of trying to implement
the Kyoto Protocols before they have been thoroughly researched,
thoroughly explained and thoroughly voted in the Senate. This amendment
by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) makes this clear. But it is
not sensible to prohibit the government agencies, that should be doing
research, that should be educating themselves and the public, from
doing that.
As a result of the hearings in that subcommittee, two things have
become clear: One is that some of my colleagues are under the mistaken
impression, I think, that they are, in fact, Members of the other body
and it is going to be this group that actually ratifies the Kyoto
Protocol. And aside from that overly generous interpretation of their
role, they are also convinced that the protocol is going to be ratified
tomorrow.
I think we all know that nothing could be further from the truth. We
all understand the Kyoto Protocol is not going to be ratified tomorrow.
We all understand that there are serious issues and concerns with its
content and its intent, and that we need to explore that thoroughly and
that nothing should be done to implement that protocol until the
Senate, if ever, should ratify it and move forward.
But the language contained in the committee report for this bill
prohibits the use of the funding from being used to develop, propose,
or issue rules, regulations, decrees, orders for the purpose of
implementation or in contemplation of implementation of the Kyoto
Protocol. The report directs the Environmental Protection Agency to
refrain from conducting any educational programs that promote policies
that could be used to meet the emissions requirement called for in the
protocol.
Mr. Chairman, I hope we all can agree that that is overly broad and
potentially dangerous. Legitimate noncontroversial practices exist, or
should exist, to improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions and
pollution worldwide. We should all be committed to these goals. I am
concerned, however, Mr. Chairman, that this language would thwart those
efforts.
Reliable estimates show that the annual global market for energy
efficient products and services is now about $80 billion, and that
amount is expected to increase to $125 billion by the year 2015. This
new technology is rapidly becoming one of our country's most effective
generators of business, since small businesses can reap the benefits of
available research and development assistance, such as the energy
efficiency program supported by the Climate Change Technology
Initiative and the Partnership for the New Generation of Vehicles.
That said, Mr. Chairman, access to advice and information on these
programs and energy efficient products and services is imperative to
create more small business and generate more jobs, which is something
we should all be working to accomplish. Here is the catch, however, Mr.
Chairman. The catch is some of these programs may also reduce
greenhouse gases. And we all know that reduction of greenhouse gases
was a part of the Kyoto Protocol's direction. But the language in the
bill forbids the EPA from conducting any educational informational
programs which small businesses rely on to take advantage of energy
efficient technologies.
How can some of our colleagues reconcile this disparity? How can we
tell our small businesses that we have founded these programs to help
them utilize and benefit from energy efficient technologies, but we are
not going to give them the information on how to expedite those efforts
through outreach and educational programs because they happen to also
promote Kyoto Protocol policies?
The Obey amendment would clarify this disparity and allow the EPA to
continue the educational outreach and informational seminars that are
already authorized by law. But it should not allow any funding to be
used solely for the purpose of implementing the Kyoto Protocol, and I
think it does not do that. This will allow small businesses and other
entities to continue to benefit from the advice and information on
energy efficiency, which will help them expand and grow in the long
run.
Adoption of the amendment is imperative if we are to assure that the
current EPA programs that have benefitted the economy and the
environment are not jeopardized merely because they may also reduce
greenhouse gases.
I urge all my colleagues to support the Obey amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TIERNEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
[[Page H6223]]
Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate my colleague yielding, Mr.
Chairman, and I asked for the yield simply because I agree very much
with the gentleman's statement. I was inclined to accept this amendment
in the initial stages, but because some of our colleagues are concerned
about what the language actually means, there is reservation.
Nonetheless, I do intend to vote for this amendment and I would urge
my colleagues to support it.
Mr. TIERNEY. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman very much.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STOKES. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, let me be very frank about this issue. I happen to
believe that there is a severe problem with global warming. I am no
scientist, but I think that there is a significant problem. I do not
know what the correct measures are to deal with that problem.
I think that the most serious environmental problem we face in the
long term is probably climate change due to greenhouse gases, and if
that trend is sustained, there is no question that our conifer forests,
within a few generations, will no longer be in this country. They will
be residing in Canada. And there is no question that if the trend
continues the grain belt of today will turn into the dust belt of
tomorrow.
The Kyoto conference was meant to try to discuss what the world ought
to do about that. In my mind, the product that came out of Kyoto was
flawed. And because it does not deal with what China and other major
Third World polluters contribute to the problem, I have great doubts
that that protocol will be ratified until it is changed. That does not
mean that we do not have an obligation to avoid extreme reactions in
the meantime.
I think when it comes to gagging the ability of the agency to even
conduct educational seminars to provide not advocacy but explanation of
the underlying issues, I think that is not only a right of the agency,
I think they would be negligent if they did not. And I think that a
Congress that did not allow them to do so would be in craven
supplication to special interests in this country. So that is why I
offered this amendment.
Those of my colleagues who know me know I often quote from my friend
Archie the cockroach. Archie was a poet who died and came back to life
in the body of a cockroach. He lived in a newspaperman's office. He
would often write little messages which would appear in the newspaper
the next day. He would dive from the carriage of the typewriter onto
the keys and type his little messages and they would appear the next
day.
{time} 1630
He wrote something which is I think appropriate to this entire
debate. This is what he said: ``America is a paradise of timberland and
stream, but it is threatened because of the greed and money lust of a
thousand little kings who slash the timber all to hell and will not be
controlled and change the climate and steal the rainfall from
posterity.''
Now that really is what this issue is all about. My amendment does
not seek to allow the agency to lobby anyone. In fact, I would be
offended if the agency did, because I do think that Kyoto Conference
needs substantial repair before it is considered for modification.
But this Congress, which pretends it is interested in freedom of
speech, when it protects the ability of big business or big labor to
contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars, indeed millions of dollars
in independent expenditures to congressional campaigns, when they
pretend that they are protecting freedom of speech because they will
not put reasonable restrictions on the ability of special interests to
buy this House, for them to then pretend that somehow it is legitimate
to say that an agency charged with the responsibility of dealing with
the environment cannot even provide educational material and activities
to its public, I think that is going a real stretch. That is why I have
offered this amendment, and any rational view of that amendment would
require its adoption.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I support the Obey
amendment and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
I rise in support of the Obey amendment. But more important than
that, I would like to make a small contribution to the better
understanding of global warming.
I have been involved in this question of global warming, believe it
or not, for the last 20 years. I attended some of the first conferences
amongst the scientists who thought that there were signs of global
warming. They were looking, of course, at the rising percentage of CO-2
in the atmosphere, and other similar indicators which has been measured
for over 100 years, and they were trying to correlate those indicators
with global temperature variations.
Now, this is not an easy thing to do, and anyone who tells us that
there is absolute evidence that global warming is an established fact
is probably misinformed or deliberately trying to deceive us. There
have been occasions within the past few hundred years in which, because
of other factors than human intervention, there was actually global
cooling. There was a ``little ice age'' just a few hundred years ago,
and we could conceivably have another ``little ice age'' in the future.
But most scientists accept the fact that we are in a situation where
human intervention in the climate of the globe is causing some
increases, and they want to understand those increases. If it is
possible to quantify the changes, scientists want to do so. If it is
possible to have some effect on the changes they obviously would like
to do so.
Nobody can exactly predict the effects of global warming. It may be
that the U.S. Wheat Belt will move to Canada, and the Canadians will be
tremendously benefited. It may be that the wheat production of central
Asia, for example, and the former Russian Republic of Georgia, will
move to Siberia. The Georgians may not want to move to Siberia, but the
wheat production might remain the same. This is a very delicate and
difficult problem to analyze, and I do not like to see us trying to do
that on the floor of the House, because we probably will not succeed.
What I do want to see us do is to better understand this problem, and
take prudent steps to do whatever we can reasonably do to solve the
problem. Now, one prudent step we can reasonably take is to be more
efficient in our use of energy. It makes our industry more competitive
and more productive when we do that. It also slightly decreases the
chance of global warming, the impact of global warming, if it is due to
the inefficiencies of our industrial system. Generally speaking, the
large production of CO-2 reflects inefficiency in the industrial
system. So there are prudent things that we ought to be doing.
Now, I feel that we should not be trying to implement the Kyoto
Protocols if we have not signed them. I agree with what has been said
on both sides with regard to such implementation. I think it would be
highly imprudent to so curtail the agencies of the Government that they
could not inform the public as to the facts of matters within their
jurisdiction. If we move in that direction, we will soon be reaching
the point where we will say do not do any more research on global
warming, do not try to understand what is actually happening, even
though, as I say, we have been doing such research for the last 20
years.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague
yielding.
I think he heard my comments earlier that the chair is going to
support this amendment. But I must say that I do have some
understanding of the reservations by some on both sides of the aisle, I
assume because this is an agency that has a tendency to have a
preestablished notion as to the way the world works and as a result
they go about trying to make sure that everybody understands that they
are right. And that is not exactly the way science works. So that is
the reservation.
[[Page H6224]]
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I presume that the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lewis) is trying to hint to me so that I should
not beat this subject to death so we can move on with his bill. But I
am very deeply concerned that we progress in terms of understanding,
even if we do not always in terms of legislation.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think that Vice President Gore has demonstrated
significant and important leadership on this topic that has far-
reaching consequences for our generation, for future generations, for
us not just as Americans but as citizens of this one planet.
As I have listened to some of this debate, I have become convinced
that perhaps this very debate and some of the comments that have been
made during it make the strongest case for the Obey amendment that we
really do need much more education.
The Obey amendment is indeed a modest step forward. It does allow for
some flexibility, and I would hope that it allows for more than just
more talking on this subject. We do need to begin to start looking at
some solutions to this problem, not just to talk about how severe the
problem is but to actually begin to do something about it.
Where I come from down in Texas, it is at this very moment sizzling
in the shade. We got our typical Texas August about the beginning of
May this year, and it has stayed that way. Many regions in our State
have had triple-digit temperatures now for almost 3 weeks in a row.
Eighty people have already died from the heat just in the State of
Texas. And we have a lot of other folks down there that are concerned
that our fields will burn, they are already burning; that our cedar
breaks will catch fire, just like the ones over in Florida. And we
have, of course, also felt more than most other parts of the country
the severe impact of looking out at the sky at noon and not being
unable to see the sun or anything else because of all the smoke that
has filtered up as the rain forests of Mexico have burnt in some of the
driest conditions that that area has ever faced.
Meanwhile, the scientific data is mounting that at least a
significant contributing factor is changing climatic conditions or
global warming, and that the planet is getting hotter by the year.
What a very strange time for this Congress, as these conditions
exist, to be enacting what would essentially be the ``Mandatory
Ignorance of Global Warming Act of 1998.'' The language, as originally
proposed, seemed to tell the folks that are involved in environmental
protection for this country, ``do not even think about global
warming,'' a little like those parking signs we see ``do not even think
about parking here.''
Well, the subject seems to be, do not even think about global warming
or anything we can do about it. It goes far beyond the language
necessary to have the very legitimate debate over the precise effect
and cause of global warming that the gentleman from California just
referred to.
Rather, the approach of this language, as originally proposed here on
the floor of the Congress, seems more consistent with redesignating our
national bird from the eagle to the ostrich. Because they really are
proposing to bury our heads in the sand, as the thermometer keeps
counting for a rise in temperature, instead of trying to look at
solutions to this problem.
I have been interested to hear people suggest that we need to focus
only on America and complain about these other countries that are not
participating? Unfortunately, some of the same people who have tried to
obstruct in every way how this country deals with the global warming
challenge went over to China and to other countries and urged those
countries not to participate on this entire problem.
So it is a little bit of a conflict that they say they want to deal
with this whole global warming issue in a constructive way that
everyone ought to be a part of the solution, as indeed every country
should be a part of the solution, and yet at the same time they were
trying to twist arms and influence opinion makers abroad to keep them
out of a global solution with reference to this whole matter.
I do not believe that we have to wait until the glaciers melt or
until the fields and the forests are burnt or until more and more
people have skin cancer to begin to study and look for solutions to
deal with this global warming challenge. There are many responsible
corporations who feel that way, too. And without Government involvement
to any significant extent, they are already out there working to try to
find a way to reduce greenhouse gases.
I believe we ought to provide them incentives, that we ought to
encourage their activities to address this challenge, that recognizes
that while we have 4 percent of the world's people, we are producing 25
percent of the greenhouse gases in this entire planet. I believe we
have some responsibility not just to be a world follower but to be a
world leader. To be a world leader, we, at a minimum, need to continue
to focus on educating our own people, on educating the world about the
challenge and not following the path of ``know-nothing-ism'' that was
originally proposed in this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Doggett was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, does he think we
might get more votes for this amendment if we move this debate from the
air-conditioned Chamber today to the steps of the Capitol?
Mr. DOGGETT. Reclaiming my time, well, we finally in the last couple
of days have here in Washington the kind of weather that started out in
Texas and much of this country back in May, the kind that leaves people
sweltering. And while we cannot say every bit of that is the result of
global warming, we do not have to wait for Alaska to have the kind of
weather that we are having out here on the lawn at the front of the
Capitol today or the kind that has disturbed the people of the South
for the last several months before we begin to address this problem.
So I am pleased that my colleague, at least through this amendment,
will allow a little education perhaps to the Members of this body and
certainly the American people about the gravity of this problem. But I
would hope that eventually, perhaps as we work through the process on
this bill, that some of the other restrictions that have been placed in
this particular appropriations act bill would also be altered, because
we need the greatest flexibility to look at this problem and provide
the leadership to resolve it.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The amendment before us is one that everyone ought to support. It is
common sense. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is saying that,
whatever limitations we place on the Environmental Protection Agency or
the Council for Environmental Quality, we should not say to them they
cannot conduct educational outreach or informational seminars.
Can my colleagues imagine, in the face of a global warming potential
threat, we would say to the agencies that run our environmental
policies, they cannot hold informational seminars, they cannot have
educational outreach? That is absurd. That is absolutely absurd to have
that kind of restriction. Yet that restriction is in the bill that is
before us. And the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is trying to
reach that part of the bill.
But the bill before us is even more extreme than just that, because
the bill before us would stop the Environmental Protection Agency and
the CEQ from looking at how to deal with the problem or developing some
proposals.
{time} 1645
What those who supported the language known as the Knollenberg
provisions say they were trying to do was that they were trying to stop
the administration and any of these agencies from trying to implement a
treaty on global warming until that treaty has been ratified, as is
required, under the Constitution by the Senate of the United States. I
accept that. No one is
[[Page H6225]]
disputing that they should not implement a treaty that has not been
ratified. But to say they cannot hold educational outreach,
informational seminars or develop proposals is like telling them,
``Don't think about this issue. Put your head in the sand. Don't even
think about this issue. We don't want you to do anything until we
ratify the treaties, if we ever ratify a treaty.''
If that treaty came up, and I do not think it will be proposed in its
present form, but let us say the administration has worked out a treaty
on global warming, this is a threat to our planet, many nations must be
involved in stopping this threat, and they wanted then to get
ratification of an agreement. The first question any reasonable Senator
would ask is, ``How do you plan to implement this? What ideas do you
have for dealing with the problem of greenhouse gases that cause global
warming?'' And if we do not change this bill, the EPA and the CEQ, the
agencies that deal with these problems for the United States
Government, could not even be thinking about how to implement any kind
of treaty or strategies that we might want to undertake.
The Obey amendment is one that everybody ought to vote for, but it is
not enough. We have got to strike the rest of the language in this
appropriations bill that stops any kind of thinking through a strategy,
developing a way to deal with greenhouse gases and the climate change
problem. I think everybody will support this Obey amendment. Maybe a
few people will vote against it. But do not feel that in adopting this
amendment we have solved the problems that this legislation that is
before us has created, because we must go further.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) is going to offer an
amendment shortly. That amendment would be to untie the hands of the
Federal agencies when they look at the global climate issues. As I
understand his amendment, he will also agree not to allow any
implementation, implementation or putting into effect any proposals
until there is ratification of a treaty. But he would at least allow
the agencies to think through the appropriate strategies.
I support the Obey amendment. I will support the Greenwood amendment.
I think we need to strike out of these funding bills language that
stops government from enforcing the laws on the books and developing
strategies for a problem that none of us thought about maybe 5 years
ago but are starting to worry about when we hear leading scientists in
the country tell us that global warming is not some theory, it is a
reality that we must take seriously.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 226,
noes 198, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 332]
AYES--226
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Forbes
Fossella
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gordon
Goss
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Porter
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Rivers
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schumer
Scott
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Solomon
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Upton
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
NOES--198
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Fawell
Foley
Fowler
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Redmond
Riggs
Riley
Rodriguez
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--10
Brady (PA)
Ford
Gonzalez
Hyde
Lewis (GA)
Markey
Serrano
Velazquez
Yates
Young (FL)
{time} 1711
Messrs. PAPPAS, HERGER, and Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina, changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. MILLER of Florida, GANSKE, COSTELLO, GALLEGLY, VISCLOSKY,
McHUGH, KOLBE, and FOX of Pennsylvania changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word
and probably for an extended period of time will do so.
Mr. Chairman, by way of informing the Members, it looks as though we
will have at least an hour or so before we have a vote, just so that
those who are here and wondering how quickly we will vote will be
informed of that.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted the Members to know that, before we continue
work on the specifics of the Fiscal Year 1999 VA-HUD and Independent
Agencies Appropriations bill, I want to take just a
[[Page H6226]]
few moments to recognize the outstanding work of my good friend and the
man who will always, in my mind's eye, be my chairman, Congressman
Louis Stokes.
As most of my colleagues know, this will be the last VA-HUD bill the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) and I will have the privilege of
working on together. After 30 years in Congress and over 28 years on
the Committee on Appropriations, Louis has decided to pursue other
interests.
Lou Stokes clearly exemplifies everything that is good about the
Congress of the United States and, indeed, everything that is great
about this wonderful country in which we live.
From his early days growing up in public housing through his days of
college and law school to his work as an attorney on some of the most
important legal issues of our time to his service in the Congress which
began in January of 1969, Lou has served with courage, with honor, with
dignity, and with compassion.
He has represented his district with the finest tradition of service.
I must tell my colleagues that my life has been enriched because of the
friendship I have shared with Lou Stokes and his wonderful wife, Jay,
for this fine American has made all the difference for me in working in
this House.
{time} 1715
I, for one, will miss Lou Stokes, but I dare say that this
institution will miss him even more.
Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield to my colleague, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Let me say that people come and go, and they either add or subtract
from the places in which they work, but now and then somebody comes to
this place who does his work, learns his craft, who demonstrates total
dedication and produces service that, indeed, is worthy to be
remembered.
Lou Stokes has many achievements. He served as chairman of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, he served as chairman of
the Assassinations Committee, after the assassinations of Martin Luther
King and Robert Kennedy; he served as chair of the Committee on
Intelligence, he served on the Iran Contra Committee, he served as
subcommittee chairman of this subcommittee, and, I think his most
valuable service has come on a subcommittee on which he has never been
chair, and that is the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Education. It
is there that I think the gentleman did the most to demonstrate that he
has never forgotten his humble beginnings, unlike many other people
that we often see in this society.
I referred to my good friend Archie the Cockroach once earlier today,
and I would simply refer to him again. There is a piece in this book
that I think sums up Lou Stokes' service to this House. It says:
The lordly ones, the haughty ones, with supercilious heads
held high;
The up stage stiff pretentious ones, miss much that meets my
humbler eye;
Not that I meddle perk or pry, but I'm too small to feel
great pride;
And as the pompous world goes by, I see things from the under
side.
I think Lou's entire career here demonstrates he understands that. He
understands there are millions of people in this country who are stuck
with seeing life from the other side, and in a city of 1,200 suits, Lou
has never forgotten the people who wear work clothes.
I think that he has also demonstrated an interest far beyond just the
interest of the poor. In a me-first era, he has remembered the answer
to the question of Cain: ``Am I my brother's keeper?'' must very often
be yes.
So I think in almost every way I can think of Lou Stokes' service
here is a daily affirmation of the Judeo-Christian ethic which
underlies our society. I want to say on behalf of all of the people in
this country who need champions in Congress, even if they never know
that they have them, I want to thank Lou Stokes on behalf of each and
every one of them and on behalf of every Member in this House for the
way in which he has graced this House with his years of service.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, let me first of all thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis) for providing this opportunity to pay tribute to
our colleague on this occasion. Perhaps the best and most succinct
summary of who and what Louis Stokes is about can be found in a
statement appearing in a Cleveland newspaper 10 years ago when Mr.
Stokes was celebrating his two decades in elective office. That article
stated, ``This 20-year milestone in the United States Congress gives us
pause to reflect on Lou Stokes, the man, a legend in the making, as he
continues to make his mark in history. He improves the quality of our
lives by example and effort.''
Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge the friendship between Mr. Stokes
and his wife Jay and my wife Carol that goes back 30 years. We came to
this Congress on the same day 30 years ago, along with Shirley
Chisholm, and the three of us, who joined with six other African
American Members, really made history that day, because that made nine
of us in the Congress, and that was the most black Members of Congress
that had served together at one time in history.
Stokes said to me shortly after that that because this was historic,
that perhaps we ought to band together to really make a difference. As
a result of his talking with myself and us talking with others of the
nine, we formed the Congressional Black Caucus. And in this 30-year
period, that caucus has made a difference. But Lou Stokes has
definitely made a difference, and, as a result of that difference, all
of us are proud today and all of us are better off.
Stokes has made a big difference. He has put his staff, his
imprimatur, on landmark legislation, which altered and affects the
lives in dramatic ways to millions of citizens that have benefitted by
that legislation.
Stokes' 30-year career in Congress is the most compelling evidence,
Mr. Speaker, available of why we should not have term limits. Only a
few, in fact, only 120 Members of this body in 200 years, have served
30 years or better. So Stokes is in a distinct, unique class of people.
In fact, in the 200-year history of this Congress, only 10,000 Members
have served in this body. So it is an honor for him to be in that elite
group of 115 distinguished individuals.
I do not think that anybody ought to limit the number of years that a
person can serve here if his constituents want that person to represent
them.
Mr. Stokes, as I said earlier, has become a legend, as it was
predicted. He has contributed in a most meaningful way to enhance the
image and importance of this institution. Those contributions have been
exceptional, singular, uncommon, as has been related by the ranking
member of this committee. Stokes has been the author of numerous
education programs, including the TRIO program.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, let me say the term ``power'' is
frequently used loosely and without knowledge of its real significance.
Seldom do the users of the expression bother to contemplate that all
sources of power are limited inasmuch as they are to some degree
dependent on other sources of power. But for Lou Stokes, some sources
are more real, more independent, and more indispensable than others. He
has often said that the two most devastating kinds of power are
economic and political, asserting that if you have one, you are
respected, if you have both, you are feared, but if you have neither,
you are exploited.
Stokes comprehends the theory of power and its imposing function. He
has successfully exercised his power on the House Committee on
Appropriations to achieve a degree of equitable balance between the
have's and the have not's, and I am proud to say that I am counted
amongst his friends.
Perhaps the best and most succinct summary of who and what Lou Stokes
is about can be found in a statement celebrating his two decades in
elective office. It stated:
This twenty-year milestone in the United States Congress
gives us pause to reflect on Lou Stokes, the man, a legend in
the making. As he continues to make his mark in history, he
improves the quality of our lives by example and effort.
The one person who has stood next to the Congressman in this noble
endeavor for considerably more than this 30 year stretch, is his lovely
charming and understanding wife, Jay Stokes. She has been the pillar of
strength behind his uncharted excursion into the field of
[[Page H6227]]
law and untiring venture into the weightiness of politics. She has
raised their four children--Shelly, Chuck, Angie, and Lori--and managed
to do it with style and grace.
stokes broke group in the legal field before congress
In overcoming his impoverished beginnings, Stokes went on to excel in
the Congress and in the legal field. He is held in high esteem by his
associates in both professions. Before election to Congress, he was a
celebrated practicing attorney in Cleveland, once arguing before the
Supreme Court the landmark ``stop and frisk'' case of Terry vs. Ohio
which is taught in every law school in the country.
stokes and the use of power
The term ``power'' is frequently used loosely and without knowledge
of its real significance. Seldom do users of the expression bother to
contemplate that all sources of power are limited inasmuch as they are
to some degree dependent upon sources of power. But for Lou Stokes,
some sources are more real, more independent, and more indispensable
than others. He has often said that the two most devastating kinds of
power are economic and political, asserting that ``if you have one, you
are respected; if you have both, you are feared; but, if you have
neither, you are exploited.''
Stokes comprehends the theory of power and its imposing function. He
has successfully exercised his power on the House Appropriations
Committee to achieve a degree of equitable balance between the
``haves'' and the ``have-nots''.
stokes' contribution to education
While Stokes has vigorously pursued an agenda that respects and
appreciates the vital needs of the nation, he has not ignored the
critical problems hampering the growth and prosperity of the black
community. He has implemented new ideas and promoted a new direction in
the areas of legislation dealing with the education of the African-
American population.
Stokes has used his position on the Appropriations Committee to
increase funding for Head Start, Safe and Drug Free Schools, Teacher
Training and Vocational Education. Recognizing the critical need to
prepare students for a highly technological world, he secured federal
funds to support and strengthen math and science programs.
stokes' support for black colleges and universities
Stokes has manifested critical leadership in prodding the House
Appropriations Committee to expand its funding for Historically Black
Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Through his role as a seasoned
member of the committee, he has used his authority with decisiveness in
protecting financial securing of these institutions which are vitally
important to higher education of the African American populace.
stokes influences funding for health care
Congressman Stokes is a respected champion on the health care front.
He has utilized his assignment on the House Appropriations Committee to
sponsor critical health care issues. As a result of his strong
leadership, funding for diabetes, cancer, heart disease, and AIDS has
significantly increased.
Since 1977, Stokes has chaired the Congressional Black Caucus Health
Braintrust. This policy-making body has been effective in helping to
define and to shape the nation's health agenda. Under Stokes'
leadership, the CBC braintrust has fought for improved health care
delivery for minorities and under-served populations; enhanced
education and outreach activities; and increased minority
representation in the health professions, including biomedical
research.
Stokes has been instrumental in promoting community health interests,
increasing minority manpower in health care professions, and providing
federal funds for the enhancement of programs at medical schools.
stokes recognition for leadership
Congressional leadership has bestowed superb accolades on Stokes by
having named him to prominent and prestigious positions of heady
responsibility. He was appointed by Speaker Thomas P. ``Tip'' O'Neill
on March 8, 1977 to chair the committee investigating the
assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr.
Speaker ``Tip'' O'Neill also named him to chair the House Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct (Ethics Committee). And in February
1983, Stokes named by Speaker Jim Wright to chair the Select Committee
on Intelligence.
stokes' vision in forming cbc
The founding of the Congressional Black Caucus is demonstrative of
the vision shown by Stokes almost immediately upon his arrival to
Congress. He wasted no time seeking to establish a forum for
articulating the concerns of Black Americans. He, along with several
others, decided that becuase of the nearly equal ideological division
in the House between liberal and conservatives--Democrats and Northern
Republicans allied against Conservative Republicans and Southern
Democrats--the nine black members of the House of Representatives
comprised a voting block sufficient to constitute the balance of power.
Members of the CBC were determined to seize the moment, to confront
racial injustice, to fight for economic equity and to raise other
issues long ignored and too little debated. Stokes gave extraordinary
leadership in the formative days of the movement and was elected the
second chairman of the Caucus in 1972.
stokes chaired hearings on the assassinations of president john f.
kennedy and dr. martin luther king
Stoke's objectivity is demonstrated by his leadership of the
assassinations committee. The Committee identified four main issues to
be investigated:
1. Who was or were the assassin(s) of President John F. Kennedy and
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.?
2. Did the assassin(s) have any aid or assistance either before or
after the assassinations?
3. Did the agencies and departments of the U.S. Government adequately
perform their duties and functions in protecting the two slain leaders?
4. Given the evidence the committee uncovered, is the amendment of
existing legislation appropriate?
Stokes oversaw the 18-month investigation which ended in December
1978 with twenty-seven volumes of hearings and a final report
containing recommendations for administrative and legislative reform.
He performed admirably and impressively at the nationally televised
committee hearings.
a down to earth side of louis stokes
Although Stokes is a very serious minded person, there is a lighter,
more common side to the legislator. In addition to having a keen sense
of humor, he often gets involved in humorous situations. One such
instance occurred one night when he, Jay, Carol and I were dining at a
Thai restaurant in Maryland. After carefully perusing a menu that was
not familiar to any of us, we all ordered something different. When
Stokes had consumed about half of his order, he observed that the meal
did not seem like the one he had ordered. Complaining to the waiter, he
was told that he was correct. The waiter said that they were all out of
the meal Stokes had ordered and this one was a replacement.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join in thanking the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for displaying his friendship and
giving us an opportunity to share in that in talking about our
colleague, Louis Stokes.
Mr. Chairman, I came just two years after Mr. Stokes came to the
Congress, but I think all of us when we first arrive here, we think
that anyone that was here before us just knows everything about
everything, and it does not take too long after being here to find out
that they do not know.
Lou Stokes was an exception to that resume, as related to me, because
he continued to be a senior in terms of compassion, in terms of class,
in terms of intellect, in terms of working so hard each and every night
to help so many people, that even though it was only 2 years in terms
of leadership, it was decades, because he came from a family that has
known so little, and yet was given such great opportunities, and
instead of just enjoying it, he and his late brother Carl have given
back so much to Cleveland and to this great country, and, therefore, in
their way to the world.
When I hear so many people say that America cannot afford a public
school system or cannot afford to subsidize, giving assistance to
people, or anyone has to really do it on their own or let the private
sector work its will, I said how great that is for those who have. But
how much more great it is to see the compassion that a country would
have to have two kids living in public housing from a family who had
nothing except knowing pain and poverty, to be able to see one to
become the first African American mayor of a great city, and see the
other to reach the heights, to achieve the leadership, the accolades,
that Lou Stokes has in this United States Congress.
It was not just God's will, it just wasn't hard work, it was someone
really giving his family a hand in public housing. It was having public
schools there where hard working people would know that whatever they
were denied, at least the kids would be given an opportunity. And, yes,
in a country that
[[Page H6228]]
denied so much to so many people just because of their color, there
came the GI Bill when the Federal Government said it doesn't really
make any difference what color you are, we will give you a chance to
reach the height of your potential. And to know that we never would
have had an educated Carl Stokes, we never would have had an educated
Lou Stokes, unless those in the Congress that preceded us were saying
why not help all Americans, because you have no idea as to the great
resources and jewels that we have. And this is not that unusual when
there are so many people who have given so much, but never have been
given the chance that Louis had to give back.
Lou Stokes, you have been an example for people, white or black, Jew
or gentile, in this great country of ours, because no matter what the
subject is, you bring a sense of class that makes us all feel proud to
be politicians, to be legislators, and to be Americans. And you leave a
legacy for all of us, those like me who respond sometimes in anger, to
restrain if not just because it is the right thing to do, but because
we owe it to the dignity of this great House to do it.
We are going to miss you, Lou Stokes, but you have set standards for
all of us to follow on both sides of the aisle. Even though you only
came here 2 years before I did, to me you are a giant and you remain
one.
{time} 1730
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the distinguished gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Stokes), not only for his work on this bill, but for his
achievements throughout an outstanding and successful career in
Congress.
Lou Stokes has served the public for many, many years, and in this
Congress for 30 years. He is a lawyer, he is a veteran of the United
States Army, he is a lecturer, he is a writer, he has been a chairman
of many committees and a ranking member of many committees.
He has served when in the majority as chairman of the Select
Committee on Assassinations, the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct, the Committee on Intelligence, and chairman of the
subcommittee of this particular bill. He served, as fate has dealt him,
in the minority as well. In whatever capacity he has served, he has
served honorably, with good humor, and with great trust for his fellow
Members of his subcommittee or his committee, and in a bipartisan
fashion.
Lou is an honorable man. He has left his mark on the committees in
which he has served because he has done the hard work that was
necessary to do honor to this institution. In his retirement, while he
leaves a void in our own committee and in this Congress, we hope that
his family will gain what we lose: A gentle, solid, comfortable
presence.
Over the years I have heard the term ``soul'' used, and I guess many
would attribute their own meaning to the word. I guess if I had to give
one concept to that term, I think I would attribute it to a person who
enjoys life and loves his fellow human beings.
Lou, I just want to tell you that from my very distant view, the one
that has become closer over the years that I have had the honor and the
pleasure to know and to work with you, you have a lot of soul.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise with my colleagues at this very special moment to pay tribute
to the dean of the Ohio delegation, always to me our good friend
Congressman Louis Stokes. For myself personally, and I know for every
single other member of the Ohio delegation, from our great buckeye
State, when we came to Congress, Lou Stokes was here. He has always
been here. For us as Members, for our State, to imagine Ohio without
Lou Stokes is to imagine an Ohio with a piece of its heart missing. And
this particular moment of tribute is one of those moments in Congress
that each of us who has had the pleasure of working and knowing this
man will not forget.
Others have detailed the congressional service of our good friend,
Lou Stokes, but perhaps it is important to remember that when he was
elected to the Committee on Appropriations he was the first African-
American ever to serve on this very, very important committee of
cardinals rising to be a cardinal in his own right.
I think as a woman having had to overcome some of the barriers in my
own life, I can somewhat identify, but certainly not completely, with
what that must have felt like. I think what has always amazed me about
Lou Stokes is what a gentleman he has been. I think the kind of
elegance with which he carries himself, the kind of elegance that
causes his grandchildren to really smile at him with open eyes, is a
quality that all of us truly admire and wish that we had ourselves.
I think if we look at all of the programs over which he has had
jurisdiction within the Committee on Appropriations itself, whether it
was the National Institutes of Health and the types of studies that are
done there to recognize the types of illnesses that afflict all
segments of our population, or whether we are talking about who should
go on to college and who has the opportunity to become all they can be,
or if we are talking about in fact the history of the U.S. military and
the complete renovation of sections of Arlington Cemetery, long before
the movie glory ever came out, Lou Stokes was there.
Certainly, the people of Cleveland have every right to be proud that
two of their sons helped change the history of this country.
Now, Lou and I share a great affection for our families, and
particularly our mothers, and I guess my one regret in knowing Lou is I
never got to know his mother and Carl's mother. Because what a mother
she must have been to raise those two boys in the shadow of inner city
Cleveland. He took us by the housing project one day when we were
touring Cleveland on a brownfields tour, and to imagine that that
household, that home would have brought this man to Congress at the
time that he came, the time that he came. The wounds in America of race
will not heal over in my lifetime, but I know that I have met someone
who has helped heal those wounds for our country.
As I have said in other venues and I will say here for the record, I
think one of the memories that I will have of Lou that I never expected
to have, came from one of our quiet subcommittee meetings one day in
this particular committee, Veterans, HUD, NASA, NSF, EPA, when we were
listening to the witnesses from Arlington Cemetery who were bringing in
the books, the ledgers of those who had served our country and were
buried in Arlington, and they brought in these dusty volumes.
I remember opening them up, and I was sitting next to Chairman Stokes
at that time, and he opened up to one of the pages and we began to
read, and we looked in such-and-such a section and at this particular
plot, at who was buried. And the ledger read, no name, no name, no
name. Those who had fought in the Civil War who for all of history had
remained unnamed simply because they were people of color. Through his
efforts, in fact, that section of Arlington has now been restored and
we have recently witnessed a major statue unveiling in this city and
all kinds of national programs and so forth, but Lou Stokes was there
at the head of the queue long before the rest of the country was.
I know that we in Ohio who have a history of trying to remember the
underground railroad know that through his efforts here as we begin to
save that history and enshrine that history for all time, the 21st
century will in fact be different from the 20th and the 19th, and so as
just one buckeye and one member of this great Congress, I want to say
to my good friend, Lou Stokes of Cleveland, thank you. Thank you on
behalf of this Congress; thank you on behalf of the people of the State
of Ohio that you have done proud here. Thank you on behalf of your
mother and your brother for serving our country when you could have
done so many other things with the gifts that life has given you. It
has been an honor to serve with you. You have taught me much. You will
always be the Congressman from the great City of Cleveland.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, there is work to be done tonight and we will get to it,
but I think it is important that we take the time tonight to honor Lou
Stokes.
[[Page H6229]]
I speak as a junior member of the Committee on Appropriations, and I
speak tonight symbolically from the other side of the aisle to pay
tribute to Lou Stokes and the wonderful way that he has worked with
members of the majority and minority parties in this House and the
great example he has set, and to say that it has been a genuine
pleasure to serve on the Appropriations Committee with Lou Stokes.
I have served on two subcommittees with Mr. Stokes, Labor-HHS and VA-
HUD, and I have heard tributes at the subcommittee level, at the full
committee level, and I have listened with interest and with admiration
and with agreement. I have heard him called by many descriptions, Mr.
Chairman, and I subscribe to them all: Mentor, role model, a worthy
adversary from time to time, a champion for his State and for his
district, and a champion in every sense of the word, a classic, and a
friend.
But, Mr. Chairman, where I come from, one of the most supreme
compliments that can be paid to a man is to call him a southern
gentleman, and in thinking about this I spoke with Mr. Stokes' other
colleague (Mr. Kucinich), also from Cleveland, and we decided that if
one looks at the map just right, Lou Stokes comes from southern
Cuyahoga County, and he indeed qualifies as a southern gentleman.
As a matter of fact, the gentlemanly conduct of Lou Stokes embodies
those qualities that are universally admired, and that I have admired
so much during the two terms that I have served with him on
subcommittees. Lou Stokes never raises his voice. He never rails at
individuals. He is effective. He gets the job done, and he has gotten
the job done for his point of view, but always a gentleman in every
sense of the word.
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow said, ``Lives of great men all remind us
we can make our lives sublime, and departing, leave behind us
footprints on the sands of time.''
Well, Lou, you are departing this House, but I do not necessarily
think you are departing the scene, and I certainly hope not. I have a
feeling that there is much more service to this country, to society and
to your fellow man, although I do hope perhaps you have a chance to
spend a little more time with your family. I salute the gentleman from
Ohio. I admire him. Lou, I wish you the best of luck, and Godspeed in
your next endeavors.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, first I would like to pay special thanks to the
chairman of our committee, the very distinguished and gracious
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), for making available this time
here tonight to pay special tribute to another very fine member of this
institution.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to pay special tribute to the gentleman from
Ohio, the ranking member of our subcommittee, its former chairman, and
a true pillar in this House.
As other speakers have noted, this is the final VA-HUD bill that Mr.
Stokes will help bring to this body. That saddens us all, because when
Lou Stokes retires at the end of the 105th Congress, after three
decades of faithful service to the people of the Cleveland area, this
institution will lose one of its most passionate and principled
representatives.
Lou Stokes is a man of keen intelligence and solid integrity who has
blazed many new trails and risen to key leadership positions in this
House. As chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus he dedicated
himself to advancing policy issues critical to minority communities. As
chairman of the House Select Committee on Assassinations he completed
historic investigations into the deaths of President Kennedy and Dr.
King. As chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct he
handled the most delicate of cases with unfailing fairness. As chairman
of the Committee on Intelligence, he helped shape policies vital to our
national security. And as chairman and now ranking member of our VA-HUD
subcommittee, he has exhibited a deep understanding of complex issues
and has been extremely responsive to the interests and concerns of each
department, each agency, each subcommittee member, each member of this
House, and each constituency group within our jurisdiction. Clearly,
Lou Stokes has been given a diverse group of special assignments.
But there is a common thread, Mr. Chairman. They all serve as a
measure of the trust and respect, real respect in which he is held by
the Members of this body. He is held in equally high regard at home.
The people of Cleveland feel a deep gratitude for Lou Stokes' lifetime
of service. They know that he has always fought for their best
interests with great energy, skill, and far more often than not,
success.
On a personal level, Mr. Chairman, I am deeply grateful to have had
the opportunity to work with Lou Stokes over the years.
{time} 1745
In doing so, it has been my honor to carry on a family tradition. My
father and Lou served together for many years in this House, and my
father has always held him in the highest esteem. So do I.
I deeply appreciate the counsel, support, and friendship that he has
accorded me. Lou Stokes is a bright, skilled legislator, a hard-working
representative, a great friend, and along with his lovely wife Jay, a
proud parent and grandparent.
In his words and deeds he is a complement, a tribute to this House
and he will be missed, while at the same time his influence on this
institution will be indelible.
Best wishes to you and Jay, Lou, as you leave this House for other
adventures.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I may have the distinction of knowing Lou Stokes longer
than any other Member of the Congress, one that I am proud of. I am
closely connected to his family, and he mine. Detroit and Cleveland
have always had a great interrelationship.
So, I have had the privilege of knowing the family. Jay and his late
brother Carl, and his two daughters, a judge and a TV anchor. He is now
a grandfather, of course. And then, of course, his son, Chuck Stokes
and Trudy are telecommunications and media people in Detroit.
One of my worst recurring nightmares is that his son might choose to
run for Congress in Detroit instead of Cleveland, where he ought to
have run. I should not say that I have stopped having them, because he
still there and I am still there.
Lou, this is a moment of joy and sadness for all of us. I remember
the first day Lou got to the House and he made me feel real good. Not
because I campaigned for him, which was not necessary at all, but
because he told me the first bill he introduced was the Martin Luther
King, Jr. holiday bill. Then he said, ``Do you think it has a chance of
really passing?'' And 15 years later we found out that it did.
Lou, I thank you for your steadfastness across the years. It has been
a very pleasant friendship. We have worked together on any number of
activities. But to me, the issues that you have raised in connection
with health, with the minority health issues, have always stuck with me
more than any of the outstanding things that have you done. You have
pioneered the whole notion of us understanding that there was a
different dimension of health needs for those who were not affluent or
able to buy insurance.
The work that you did with the African-American medical universities
should be lauded for many minutes more than I am just briefly referring
to them. They all know what you have done. On those medical campuses,
you were able to see they got the much-needed financing and support and
resources and also building activity as well, so that they could
continue to put African-American medical graduates into the general
population.
Then let us not forget the work you did on the committees that
investigated the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King and John F.
Kennedy. That was incredibly sensitive, controversial work and your
role there as the only African-American on those committees was very,
very important to me.
Mr. Chairman, it should also be mentioned that Lou Stokes chaired the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for a number of years, and
did a great job. He was also Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence. And so I have been pleased to enjoy this close
relationship
[[Page H6230]]
with you and Jay, the family. I hope and know that it will continue.
Finally, if nobody has said it, Attorney Lou Stokes is one of the few
Members that have argued before the United States Supreme Court in the
very landmark civil liberties case of Terry and Ohio.
So, Mr. Chairman, we are losing a gifted, talented Member, a brother,
and a person who understands government. And I am sure from whatever
position he chooses to move to, he will continue to send forth the
lessons that he has learned, the principles that he has believed,
fought for, and worked so hard over a period of 30 years throughout the
land.
Lou, we love you and we will miss you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I played a little word association game and when I said
``gentleman,'' the first person who came to mind in this Chamber was
Lou Stokes. When I thought about ``class,'' and how I would define
class, I thought about Lou Stokes.
When I considered the concern that has been expressed in this Chamber
by all of us about civility and the need we had to go to a special
retreat in Hershey, Pennsylvania, I thought to myself, we did not need
to go to Hershey, Pennsylvania, to learn about civility. All we had to
do is watch Lou Stokes in action.
Then when I think about the humdrum life we all have. Washington,
district, back and forth on the plane, traveling so much. So little
time to really get involved in getting to know better some of our
colleagues, which is a real shortcoming of this institution because it
is made up of some of the finest people we will find any place in the
world, Republicans, Democrats, liberals or conservatives. But we are
all just scrambling to run back home and make that next meeting.
I said to myself, we are disadvantaged in many respects, but I have
been very fortunate because very early in my career I got to know Lou
Stokes and I got to appreciate all that he represents.
George Bernard Shaw said, ``Some men see things as they are and ask
why. I dream things that never were and ask why not.'' That reminds me
of Lou Stokes. Because health care, education, the environment, things
that really matter for all of us, he has provided leadership in.
Then I think about my own family, my personal family. My youngest
daughter, Brooke, 4 years ago moved to Cleveland. I said to the
distinguished gentleman from Cleveland, ``Sort of help me out, will
you?'' And boy, he has been magnificent, always there to help to make
her transition from upstate New York to Cleveland, Ohio, something very
special.
She lived in his district and guess what? She supported Lou Stokes,
because she said, ``This guy is a guy who transcends political parties,
a guy who is extra special.''
I am just so mindful of the fact that this institution and this
Nation are the better for the service of Louis Stokes. And I personally
am enriched by the friendship that I have enjoyed with this great and
distinguished American. We wish you well, Lou, and we will continue to
rely on you for sound counsel.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, this is a distinguished moment in my life, in that I
have the opportunity to stand on the floor of the House of
Representatives and give acclaim to a very distinguished gentleman.
More acclaim because he is an African-American whose forefathers helped
to work this country.
I am proud today. I am a member of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and
Independent Agencies Appropriations. I know firsthand the kind of work
that Lou Stokes does. He is a multidimensional man. It is hard to
describe this man, because he has done everything, he has accomplished
whatever he tried. He is a distinguished lawyer; has gone before the
Supreme Court and won a landmark civil rights bill; has been over
ethics; has been over all of the things that we see people aspiring for
here in this Congress. Lou Stokes has achieved it.
Mr. Chairman, he still is a humble man. He still is a man who is kind
and thoughtful. He still is a man who wants to do the right thing for
everyone.
African-Americans throughout this country are doubly proud of this
man. They know him throughout this country not only for his work in
health care, but I am sure that the life extension of African Americans
in this country, he has shortened many of the diseases that have killed
minorities in the past. He has extended the life span of minorities
because he took a focus and saw health as being an important facet of
African-Americans because they were dying, they were not being tested
in clinical trials, they were not educating their doctors.
Lou Stokes took a handle on this. He still is the most humble man in
this Congress. He is outstanding as far as the Nation's veterans are
concerned. He is a scientist. He wants to see science advanced,
technology and space, ethics, intelligence.
Many people in this Congress may not be keenly aware of this
multidimensional man, but today we stand to let the world know that Lou
Stokes is a cut above, a cut above most Congresspersons in that he has
accomplished more and will do much more, even when he leaves this
Congress.
It saddens me to see him leave because he has been a flagship for all
of us. He is a flagship of this Congress, not only for the Members of
the Congressional Black Caucus, but for everyone who would aspire to be
a good statesperson. Lou Stokes has been that flagship.
He has authored many things that help disadvantaged people, both
black and white. He has paved the way for thousands of poor people,
disadvantaged and minority young people, to pursue careers in the
health professions. Doctors, nurses, clinical researchers, these young
people would not have had the opportunity if it were not for Lou
Stokes.
He is from Cleveland, Ohio, but his influence has spread not only in
this country, but throughout the world. He has opened up access. He has
accommodated people who could not reach there themselves. This man has
raised the consciousness of this Congress since he has been here. The
level of understanding of this Congress has been raised by Lou Stokes.
He has done things for America's most vulnerable citizens, those that
do not have lobbyists here, those who do not have a voice here.
Lou Stokes has been that voice. Many times he has been the only
voice, Mr. Chairman, the only one with the courage and the attunement
to reach across the aisle or to reach to the southern gentleman or to
reach to the northern liberals. He has reached across all of those
people and he has touched their hearts and he has sensitized them to
the needs not only of the urban poor but the disadvantaged and the poor
throughout this country.
Many of us on the House Committee on Appropriations look to Lou for
guidance. We look to him, I especially do, when I am about to do
something rash, I look to Lou because Lou has that attunement, he can
say, ``Well, now, Carrie, this can be done, but this is the way it has
to be done,'' and it is extremely important to me, Mr. Chairman, and to
other Members of this House.
{time} 1800
He is what I call a crossover Congressperson, who works with the
needs of both black and white in the Congress. Diversity is important
to him. He has teamed up with our young white-haired leader of the
Veterans and VA-HUD subcommittee. He teamed up with Mr. Lewis. I am
sure he taught him a lot, because the two of them go hand-in-hand. They
are just like Mutt and Jeff, because they work closely together. And I
am very serious when I say to my colleagues that Mr. Lewis' attunement,
I am sure some of it came from Lou Stokes. And that, to me, means a
lot.
And Lou Stokes didn't do it by rabble-rousing. He didn't do it by
Bogart-ing. He did it because he is a statesman. He is a diplomat. He
does not cringe or step back from anybody, but because of this
intellectual prowess, he has been able to go in places that many others
cannot.
As chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus Health Braintrust, he
struck the consciousness of America with respect to the need to address
the disparities in minority health care, from AIDS, to diabetes, to
cancer, to
[[Page H6231]]
lupus, to smoking-related illnesses. The list goes on and on, Mr.
Chairman.
As a result of Mr. Stokes' efforts, Mr. Clinton, our President,
included in the budget this year so many things. He sent to Congress an
$80 million fund for the race initiative on health. You know who
stimulated that? Do you know who was the prime mover in that? Lou
Stokes. To begin with, he has effectively closed this gap.
Lou, you took the path that is less traveled, and you did it with
grace, you did it with dignity, you did it with intellect, and now you
leave the underground railroad to us.
I have heard you talk about your mother. You addressed people over in
HUD one day. These were people who were trying to understand the needs.
Lou, you gave to the world the best you had and the best has come back
to you.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, we all have a frame of reference for Lou Stokes, and
nobody could have a frame of reference as wonderful as Mrs. Carrie
Meek's frame of reference.
When I was in high school and college the Stokes family, and
particularly the Stokes brothers, came to my attention as political and
civil rights leaders. But only on the television and in the newspapers
did I get to know the Stokes family. Quite honestly, I never knew that
I would have the privilege of serving with one of those Stokes brothers
as a Member of Congress.
What an opportunity it has been for me to serve with a remarkable
man, someone who, indeed, is a role model for everyone, black or white,
rich or poor, an historical figure of the greatest note. And as he said
the other day, as was true with Mr. Mollohan and Mr. Walsh, my father
had an opportunity to serve with you in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
I have been very lucky to have that privilege as the second generation
of my family to serve with you.
Thank you for your friendship and for your assistance on the VA-HUD
committee.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
This is a bittersweet moment for me, because as someone who is
relatively new to this Congress, I have had the pleasure of knowing Lou
Stokes for 30 years, but this is the first time I have had a chance to
serve with him in the Congress. And I have to tell you, Lou, that I am
so grateful that I have had this opportunity, even though I have only
been here for a term with you.
Lou Stokes has shown that America's progress as a Nation is measured
not by what we do for the strong, but what we do for the weak; not by
what we do for the the haves, but what we do for the have-nots. Lou
Stokes has shown that America's progress as a Nation is measured in how
we as a Nation have stood up for the rights of minorities, how we have
met the test.
And throughout his career, we know that Lou Stokes has met the test
in fighting for voting rights, civil rights, education rights, and
housing rights. Lou, in doing that, you have helped lift up not only
minorities, but you have helped to lift up majorities as well because
you, Lou Stokes, have ennobled this Congress and this Nation with your
public spirited consciousness, with your fight for the right, with your
style and with your grace.
I am so fortunate to call you my friend and to be able to call you my
colleague. Lou Stokes helped me get elected mayor of Cleveland 21 years
ago and gave me the opportunity to follow in the footsteps of his dear
brother, also my dear friend, Carl. And together you and I, Lou, were
able to prove that in the big cities, and it has to be true in State
and Federal Government as well, political power can, should and must be
shared. It is essential in a democracy that political power be shared
with minorities.
Rudyard Kipling once wrote about someone who could walk with kings
and never lose the common touch. We see in Lou Stokes' career that he
has had that ability. People in Cleveland just love him. All across our
city people are looking for ways to honor his career, and all across
our city, people who are aware of this moment, understand why Members
of Congress from East to West, from North to South are standing up to
sing Lou Stokes' praises because we know Lou Stokes in Cleveland, and
we love Lou Stokes because of what he has done for our city and what he
has done for our country.
You know, Lou, there is a test that a lot of us from the inner city
make not only of public officials but everybody we meet, and it is a
test that is a spiritual test, and we have often heard it. It goes
something like this: When I was hungry, did you feed me? Lou Stokes has
stood up for hungry people in this country. When I was naked, did you
clothe me? Lou Stokes has stood up for the dispossessed in this
country. When I was homeless, did you shelter me? Lou Stokes has stood
up for people when they needed housing. We love you, Lou Stokes, for
the work that you have done for our people.
Somewhere in Cleveland today, you can bet on this, not only in
Cleveland but in cities across this country, there will be a child
living in adverse circumstance, maybe not even having a home. Maybe
they are just sitting on a stoop marking the time, wondering if things
are ever going to get better in their life, because things are pretty
tough right now. Now, that person in America today could be black,
could be brown, could be yellow, could be white. And when he or she is
sitting there and feeling low, feeling down, wondering what is going to
come and if things could ever get better with their life, they could
think about two young African American children who were born in
poverty, who lived in public housing, who, through the grace of God and
a mother who worked for them, were able to move through the ranks, come
to power, reach the pinnacle, make American history, and they always
remembered where they came from.
Children of America, look to Lou Stokes. Look to Carl Stokes.
Historically, those are two of the greatest people in American history,
and they are people who you can be proud to call Americans and we can
be proud to call friends.
God bless you, Lou Stokes. I love you and I am glad to be here to say
this to the American people.
Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, and to my colleagues gathered here together as a part
of the 105th Congress, it gives me a great deal of pleasure and pride
and admiration to stand here in tribute to the honorable Louis Stokes
from the State, from the Buckeye State of Ohio. And Congressman Stokes,
my predecessor, Congressman Andrew Jacobs, sends his love. And he told
me to remind you of the time you and him both had a date with the
Supremes. Something like that. You would remember that. I hope your
wives understand that you all were out with the Supremes, or perhaps
where you were. But he said that was a night that he would always
remember. I think it was because of Lou Stokes and not because of the
Supremes, but we will understand.
I knew the honorable Lou Stokes prior to the time that I became a
Member of Congress. Lou Stokes' good works has, like it was said, has
been able to shine from sea to shining sea. I have been a long admirer
of the Stokes family; Mayor Carl Stokes, Congressman Louis Stokes, in
particular. He reminded me of a poet in his hard work for the people
across this Nation and in instilling pride and hope; that for every
drop of rain that falls a flower grows and somewhere in the darkest
night a candle glows. And Louis Stokes was certainly that candle that
glowed in the very darkest night for so many people who were reaching
out for help across this country.
Throughout his life and career, he has courageously confronted very
tough circumstances and assignments. He served in the segregated army
during World War II, and earned a law degree when few, if any, law
firms would consider hiring a man of Louis Stokes' complexion.
He challenged Congressional district minds in Ohio, becoming the
first African American Member of Congress elected from his State and
the first African American Member to serve on the House Committee on
Appropriations. He skillfully served in numerous leadership roles in
the House, including chairman of the Select Committee on the
Presidential Assassination, the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the VA-HUD
subcommittee, and the Committee on Appropriations.
[[Page H6232]]
Mr. Chairman, the honorable Lou Stokes is widely admired throughout
our Nation and our world, and certainly after his retirement the work
that he has done for this country will endure. I admire, I appreciate,
I am a beneficiary of his outstanding public service. And he reminds me
of the psalmist that said that he shall be like a tree that is planted
by the river's water that brings forth fruit in his season. And even
though I know that Mr. Stokes' season has not ended, that all of the
beautiful fruit that he has borne throughout his public service will
continue to endure for many years to come.
I stand here in a great deal of humility, Congressman Stokes, to say
thank you for all that you have done.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike
the last word.
The first thing I want to do is thank the people of Cleveland for
sending Lou Stokes here. I watched Lou Stokes many years before I had
the opportunity to come here.
When I came, I left the Texas Senate, where we had battles through
debate. But Lou Stokes has taught me that that is not necessarily the
way to get things done, and he has taught me that without ever saying a
word to me on that issue. I simply had to watch him and that taught me.
When you go before the committee where Lou Stokes is, it is the most
wonderful experience because of his partner, Congressman Lewis, so kind
and respectful, that even when you don't get what you go for, you can't
even get angry because they have been so nice.
{time} 1815
But Lou Stokes has been steadfast. He has taken care of the very
basics for every American. When it comes to housing, when it comes to
education, when it comes to health care, there has never been a time
when he has not had his finger right on the mark.
Everyone in those areas throughout this country, notwithstanding
their heritage or background or race, know Louis Stokes for those
areas. There are very few Americans that cannot be very grateful for
the many things that he has done. The veterans know about Louis Stokes
and health care. And of course, every poor person and every African-
American knows that Louis Stokes has spoken up for all of the persons
who have not; and Louis has done it with class, dignity, integrity.
Within our Congressional Black Caucus, we have a little private joke
when we talk about the romance between the gentlewoman from Florida
(Mrs. Meek) and Louis Stokes. She got there before I did because she
was on the same committee with him. We are going to miss that. We are
going to miss you, Louis.
There is no replacement for him. There is not a single Member of this
body who could tell us about any harsh word that Louis Stokes has ever
spoken. There is not a Member of this body who could tell us that he
ever disrespected them. I do not think there is even a Member of this
body, even when he could not deliver on that committee, who would tell
us that he has ever hurt their feelings.
It is only once in a lifetime that we have such a giant in a body
like this. I am grateful for the opportunity to have served with him
after admiring him for so many years. And for a committee that pleases
so few people, they have some of the greatest leaders, people that are
kind and respectful, smiles on their faces. And I have a feeling that
Louis Stokes helps to influence all of it.
We are grateful for you, Louis. We thank you. We love you.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. DIXON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DIXON. Lou, first of all, I would like to thank you for your
advice and counsel over the 20 years in which I have served in this
House. In listening to the testimony today and the tribute to you, I
recognize over those 20 years that you have provided that service and
courtesy and friendship to many Members of this House on both sides of
the aisle.
I am reminded, Lou, of Lorraine Hansbury's writing when she said that
``life has little else to offer except for confrontation with the
problem to be resolved.'' And you and your brother Carl have been
confronting and resolving problems for folks of this country for many,
many years.
I cannot add much to what all of the Members have said about your
fine service to this institution, whether it be on the Intelligence
Committee or the House Ethics Committee. But I would like to single out
something that I have noticed over the years that other Members have
not addressed today, and that is your development of minority staff in
this House.
Many Members of this House benefit from fine staff because you first
gave them the opportunity, and there are people in government who
received their first opportunities, men and women and minorities,
because Lou Stokes gave them that first opportunity, and probably that
will be one of your largest legacies.
I know that as you move on that you will continue the legacy of
confronting and resolving problems because you are a man who lives a
full life. And I firmly believe, as I think you do, that that is what
life is really about.
You will be missed in this House. I know that we will all continue to
have your friendship. This institution is better because you served
here, and you can be assured that you will never be forgotten here.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, next year the Chicago Bulls may be without their
superstar, Michael Jordan. If so, that will be an irreplaceable loss.
In the next Congress, we will be without our superstar, my friend, our
colleague Louis Stokes. That will indeed be an irreplaceable loss.
We know the story of John Henry, the steel-driving man. He built the
railroad with his bare hands. When all others and all else failed, John
Henry performed. Louis Stokes is a modern-day John Henry. He has helped
to build this institution, the Congress of the United States, with his
bare hands. He has not used fancy gimmicks, high technology, nor
futuristic gadgetry. Louis Stokes is not that kind of person.
Mr. Chairman, he has helped build this institution with good old-
fashioned statesmanship, unblemished credibility, impeccable integrity,
honest dealing, and a deep commitment to public service. While we
lament the loss of Lou, we rejoice at the gain for his family, his
lovely wife, his wonderful children and grandchildren, all of which
grew up within the Congress and who he loves dearly.
This son of Cleveland has always been up to the challenge and
prepared for the task. But most importantly, when all else failed, when
the machines did not work and the mountain would not move, we could
always count on Lou. Louis Stokes is a steel-driving man.
Born of humble means, throughout his life, Lou refused to accept
mediocrity. He had hopes and dreams. He had goals. He had a vision. He
dared to be different and determined to make a difference in this
society. These qualities carried him through college, through law
school, and these qualities compose him today.
But Lou will quickly tell us that, while motivation may have come
from within, inspiration from his mother indeed was his mainstay. I am
always moved by the account of how his mother struggled to provide a
life for him and his brother, yet through the struggling, she never
failed to push him forward, to urge him on, to make him believe in
himself and what he could be and become. And he has done his mother
proud. He has done us proud.
In more than two decades in Congress, Louis Stokes has distinguished
himself, making his mark in many places, leaving his permanent imprint
in the sands of time.
Tirelessly, he has been a role model for role models and a champion
for all. Here he has been more than a Member of Congress. He has been
the pulse of what is right, the heartbeat of the downtrodden, the
standard bearer of ordinary citizens, the last line of defense for
those in need of housing, the first line of defense for the homeless,
the lifeblood for seniors and young people and women and the
disenfranchised, the conscience of us all.
He has been especially vigilant in the area of health care,
particularly in the minority community. When AIDS confounded most of
us, there was one of us
[[Page H6233]]
who confronted it. When disproportionate Federal spending in health
care frustrated many of us, there was one among us who stood firm and
strong.
When the disparity in mortality rates between majority and minority
perplexed all of us, there was one of us who met the matter head on.
History, we are told, is a chronological record of significant
events. A significant event is an event that is momentous, profound,
pivotal, an event that has made the difference in the course of our
lives.
I can tell my colleagues, Louis Stokes has been all of that. He has
been momentous. He has been profound. And, indeed, he has made a
difference in the lives of us who have served with him, a difference in
the lives of America. He has made history.
He leaves us now not to quit but to fight another fight, to write
another chapter, maybe another book or two, to run another race. We
know, as the writer reminds us, the best books have yet been written,
the best races have yet been run.
Yes, the Chicago Bulls will never be the same without Michael Jordan.
And I can tell my colleagues, this Congress will certainly not be the
same without superstar Congressman Louis Stokes.
I am proud to serve with you.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I stand, too, with my colleagues to say farewell to a
giant. I never dreamt that I would be working with such a man, a man
whom he has said came from humble beginnings and has stayed humble in
spite of becoming a giant.
We recognize that Lou Stokes has soared in terms of an extraordinary
attorney, in terms of an extraordinary congressman, in terms of an
extraordinary husband and father. Lou Stokes followed in his mother's
footsteps. He ensured that his children would be educated. And now he
has children who have made marks throughout this country in great ways.
But then he did not stop there. Lou Stokes made sure that children of
this country got the very best, and he saw to that through legislation.
When I came to this House, I came knowing that I would get the advice
and the strength of this great man. He showed me how I could introduce
legislation that would help my constituents in terms of AIDS, in terms
of bone-marrow transplants, in terms of the myriad of diseases that
perplex our communities. Louis Stokes helped me to recognize how I
could move through committees and still be humble in my presentations
and yet reach a level of success.
Louis Stokes, the man who has been at the Supreme Court in cases that
were landmark cases. This is a giant, Mr. Chairman, one whom not only
the Congressional Black Caucus has recognized, but by virtue of those
who have been on this floor have recognized.
He has touched many hearts and many souls. He has shown us how to be
a statesman, a gentleman's gentleman. I am just all the better because
I served with him, and I thank him for all of the advice that he has
given me.
I thank you for being part of this great body, being a great man.
Thank you so much.
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I thank our friend and colleague, Congressman Jerry
Lewis, for asking for this time so that we may join in a tribute to
this very special person who has provided such a high standard of
leadership to this House for more than 28 years, a great American,
founding member and leader of the Congressional Black Caucus and chair
of the Health Braintrust which he established, Congressman Louis
Stokes.
As a physician, I had the privilege of nominating Congressman Stokes
for the Dr. Nathan Davis Award of the American Medical Association. I
am pleased to report that the AMA demonstrated its great astuteness and
insight in accepting this nomination and naming him as the 1998
recipient of this prestigious and well-deserved award.
Although he has already received our highest honor in 1994, I also
look forward to being present on August 1 in New Orleans, when the
National Medical Association, of which I am a member, again honors
Congressman Stokes for his years of exemplary service and unwavering
commitment to this country.
For all his work, his service on the VA-HUD Appropriations
Subcommittee, for the Underground Railroad, and especially to me for
his service on the Pepper Economics, the Labor-Health-Human Services-
Education Subcommittee, and the Health Braintrust of the Congressional
Black Caucus, he will leave a significant, far-reaching and enduring
legacy when he retires at the end of the 105th Congress, a legacy of
legislation and programs which have served to elevate the level and the
standard of health and health care not only for people of color but all
Americans.
And, so, I am pleased to stand here to thank you, Congressman Stokes,
for many reasons. As a newer Member, I want to thank you for your
stellar example and unselfish willingness to teach and to guide as I
and others assumed our places in this great body. I thank you for your
work on VA/HUD and especially for your contribution to our veterans. I
thank you for your legacy of decency, compassion, candor, integrity,
and fairness.
{time} 1830
I thank you especially on behalf of minority physicians, the poor and
people of color everywhere, for you certainly leave us the
beneficiaries of all that you have done to further health care in this
Nation. And lastly I thank you on behalf of my own constituents, the
people of the United States Virgin Islands, for all that you have done
for us, for this Congress, and for this country.
We pray that God will continue to richly bless you and your family.
Certainly your years of service which I know will not end here will not
be in vain.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for
allowing us to pay homage to our colleague. It is important that I come
on the floor today, Mr. Stokes, to say to you, when I think of Lou
Stokes, I think of bravery, of selflessness, of honesty, of character,
of fight. A distinguished gentleman, a legislator extraordinaire and a
man of principle and strength. It is important, Lou, that as you have
heard and sat through this hour and a half that you know as you leave
here, though you physically will leave here, what you have taught each
of us in your integrity and strength will live.
As someone said before me, this body will be a better body because
Lou Stokes put 30 years here. I watched you as I served in the Michigan
legislature for 18 years. You certainly for me provided the insight and
the intelligence that I needed to be a strong legislator, to speak up
and to speak out, and to really represent those who sent us here.
Mr. Chairman, I want you to know as I know your son Chuck and as he
serves in our Detroit community, both he and Trudy, that we see Lou
Stokes in them, that in them and as we grow our children, all that we
would want is that they too represent the intelligent and serve their
God. Mr. Stokes, I am here to tell you that your son in Detroit does
just that. And that as you leave this body, Mr. Stokes, health care,
our veterans, our housing and those things that you fought for for
nearly 30 years, we will continue the battle.
So go on, Mr. Chairman. Your wife deserves it, and certainly your
grandchildren deserve it. And from the bottom of my heart, just know
that as a new legislator to this body, I will carry the Lou Stokes
spirit as I serve. God bless you.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, it is really with a deep sense of honor that I join
with my colleagues today to pay tribute to an exceptional man, a leader
who has really been more than an example. Congressman Stokes has been a
mentor and a guiding force not only to me but also to other
congressional Members, to African-Americans and to America at large. A
policy reformist, a health and education advocate. But he has really
been a teacher. He has set the standard for quality in leadership. Mr.
Stokes, as we have heard over the last couple of hours, has made an
indelible mark on this institution. Throughout the years he has stood
as a superior example for social advocates and activists.
[[Page H6234]]
In the heat of the civil rights movement, he triumphed as the first
African-American from the State of Ohio to be elected to Congress.
When I was here as a staff member for my predecessor, this goes back
to 1975, Lou, you were then during those years appointed to the House
Select Committee on Assassinations where you served as chair and
disclosed valuable information about the assassinations of President
John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Lou Stokes always
sought the truth. I marveled at how he handled and chaired that
committee. His invaluable influence guided many of us to stand up for
underrepresented Americans, young and old, poor, black, white, yellow
and red. His work has torn down barriers to health care and has saved
lives. Congressman Stokes opened doors that would have been closed and
expanded access that otherwise would have been denied. He is really
what Dr. Martin Luther King called a drum major for justice. He was a
trailblazer of the Congressional Black Caucus's reform efforts to
reform health care. His Underground Railroad Network Freedom Act, an
act to establish a memorial for African-American slaves, finally
bringing them the honor that is long overdue, is historic.
Last weekend I had the privilege to visit Seneca Falls and Rochester,
New York with Congresswoman Louise Slaughter. This is an area where
many stops were on this underground railroad. Lou, I just want to thank
you for your vision and your hard work. We all have got to ensure that
this important history is preserved. Without your leadership, this
institution would not be the same.
Congressman Stokes leaves a rich legacy that will bring lasting
change which has made a tremendous difference in the lives of all
Americans. Today I just stand here to say thank you, Lou Stokes, thank
you on behalf of the 9th Congressional District. I want to thank you
for your tireless service, for your mentoring, for your guidance, for
your feedback, for all of your assistance that you have provided to me
as a new Member of Congress.
Great challenges are ahead for all of us. But the ground that you
have laid really provides a firm foundation from which we can meet
those challenges. I wish you the best. I am confident that this next
chapter of your life is going to be extremely exciting. God bless you.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I do want
to be here today. I was in my office, Congressman Stokes, and busy with
paperwork, but I said, oh, this paperwork can wait. And so I rushed
here hopefully to arrive in time to say a few things from the heart
about Lou Stokes.
We all know this famous quote. If it has been repeated to this body
earlier in the discussion, I apologize; but it bears repeating, because
it applies so well to our colleague, Louis Stokes and we have all been
expressing these same sentiments. It is the famous quote by one of your
Democratic predecessors, Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota: ``The
moral test of government is how the government treats those who are in
the dawn of life, the children; and those who are in the twilight of
life, the elderly.'' That clearly depicts what Lou Stokes' life has
been all about. You have contributed to that moral standard of
government, Congressman. We are going to miss you terribly.
I must say that I did not have the privilege of working on the
committee with Lou Stokes, but when I was ranking member on the Housing
subcommittee, I knew that any of the good things we wanted to do in
housing, we had to depend upon Lou Stokes' good word and courage and
foresight to be able to implement those programs and translate them
from legislation into real action in real communities. I am sorry I
could not work with you more directly, Lou, but I certainly was one of
your admirers and one who appreciated everything you did in the housing
area. But I want to repeat to you something that I think is more
overshadowing of all that we do on a day-to-day basis, and, that is,
how we as a Congress address the real needs of the American people and
the manner in which we do it and the moral standards that we adhere to
when we do it.
I will repeat to you something that I just heard recently, not from a
constituent of mine but someone I know from the Northeast who is a
small businessman, has a construction company, and I have known him for
many years, and his wife has a realty business. They are good, strong
Republicans, Lou. But you would like them. This gentleman said to me
recently when I asked him, over the fourth of July recess, ``Well, what
message should I take back to those inside-the-Beltway types down in
Washington?'' Without any hesitation, this conservative Republican said
to me, ``Well, Congresswoman, would you please go back and tell them
that we should get rid of the bitter partisanship and return civility
to our national government and the way we are conducting the people's
business and deal with the issues that count for the American people.''
But when I saw you here today and these accolades and these
testimonials, being given to you, Lou, I thought that is exactly what
this man meant. Lou Stokes is the kind of person that this businessman
was talking about. Lou always stood on principles--you always have,
Lou--and you have exemplefied these qualities of civility and democracy
and demonstrating your respect for everyone.
Lou, we need more people like you. We are going to miss you terribly.
But I hope that in everyone's mind, the image of Lou Stokes as that
kind of moral being who added stature to the business of government
will be remembered. We will try to follow in your footsteps. God bless
you and best wishes to you always, and to your family.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today and take this opportunity to
join with my colleagues in paying tribute to an unusual human being. I
am delighted to be a part of this tribute, because long before I came
to the Congress of the United States of America, I knew who Lou Stokes
was. But, of course, most African-Americans in this country not only
knew who Lou Stokes was, they knew about Lou Stokes and Carl Stokes.
Because Lou Stokes and his brother Carl were pioneers. They were in the
forefront of African-Americans getting elected to important and high
offices. Most of us who watched them from afar aspired to be like them.
They let it be known that they were prepared to work hard, to do what
was necessary to provide leadership to this Nation. And so they helped
to pave the way for us. We have watched and we have appreciated his
work for many years.
He was a friend of my husband's long before I met my husband in
Cleveland. My husband played for the Cleveland Browns. My husband as a
football player had to have mentors and those that he looked up to.
And, of course, it was Lou and Carl. They were the shining examples not
only of what those who wanted to be elected officials would like to be
but for all of the young men in America who were aspiring to realize
their full potential. It was the Lou and the Carl Stokes of the world
who helped them to understand what they could be, and what they should
be.
And so I want you to know, when I came to the Congress of the United
States, I came with full knowledge and appreciation for Lou Stokes. And
as chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, I stepped into this role
and this position behind many great individuals. Lou Stokes was one of
those. He took over the chairmanship of the Caucus in 1972, and he
served in 1972, 1973 and 1974 following the resignation of Mr. Diggs.
And he set the tone. And he helped to make the rules. This was after he
had helped to found the Congressional Black Caucus. They set the tone,
they made the rules, and they determined where it was going to go, and
what we should do, those of us coming behind them.
And so in my work today, I have to ask myself almost on a daily
basis, what would Lou Stokes do in this case, in this situation.
{time} 1845
What must I do to follow in that tradition? How must I make decisions
that will make him proud of me and my work? So I have to look at what
he has done.
Let me just say for the Congressional Black Caucus, we look to him
for guidance all the time. When we are going down the wrong path, we
will get a
[[Page H6235]]
visit in the Congressional Black Caucus from Lou Stokes, and he will
quietly join in the discussion, and he will tell us what he thinks. No
one has anything else to say after Lou has spoken. When Lou speaks, the
world listens.
We know that when he takes time to give us his guidance that we
should take it, and we do. I have a real appreciation for that, because
this is a man who is not only a great family man, who has the kind of
marriage and family that is a guide to what we should all try and do,
he and his wife are a team.
When you see them together, you know right away that Jay and Lou
Stokes have profound respect for each other, and they work together,
not only in the guidance of their family, but carrying out much of the
work of the Caucus and the spouses and this Congress.
This man, whose wife is his soul mate and his teammate have four
wonderful, accomplished children and, I think, about seven
grandchildren. They are truly a very strong family. I thank him for
providing that picture for America so that they can see that, not all
politicians, perhaps, are able to carry out this great family life, but
there are some who do it and do it well. Not only is he a family man,
but he is a public policy maker extraordinaire.
He really has helped to write the book about what a legislator should
do and be. Yes, he has paid attention to African-Americans in this
country. Yes, he understood that he was on the cutting edge of work
that must be done to help give recognition to and to legislate for
people who had not been legislated for in the history of the Nation.
Congressman Louis Stokes authored the Disadvantaged and Minority
Health Improvement Act that has paved the way for thousands of poor
disadvantaged and minority young people to pursue careers in the health
professions. He established the Minority Access to Research Careers
Program, the Minority Biomedical Research Support Program, the Office
of Research on Minority Health and other offices of minority health at
various Federal agencies.
He has done all of this while he certainly has been in the mainstream
legislating for all of America, working with both sides of the aisle.
He is a fine example of oftentimes what people say you cannot do.
He has paid attention to African-Americans in this country. At the
same time, he has not been locked into legislating for any one aspect.
He works better with Jerry Lewis than other Republicans do. They work
together so well, it is like watching band leaders as they plan and
plot and strategize and try to respond to the requests of their
Members.
I do not know how well Jerry Lewis does for Republicans when he is
working on their behalf, but I know what Lou Stokes does for us. I
cannot go into detail because I do not really want you to know how much
we get from that committee, but we do quite well, and that is because
of Lou Stokes. He has never turned anybody down. If you go to him with
a problem, he is going to work on it, and he is going to help to solve
it.
This giant of a man, great family man, this great public policy maker
is one of the greatest humanitarians you will ever meet any time, any
place, anywhere. He cares about individuals. He cares about human
beings. He wants to know what more can be done for the homeless and
those who are without.
So I come today to join in the chorus. I am glad the chairman gaveled
because I could talk all day about Lou Stokes, and I would do it unless
the chairman told me I could not do it any longer because there is a
lot to be said about him.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes, but I have long admired Lou
Stokes. I remember many, many years ago when I was in grade school and
I read about Lou Stokes. And he has been in public life when he had to
struggle to get elected. It was a real struggle for Lou to do the
things that he wanted to do.
I have got to tell you there is an old saying down home where I come
from, when we lived out in the country, and if you had a chance to get
away for a weekend or go somewhere, there was always a neighbor around
that you would look to and you would say I want to get them and come in
and look after my things. And Lou Stokes is the kind of a guy that I
would trust to come in and keep my house key and do up and look after
my things. He is that kind of a man.
I cannot say enough good things about Lou Stokes. His legacy will
live long after he has gone to retirement. A very dear friend of mine
in North Carolina, he has passed on now, and he always said in closing
his statements, and I will say this to Lou, Lou, I hope you live as
long as you want and never want as long as you live. Thank you so much.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to say thank you to a man who is a living
legend, a man who is a gentleman, a man who is a hero, not only an
African-American hero, but a true American hero. For surely I do not
believe that I would be standing here today in this august body as a
Member of the United States House of Representatives if it was not for
the trailblazing work of Carl and Louis Stokes.
I remember, while in high school, maybe it was junior high school,
when Carl and Louis Stokes began to run for office in the City of
Cleveland. As a young boy, I would scratch my head and say, why can we
not do that in New York? That was the beginning of me having an
opportunity to admire, look up to, having an idol, and having a hero
and a role model in Louis Stokes.
I can recall attending the great Howard University School of Law; and
while in evidence class, my professor was talking about the landmark
case of Terry versus Ohio, and said, did you know that there is a man
that works over in the Capitol that was one of the attorneys on this
landmark case? That was Louis Stokes.
I can recall attending my first Congressional Black Caucus weekend
and sitting in the seat and watching Mr. Stokes move about and being in
awe. Little did I know that, at that time, that I would be having the
pleasure and the opportunity of saying that I served, though ever so
briefly, with Louis Stokes.
I recall when Willie Mays was traded to the New York Mets, there was
a rookie on the team at that time. In the newspapers, they were asking
the rookie, when he took his first step at the plate, was he nervous?
How did he feel? All he said was, I did not even think about stepping
up to the plate. I just remember sitting next to Willie Mays.
Well, I can say that my first experience here, and being next to this
giant of a man in Louis Stokes, I shall always remember for the rest of
my life. But to have that privilege to be able to tell my children and
my grandchildren, and, hopefully, they can tell their children, that
their great grandfather had the opportunity to serve with an individual
who changed the course of history in America is an opportunity that I
could not pass.
I thank God for that opportunity. I thank God for the legend, for the
man who epitomizes what a legislator should be, who talks the talk,
walks the walk, and the main thing is gets results.
My predecessor, I asked him before I came, I said, you have been
successful, and many people have said that I have big shoes to fill.
How were you able to accomplish such things? He said, ``Well, Louis
Stokes.'' He said, ``Take advantage of all that you can while he is
there.''
The biggest loss to the House of Representatives that we will have is
losing Louis Stokes. I say to my hero, may God continue to bless you.
Keep walking on. I am so thankful I have had the opportunity to serve
with you.
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, it is easy to forget in the span of 30 years what 1968
was like. It was an extraordinary time in America. It was a time of
great difficulty and great promise.
In Cleveland, Ohio, the great promise was the light that was lighted
by the Stokes brothers. We have heard much said about that. It is a
light that has been a beacon that has stretched across this great
Nation.
But I would like to illuminate 1968 from a different point of view.
1968, the year that Lou Stokes was elected to Congress, the year that
his brother
[[Page H6236]]
served in his first year as mayor of Cleveland was, indeed, a troubled
time.
In some ways, it was more difficult than even some of the problems
that we face today. That is not to minimize the problems that we face,
but that was the year that I began to teach at Cleveland Central Junior
High School across the street from the oldest public housing project in
the United States, not far from where Louis and Carl Stokes grew up and
established their roots and blossomed into the kind of leaders that
they became.
But on that November morning in 1968, following the election of Louis
Stokes to the United States Congress, in the first classes that I
taught at Cleveland Central, the kids came into that class filled with
conversation about what this meant in their lives. It was a vague
sense, it was an unformed sense, but it was brightened by the hope and
aspirations that were giving new meaning and new life in even perhaps
the most troubled year that this Nation had endured since the Second
World War. It was a vision of hope.
We have heard a great deal said today about the enormity of the model
that Louis Stokes established for children, adults, people all across
this Nation in very large ways. But just let me say to my colleagues
that those 600 kids that I had the privilege of teaching across the
street from that housing project and who came in that classroom that
next morning and said, you know, he is from our neighborhood, the
opportunities that have been given to them as a product of the model
that Louis Stokes has represented is more than that.
It is not only the model and the example, it is the real world
opportunity, not only to run for office but, as we have heard, to
undertake careers unthought of before, careers in law, in medicine, in
research, in science, and industry. But just as important, careers as
policemen and as firemen and working in places that they might a
generation before never have had the opportunity to work.
That is not just a model. That is day-in and day-out effort to live
in places of decency and cleanliness, to grow up in cities that are
safe, to have access to what we speak frequently of as the finest
health care delivery system in the world, it means little if you do not
have access to it.
It has meant a time in which we have seen the life-span of Americans
increase 10 years in the last 30 and even more than that for African-
Americans. That is a contribution of enormous effort that saw its light
bloom in the eyes of hundreds of kids across the City of Cleveland as
they came back to school that morning the first Wednesday after the
first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of 1968.
Their lives have been changed in ways large and small, and they will
change the lives of others in ways that will spread throughout a
Nation. It has been because of the work of Lou Stokes and the example
that he has set for so many others. It has been a privilege to serve
with him, and we look forward to his guidance for years to come.
{time} 1900
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I know Lou Stokes well enough to know that by now he is
very uncomfortable, and I am not going to take five minutes making him
more uncomfortable, because the more amazing things we say about him,
the more uncomfortable Lou will become, and I can see him squirming in
his seat now with discomfort.
I met this man, and I am sure Lou does not remember this, before I
came to Congress, in Charlotte, North Carolina, when he was visiting
with friends there and visiting his daughter, who was an anchor person
in Charlotte. Neither Lou nor I had any expectation that I would ever
be a member of Congress. I remember going away that evening after
having met him saying, ``That is a really nice guy.'' I was not a
colleague then. He did not even know me. And I think it is that quality
that people pick up on that says something about Lou Stokes.
It is easy to be nice to people that you know and respect as your
equal, that you are colleagues with, but it takes a special person, a
humble person, to respect and be nice to everybody, and I have yet to
ever see Lou Stokes not be nice to anybody.
It is that quality that I think I respect and love about Lou Stokes
and that I will always remember, and that is a personal feeling that I
have about it. That aspect of it I cannot ever get away from. Aside
from all of the wonderful things he has accomplished, I just know that
this man is humble enough and respects the views and respects other
people enough to always be nice to them. I just want to tell him how
much I have enjoyed his friendship and being in the same body with him.
I will yield back, so as not to continue to make him more
uncomfortable.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to join the chorus of statements about our
colleague and friend, Lou Stokes. It is clear that this is not an
ordinary member of Congress, when you see the number of people coming
in to speak today.
I just want to say from my own memories, for people who are
interested in the struggle for justice in America, in the second year
of high school we learned who Lou Stokes was. Again, with great names
like Mo Udall and others, he served in Congress. Like many of the
people here, I never expected to have the privilege of serving with
him.
I think my friend is correct, he is a little uncomfortable in this
position and the time we are taking, but I would think that everyone
recognizes the 30 year contribution, not just being here, but the
contribution you have made to this government, to this country and its
people, is well deserving of the praise. I am just privileged to have
spent the last 18 years here serving with you. Like many others, I have
admired your ability to fight hard, stay civil and stay committed to
the things you believe in.
Thank you very much.
Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I am also very pleased to rise in this tribute to my
good and long time friend and colleague, Congressman Lou Stokes, who
has really been an inspiration to me personally and such a hero to many
people throughout this country, including myself.
At a time when public cynicism about elected officials runs rampant,
Congressman Stokes has been the embodiment of all that is good and
positive about public service. During a political year marked by
bitterness and animosity, Lou Stokes has remained a model of decorum,
diligence, dignity and passionate commitment to the task of improving
the quality of life for millions of Americans.
He has been there to fight the good fight on behalf of better
housing, access to quality health care, a cleaner environment, the
protection of benefits for veterans and for senior citizens, those who
are the most vulnerable among us.
Even before my election to Congress, I had the pleasure of getting to
know Congressman Stokes and his late brother, Carl, who served as Mayor
of Cleveland and later Ambassador to the Seychelles.
As you know, it was Congressman Stokes who managed that election in
the late sixties, and it was his skill and Carl's ability that made
that election successful, the first major city in the eastern part of
the United States to elect an African American mayor, at a time when
there was a tremendous amount of civil unrest. In my City of Newark, in
1967, there was a rebellion and 28 people were killed. So it was a time
of great tenseness. But it took a combination of a Lou Stokes managing
and a Carl Stokes, descendants of slaves, out opposing a descendant of
a former president, if my facts are correct.
So Mr. Stokes has done so much. My brother Bill, who is now a New
Jersey assemblyman, and I were fortunate to form a friendship and
working relationship with Lou and Carl, and we certainly were deeply
saddened by Carl's passing in 1996.
Congressman Stokes has been a true friend, going the extra mile, and
never asking for anything in return. When I decided to run for the
prestigious and awesome position of Chair of the Congressional Black
Caucus in 1993 to serve in the 104th Congress, I went to
[[Page H6237]]
Congressman Stokes and said I was interested and sought his approval.
He simply gave me advice and encouraged me to move forward. He said,
``It is going to be a tough election, but, more importantly, if you are
successful, it is going to be a tough position, and if you are not
ready for it, don't seek it.'' I assured him I was ready, and, once I
was elected, I always looked to Mr. Stokes for guidance.
Recently on an occasion I had the privilege just several months ago
for Mr. Stokes to visit my district. He was kind enough to accept an
invitation to be a guest speaker at an event in my honor. Mr. Stokes is
very punctual, and he got to my city about an hour early. I had to rush
and speed up to meet him at the airport. We decided, since we were
early, we had a few moments, and stopped by a local eatery in my
district called Mrs. Dee's.
Well, I go there often, but I never get the excitement that I got
when Congressman Stokes came in. Even people in my district who did not
know who I was ran up, and I said gee, I guess I am moving up in my
recognition factor. And they all rushed right by me to grab Congressman
Stokes and said, ``We are so happy to see you.'' I looked around, and
the place went by me to just shake the hand of Congressman Stokes. That
is the type of person he is. We were so honored, because he is a man of
humble beginnings.
Recently many of you may know he received an award for being one of
the most prestigious ``graduates,'' I guess we could say, from public
housing, and that was a great honor, to be recognized in this country
as a person who really looked out for the little guy, for those
struggling on a daily basis to hold their lives together, to provide
for their children.
When I walk through my district, I see visible reminders of what Lou
Stokes has produced during his years in Congress. As a senior member of
the House Committee on Appropriations, Congressman Stokes' door was
always open. When I sought his assistance for initiatives of importance
to my constituents, because of his efforts, we have been able to make
improvements in housing, to restore a public park known as Weequahic
Park, to help abandoned infants and children stricken with HIV, to
train students for health and science-related work at a site called
Science Park, to take a rundown and economically distressed area and
turn it into a revitalized waterfront, and now we have a world class
performing arts center.
Congressman Stokes has been a tireless crusader for what is right and
just. He has made an enormous contribution to the field of health care,
notably minority health issues, which have been shortchanged for so
many years.
Mr. Speaker, we will surely miss our friend Lou Stokes and Jay, his
wonderful wife, but we know that he will continue to use his talents
and to voice his concerns long after he leaves this institution. We
wish him well as he enters the next phase of his life, and we thank him
for all he has done for this institution and for his country.
When this Congressional Record is printed tonight, when I receive my
copy tomorrow, I am going to have copies sent to my local libraries,
and we are going to have copies made to distribute to students in my
district who feel shut out, who feel that they cannot make it. I am
going to ask teachers to use this Congressional Record as a teaching
tool, so that they can understand how many great African American
persons are still amongst us.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening because I have Lou Stokes on my
mind and Lou Stokes in my heart. I never met a man who exudes the kind
of quiet leadership, the kind of quiet power, who has ever exuded the
kind of excellence that Lou Stokes exudes on a day-to-day basis.
Lou Stokes' quiet leadership has endured throughout his tenure in
this body. We have heard other Members talk about his soft-spokeness,
but even with that soft-spoken voice, his message has resounded beyond
the halls of this Congress.
When he speaks, his views contain a depth of knowledge and
understanding and compassion that is unsurpassed. Lou Stokes has been
an unwavering knight fighting on behalf of the underserved, those who
have no voice, those who are outcast in this society. He has used a
sword of public consciousness to slay the dragon of indifference. No
matter what the issue is, whether it is housing, health care, civil
rights, he has always remained at the roundtable of courage.
Lou Stokes, Mr. Chairman, is an individual that you cannot help but
love and respect.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that God almighty ordains us, calls us to
different types of ministries, and I believe that God has called Lou
Stokes to the ministry of public service. I know that Lou Stokes has
answered that call, because I know that people who right now feel as
though they have no friend at all in government, who feel as the
government does not represent them, does not care about them, I know
that they all feel a certain affinity and love and respect for Lou
Stokes, because Lou Stokes goes against the grain.
{time} 1915
He stands up and represents those who are disheartened, those who are
dispossessed, those who are outcasts. I have such a profound respect
for Lou Stokes, Mr. Chairman, that I cannot even express it in words. I
have such a love for this man, for his quiet strength, for his example.
Mr. Chairman, he is like still water that runs deep. He is a man who
has compassion and understanding. He serves as an example for us all,
Mr. Chairman, and for all of those young men, poor young men who feel a
certain hostility toward the world because the world has not shown any
love and compassion to them. Lou Stokes serves as an example for those
who are suffering in public housing projects throughout this Nation
today; for those individuals who are hungry as we speak; for those
individuals who find themselves in the most humble of existences. He
serves as a solid example for us all.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to take a moment to inform Members about a
young man, 22-years-old, who decided at an early age that he was going
to fight for change in America, a man who decided that after serving in
the army for 4 years, that indeed, he was going to put on a new
uniform, a uniform fighting for those who were being discriminated
against and fighting for those who were victims of prejudice and
biases. This young man joined an organization, Mr. Chairman, and it was
a very controversial organization, and indeed, this organization stood
for defending itself against one of the many issues that confronted
people, police brutality, in the City of Chicago. This was in late
1969.
There was an altercation with members of the Chicago police
department. Two members of this organization were killed and 7 members
were wounded. Young people 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 years old who
found themselves in this organization felt as though the world had
turned upside down, the world had turned on them. The law enforcement
agencies of this country had aimed their mass weaponry at these
individuals. They did not know which way to turn, looking at the
military might of the law enforcement agencies of this Nation. After
Fred Hampton and Mark Clark were killed, chaos reigned, fear reigned.
Mr. Chairman, at a certain moment in time in Chicago, Illinois on the
West Side, Lou Stokes led a contingency of black Congressmen into
Chicago to find out what was going on, to expose the injustices that
existed at that time, and, Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues today
that his courage in leading that group of Congressmen into Chicago
deflected the bullets that were aimed at those members of that
organization. I say to my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that right now
there are only 2 members of that delegation that serve in the Congress
today: The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) and the gentleman from
Cleveland (Mr. Stokes).
This 22-year-old young man who found himself as a member of that
organization at that time, the Black Panther Party, now finds himself
as a colleague of Lou Stokes in the United States Congress. And I know,
Mr. Chairman, that my road would not have led here if Lou Stokes had
not taken a moment out of his busy life to visit the West Side of
Chicago to find out for himself what was going on.
[[Page H6238]]
That if, indeed, he had not armed himself with the shield of public
consciousness and with a shield of public opinion to deflect those
bullets, then I would not be here today.
Mr. Chairman, since I have become a member of this Congress, and in
my life I have led a pretty full life, I have seen all types of
individuals who call themselves leaders, who want people to follow them
wherever they may lead. But Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, there
is only one endearing kind of leadership, there is only one quality
that means so much that people will follow, and that is the quality
that Lou Stokes has.
Indeed, Mr. Chairman, he is a quiet warrior, but a very, very
effective warrior. He is not a flash in the pan, he is a person who
endures. His example will be a beacon light for all of those who
follow; his example will be a beacon light for all young men in America
who want to rise above their conditions and become and assume the
mantle of greatness.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, just about a week or so ago I told Congressman Stokes
that I had been preparing remarks for this occasion. The truth of the
matter is, Mr. Stokes, I really do not want to say goodbye, and that is
the honest to God truth.
On the day that Congressman Stokes was born, February 23, 1925, there
was no African-American representation in the United States Congress.
In fact, there had not been for a quarter of a century since January 1
of 1901, when George White of South Carolina said that, ``One day,
Phoenix-like, we will be back.'' There had been 22 African-Americans
that had served in Congress between 1870 and 1901, the first
Congressional Black Caucus, but we did not return until Oscar DePriest,
a Republican from Illinois, won the election in November of 1928. Louis
Stokes at that time was 4 years old.
Forty years later, Louis Stokes was elected to the United States
Congress on his first bid for public office, the first and only
African-American ever elected to Congress from the Buckeye, or as the
politics were known 130 years ago, the butternut State of Ohio. I am
the 91st African-American ever elected to Congress. Congressman Stokes
was elected to the 91st Congress and has served 15 consecutive terms 30
years since then. I was 3 years old when he came to this institution.
For perspective, there are been 11,544 Americans to serve in
Congress, and only 103 African-Americans have ever had the privilege of
serving in the Congress and in the Senate. Of the 103 African-Americans
who have served in Congress, Lou Stokes, Mr. Stokes, is a world
historical figure.
As a founding member of the second and current Congressional Black
Caucus and as the Chairman of the CBC's Brain Trust on Health, he is
the leading African for addressing health care needs in African-
American communities. To his leadership on the special Committee on
Intelligence, investigating the possible conspiratorial deaths of
Martin Luther King, Jr. and President John F. Kennedy, to his current
role as the third ranking minority member on the Committee on
Appropriations, to the ranking minority members of the Subcommittee on
Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and Independent
Agencies, to his 11th ranking seniority among all Members of Congress,
to his ninth ranking membership amongst all Democrats, to the recent
passage on June 9, 1998 of H.R. 1635, the National Underground Railroad
Network to Freedom Act, he has been a good man and an effective
legislator.
With elections every 2 years for 435 Members of this body, some
Members come and go having never left their mark or impacting the lives
of their constituents. But as a result of his 10 tours in this body,
our young people can grow up with greater expectations and brighter
futures, with more health care options, with better affordable housing
options and more equal educational opportunities.
I am here today to say thank you to Lou Stokes, thank you because
there have been in his 30 years no letdowns, no scandals, no public
embarrassment, no funny money, nothing that has shamed us. Nothing that
is associated with the name ``Mr. Lou Stokes'' that brings a lack of
dignity to those of us who long so hard for the opportunity to serve.
So, I cannot honor Mr. Stokes enough.
When I first came to Congress all of my colleagues said, please call
me by my first name because we are colleagues now. Chairman Lewis says,
call me Jerry and Ray LaHood says, call me Ray, and Roemer says, call
me Tim, and others want to be called by their first name. But I always
called Chairman Stokes Mr. Stokes. Why? Because I cannot thank him
enough for all of the health care that he has fought for, for all of
the options that he has fought to open up America for more people; I
cannot thank him for every affordable housing fight that he
participated in. I cannot thank him for every dollar that he
appropriated for historically black colleges. I cannot thank him enough
for all that he has done for so many families, for people that do not
even know his name, I cannot say thank you enough. So the only way that
I have honored Mr. Stokes is by calling him Mr. Stokes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think everyone here has enjoyed the
comments that we have heard about our colleague, Lou. As my colleagues
know, we have a lot of business yet tonight. There is no desire on the
part of anyone to prevent anyone from speaking, but in order to avoid
some time problems, I think it would be useful if we could get an
agreement.
I asked Lou if he thought it would be appropriate so that we do not
unfairly shut this off, and yet can move on with our business, to ask
unanimous consent that this continue for another 10 minutes with the
time being divided equally among those who still would like to make
comments, and then we can move on to a call of the House so that Lou
can respond to all of these comments when we have a full House, and
then we could move on with the rest of the evening.
Mr. Chairman, I asked the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) if
this meets with his approval, and it does.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, could I ask the Chair to ascertain how many
speakers remain so that we can divide the time?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would request that all individuals wishing to
speak so notify. Apparently 5, the Chair would state to the gentleman
from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Five people, all right.
Mr. Chairman, let me explain to my colleagues. All we need is to know
how many people want to speak and then we will divide the time equally
so that everyone gets a fair shot at it.
The CHAIRMAN. The responsibility of counting has been left to the
gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Well, I see 140.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I will get a list and I will yield to
everyone 1 minute.
Could I start by yielding 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Jefferson).
{time} 1930
Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say something to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) tonight. I will not have time enough
to say all that I want to say, but it is time enough to bring an end,
someone had to, a merciful end, to this line of tributes to the
gentleman.
Lou, I want to say what has struck me most about you is your
capability for love for all of your colleagues, for the institutions
that has served us all so well, the Congressional Black Caucus and the
many other institutions here, and for the institution of Congress
itself. That you have a great and enduring sense of humor. You and I
find time to laugh on this floor all the time, and you have proven you
can have fun and get something done and that while we have serious
business to conduct, we do not have to take ourselves too seriously.
You have been deeply concerned about affecting the lives of other
people. Your work has actually done that. The children who have lived
in public housing over the years, and who live there now, people who
are aspiring to get a house for the first time with the
[[Page H6239]]
help of your committee, and the veterans who have given so much to
their country are benefiting from what you have done. Long after you
are gone, not generally from this place but from this Earth, there will
be folks whose lives have grown out of your life. You have made a
difference from that respect.
Lou, you are the best example of a Congressman that I have
encountered in this body and I hope that in some small way I could be
an example for others as you have been to all of us.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Stokes well knows,
there is not one of us that did not want to come to the floor and share
with him his life, his life history and his eloquence.
Mr. Stokes, you were elected to this Congress in 1968, the year of
the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy. You also
rose to the highest heights of arguing in the United States Supreme
Court; you eloquently made the argument that just because of the color
of your skin, you should not be stopped along the streets and highways
and byways of this Nation without any rhyme or reason. The Supreme
Court agreed with you.
I thank you for who you are. You know, I claimed you long ago as a
mentor. When I came to the Select Committee on Assassinations, it was
your kindly demeanor that encouraged me as a young committee staff
attorney to become involved in public service. You have no shame of
being an African-American. I think the fact that we come here and say
you are the first of this and the first of that, there is no shame
because you have led the way.
On behalf of black institutions like Texas Southern University and
other such colleges around the Nation, we thank you for being the
father of traditionally black colleges. And all of America thanks you
for helping the least of our brothers and sisters, whether they are in
Appalachia or Cleveland or Houston or Los Angeles or New York. You made
sure they were housed, you made sure they were fed, and you made sure
they had good medical care.
To your wife, Jay, and the family, I say we love you and we believe
that this Nation's fabric will be woven with your legacy.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to echo the
sentiments that have already been expressed by all of my colleagues,
that Lou Stokes has no peer when it comes to service, dedication, and
generosity.
We have already heard of all of his accolades. I guess Kipling must
have been thinking about him when he penned those words that said, ``If
you can walk with kings and not lose the common touch, if all men
matters with you, but none too much.'' And finally Lou, ``If you can
feel the unforgiven moment with 60 seconds worth of distance run, yours
will be the world and all that is in it. And what is more, you are a
man, my son.''
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, although I have only had the privilege of serving with
Mr. Stokes for the past 11 years, our families go way back. And so it
is a personal as well as congressional privilege to rise and pay homage
to him.
Since the time has been shortened, I will have to associate myself
with the remarks of our colleagues who have gone before and just to say
that the Stokes name is legendary in my family. My brother, Thomas
D'Alesandro, III, served with Carl Stokes as mayors in the late 1960s
and 1970s, those difficult urban years. Carl Stokes was one of the
first black mayors of a big American city, mayor of Cleveland.
And Lou Stokes, there are some people who are just born with a
special grace and those of us who are fortunate to work with them know
who they are. Every day that we come to work we learn from you. Every
day that we come to work we are inspired by your fight for people with
AIDS in the minority community, your fight for economic and social
justice, the lessons you teach us on how to resolve conflict in a
gracious manner.
I always say that the greatest tribute to Mrs. Stokes, your mother,
is the wonderful public life and private lives of Carl and Lou Stokes.
Carl went on to be ambassador to the Seychelles. And now my daughter is
a friend of young Carl Stokes in California, so the tradition goes on.
Mr. Stokes, you will be sorely missed. It was a privilege to call you
colleague.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Stokes, I think you know a lot about somebody by the
company they keep and by the family and the service that they have
provided to this country. You come from such a distinguished family of
service. Your brother Carl Stokes and you have been the epitome of a
public servant.
I remember going before the Committee on Appropriations not too long
ago as a freshman and testifying on Closeup and TRIO. It was a long
day. You had heard probably 10 or 11 hours of testimony, but when
somebody testified about helping kids and the underprivileged, you
perked up. You asked all kinds of questions and you said, ``We have to
support those programs.'' That was the example that Lou Stokes showed
to me.
You have also always stood up for the economically disenfranchised,
for the emotionally discouraged, and you have lived Bobby Kennedy's
slogan: When one of us prospers, we all prosper. When one of us fail so
do we all.
You have ensured so much prospering on the part of the
underprivileged and tried to ensure so little failure. We all thank you
and salute you.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns).
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to join my colleagues in
expressing my views and my feelings about Lou Stokes.
Lou Stokes is a very interesting person. He has the ability to
persuade. I remember some years ago when I was chair of the
Congressional Black Caucus that a group in Cleveland had invited me to
speak. I indicated to them on the phone that I could not do it. I sent
them a later indicating that I could not do it, and then I had my staff
to tell them that I could not do it. And all the sudden I am walking
and Lou stopped me and put a hand on my shoulder and said I would like
very much for you to go and address the group in Cleveland. And I said,
``Lou, I would be delighted to go and address the group in Cleveland.
But I have a problem. I have already sent them a letter.'' And he said,
``I am sure you could straighten that out.''
Mr. Chairman, I must admit I sent them a letter saying it was a
mistake, I would be coming. I want people to know that Lou Stokes is
very interesting in a lot of ways.
Also, another thing I would like to comment about the gentleman,
being around this body here now for 16 years and watching Members, Lou
is special in another way. When you ask Lou for help, he does not do
like a lot of Members in this body, call a press conference on you. Lou
is not the kind of person that when you ask for help he calls a press
conference, and then when he indicates he is going to help you he calls
a big process conference. And then if he does it, he calls a real big
one.
He is not like that. Lou Stokes is the kind of guy that very quietly
will do whatever he can do to make life better for you as a Member and
your constituents.
Lou, we will miss you in this body. In all the years that I have been
here I cannot think of a finer Member than Lou Stokes. What a man. What
a man. We will miss you.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have been in and out of the Chambers for
the last several hours waiting for an opportunity to come in and say a
few words. This has really been unprecedented to see so many Members
want to come forward to pay tribute to our colleague. One minute is
inadequate but so would 5 minutes be inadequate to say the kinds of
things that Lou Stokes deserves to hear.
[[Page H6240]]
Different Members leave different imprints for their service. Few
Members can match the difference that Lou Stokes has made in this
country and in this institution.
First of all, as a colleague, he has always been helpful to people.
His integrity, his intelligence, his dedication to public service stand
out and he will always be an inspiration to all of us. He has made a
great difference to people not just in his district but all around the
country when it comes to questions like housing and education and
health care and environmental questions. I think that it is important
for us to pay tribute to him.
I want to take this moment to thank him for his friendship. He will
always serve to me as a model for what a legislator ought to be.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly pay
tribute to one of my heroes, too. Mr. Stokes is just a tremendous,
tremendous person. Earlier this year I spoke, following Maxine Waters
and Congressman Stokes, to a group here in the Capitol, and as I
explained to the people, following Maxine Waters and Lou Stokes, you
are the two people in this Capitol that are unique. One could heat this
place up faster than anybody and the other could cool this place down
faster than anybody. Those are both valuable tools and they are
wonderful tools to have.
He is a man I have tremendous respect for, just tremendous respect,
because he is a kind person and he treats people with respect. He
treats issues with integrity and that to me is the most important thing
a person can bring to this Chamber.
So when you go home tonight, Lou, I want you to think about Sally
Fields when she accepted that Oscar and you can say, you do not have to
say it here but you can say it there, you can say they really liked me
because, Lou, we really like you.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply say I know that this has taken a long
time tonight and I know that it has made some people nervous who want
to get on with the business of the House. All I would say is with all
of the matters that come before this House that divide us, I think it
is good and crucial that from time to time we have moments of grace
like this which make this place in the end a much better place for all
of us to work in.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to pay
tribute to a great friend and a valued colleague. Louis Stokes has been
a trailblazer and, indeed, he blazed the trail for me and many others
who have struggled against racism, prejudice and economic injustice.
Since 1968, Congressman Stokes has dedicated himself to fighting for
economic and social justice for all Americans, regardless of race,
creed, color or gender. While he has been a steadfast champion for the
rights and welfare of his constituents in Cleveland, he has been no
less dedicated in his pursuit of equality and fairness for all of
America's--and the world's--disenfranchised, downtrodden and persecuted
people. I looked to the example of Congressman Stokes' service in
Congress as a guide during my service in the Texas House and Senate
before I came to Congress. I took heart from his determination and
perseverance in the face of long odds during my struggles to advocate
for the poor and dispossessed. As an African-American, I owe
Congressman Stokes a particular debt of gratitude.
Louis Stokes exemplifies the finest qualities of leadership,
dedication to public service and compassion for his fellow men and
women. He has served with distinction in the House, including his
chairmanship of the VA-HUD Subcommittee on the Appropriations Committee
for 2 years beginning with the 103rd Congress and two stints as
Chairman of the Ethics Committee during his 30 years in the House.
Congressman Stokes stands as a living symbol of the American dream,
rising from humble beginnings to the halls of Congress, the legislative
body for the most powerful country in the world. It is noteworthy, that
Congressman Stokes has never forgotten where he began, that he has
remained committed and loyal to the community that nurtured him in his
youth.
Since my election to Congress in 1992, I have turned to Louis Stokes
for advice and counsel, for guidance on how to increase my
effectiveness as a representative of my constituents. Congressman
Stokes has always been unfailingly helpful and generous with his time
and support. Congressman Stokes possess an amazing ability to bring
clarity to debates, to cut to the heart of the issue that is being
debated. He possesses an equally special talent for offering fair and
equitable solutions to problems that seemingly are intractable. His
knowledge, wisdom and leadership will be sorely missed in Congress by
Democrats and Republicans.
In considering the sadness of Congressman Louis Stokes' retirement
from Congress, there is only one bright spot. The Stokes family, who
unselfishly surrendered husband, father and grandfather because of the
demands of public service, will now have the opportunity to reclaim his
time. It is my hope that, while he will be no stranger to Washington,
that he will take a well-deserved rest and enjoy the luxury of having
quality time to spend with his family. In closing Mr. Chairman, I thank
Congressman Stokes for his leadership and friendship over the years,
and I wish him all the best for the future.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to pay tribute to my friend
and colleague from Ohio, the Honorable Louis Stokes, and to honor him
for the many accomplishments of his distinguished career. It has been
an honor to serve with him in the United States Congress.
I had the pleasure of working closely with Lou Stokes and his
dedicated staff on the Underground Railroad legislation. This
legislation will create the first link of sites connected to the
Underground Railroad, many of which are in danger of being lost. During
our three years of hard work on this bill, I had the benefit of his
guidance and counsel. Lou was willing to make this effort a completely
bipartisan one. His commitment to the passage of the legislation never
wavered, and President Clinton signed the bill this week.
Lou's accomplishments are numerous. He successfully argued a landmark
case before the U.S. Supreme Court. He served as Chairman of the House
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Chairman of the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Chairman of the House
Select Committee on Assassinations. Most importantly, he met the needs
of his constituents as only a true public servant could do. I have seen
firsthand the enormous respect Lou has both at home and nationwide. All
of us in Congress will greatly miss him.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, as we debate the Department of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999, I rise to pay tribute to
Representative Louis Stokes for his twenty years of dedicated work on
the subcommittee responsible for much of the work on this bill each
year. Representative Stokes has always been a stout defender of the
progressive and innovative efforts included in this legislation which
seek to provide more Americans with the opportunity to fulfill their
dreams.
Representative Stokes' career on the Appropriations Committee and the
Subcommittee on the Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and
Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations has left a
mark forever on this House, and most importantly, on the lives of
countless American families. I wish him luck and Godspeed in his well-
earned retirement.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join my colleagues to pay tribute
to a Member of this body who will soon be leaving us but who will long
be remembered.
Lou Stokes first came to Congress in 1969. In many ways, America was
a different nation and this chamber was a different body back then. The
concept that all Americans, regardless of race, creed, color or
background had an equal place at the national banquet table was still
new to many in our society. While our nation had theoretically believed
that ``all men are created equal'', in reality it was only eight years
since we elected our first non-Protestant President, and the number of
Afro-American Members of Congress, or for that matter, women, could be
counted on one hand. Lou Stokes' first election to Congress came only
two years after the election of the first Black to the Senate since
reconstruction.
Lou Stokes was in so many ways a pioneer and a trail blazer who by
word and example inspired a generation of leaders who have come after
him.
While I have admired Lou in many ways, I most value his active,
enthusiastic participation in our U.S. Congress-Korean National
Assembly Student Intern Exchange Program. He is the only one of my
colleagues to have participated in this program since I initiated it in
1984. He encouraged young people from his own district to apply, and
also welcomed Korean students to his own offices with open arms. Lou
did this because he always believed in universal brotherhood. He
contended that prejudice and bigotry are eradicated by knowledge and
understanding, and he was a true champion of standing up for these
beliefs.
Although Lou has compiled an enviable record in this chamber, many of
us believe he takes the greatest pride in the success of his
[[Page H6241]]
daughter, Lori, who used to be a news reporter on ABC and is now one of
the most respected of all commentators on CNN. The fair, balanced, and
intelligent presentation of the news which has become the hallmark
which has made her the talk of the nation reflects the values her
father placed upon her.
To Lou, to his wife Jeanette Francis, and to all four of their
children, we extend our best wishes for many happy, healthy, and
productive years ahead and we assure you all that this great Member of
Congress will long be missed.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, as I remind myself of that
wonderful sign on a great building in Sacramento, California,
``bringing us men to match our mountains,'' I ask unanimous consent for
a call of the Committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, a call of the Committee is ordered.
There was no objection.
The call was taken by electronic device, and the following Members
responded to their names:
[Roll No. 333]
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chenoweth
Clay
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (IL)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
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
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
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
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
{time} 2003
The CHAIRMAN. On this rollcall, 352 Members have recorded their
presence by electronic device, a quorum is present, and the Committee
will resume its business.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lewis) is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask for this time simply by
way of saying that we have just been through one of the more phenomenal
experiences I have ever experienced in the Congress, where
spontaneously this body reflected upon their own reactions to one of
our colleagues in a way that can only be the greatest of tributes to
Lou Stokes and his family.
Mr. Chairman, for all the time I have been in the Congress, it has
been my privilege to work with, get to know well, and now have as one
of my finest friends--Louis Stokes. When I first met him, I knew
immediately of the pride with which he looked to the work of his
brother, Carl, in his great mayorship that really set a tone for the
country.
Over the years, he has talked about others and the contributions they
have made. Seldom, seldom could you even get a hint that he had any
idea of the impact that he has had upon this body and upon the country.
So, it is my privilege at this time to yield to my colleague, the
gentleman from Ohio, Louis Stokes.
Mr. STOKES. I want to thank my distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for yielding to
me. But more than that, I want to thank him for providing for me today
the greatest day that I have ever experienced in the House of
Representatives.
Jerry, you and I have had a very special friendship and a very
special relationship as colleagues. I have enjoyed working with you.
You are someone for whom I have great respect and admiration not only
for your hard and tireless work efforts in this House but because you
are bright and because you are caring and you are sensitive, you are
trustworthy, and you are loyal.
You have been my friend. My wife Jay and I had the privilege of
enjoying the friendship of both you and your lovely and charming wife
Arlene, and it is something that I would cherish for all of my life.
Along with you, I want to thank the distinguished ranking member of
the Committee on Appropriations, Dave Obey, with whom I have served now
almost 30 years, and on some committees we sat right next to each other
for many, many years, worked together on many projects.
I have known a lot of people in the House over 30 years. There is
none for whom I have greater respect and admiration and none whom I
consider more of a legislative giant than the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Dave, I want you to know that I have enjoyed your friendship, I have
appreciated it, I admire you for everything you stand for, and I
appreciate all that you have represented to me and to your colleagues
in this country. It has been a great honor serving also with you.
To Bob Livingston, our ``big chairman,'' as we refer to on the
Committee on Appropriations, I want you to know, Mr. Chairman, that you
and I, too, have had an excellent working relationship over the years.
I served under 6 chairmen of the Committee on Appropriations over the
30 years. Twenty-eight years I have served on that committee. You have
been an excellent chairman. You have not only been a friend to me, you
have been someone who has always been courteous and fair and
considerate. And all of us in this body have great respect and
admiration for all that you stand for, not only this body but in this
country, and I thank you for the privilege of serving with you.
To each of my colleagues who have spoken here this afternoon in what
has been to me the greatest experience of my career, in the 30 years
that I have served here, I have never seen the type of tribute that was
accorded me this afternoon.
[[Page H6242]]
I have been touched and moved in a way that I would never forget.
Your words today will linger on in my heart for the rest of my life. It
will help embellish the enriching experience I have had of serving here
with those of you whom I consider to be the finest people in the world.
I have oftentimes, sitting on the floor or standing in this well,
pinched myself and asked if I was really here on the floor of the House
of Representatives. I was not destined to be here. I was not one who
was destined to ever serve in the House of Representatives.
As you have heard this afternoon from many of the speakers, I was
born in Cleveland, Ohio, born in a family where a young woman and a
young man fell in love and got married and had two children. Then, when
I was 3 years of age, my brother was a year old, our father died.
So my mother was left a young widow who had only an 8th grade
education. She had come from the South looking for a little better life
for herself other than working in the cotton fields in Georgia. And
here was a lady with only an 8th grade education with two young boys,
one 3 and one a year old, to try and raise.
So she did the best thing she could do. She became a domestic worker.
She went out in the heights in the suburban areas around Cleveland, in
the areas that I now represent in the United States Congress, the rich,
wealthy, white people's homes, where she scrubbed their floors, served
their dinners, took care of their children, washed their clothes,
cleaned their windows for $8 a day and bus fare. And she found that she
could not raise those two boys on $8 a day and bus fare, so she also
went on welfare.
But during that period of time, she used to speak to both Carl and I
and tell us to ``grow up to be somebody.'' She used to tell us to ``get
an education.'' Her greatest dream was that those two boys would some
day get a high school diploma. She knew that she could not send us to
college. But in her dream, she wanted to see us both get a high school
diploma. Because she had great faith in this country and she believed
if these two black boys in Cleveland could just get a high school
diploma that they could be somebody.
And she used to always say to us, ``get something in your head so you
do not have to work with your hands like I have worked with my hands
all of my life.'' And I never really understood what my mother was
talking about until one night she was very ill and I heard her in the
bedroom moaning with pain and I went into the room and I sat down by
the bed, and she was in such great pain that I reached out and grabbed
both of her hands to try to give her some solace, some comfort.
{time} 2015
When I felt those hard, calloused hands from scrubbing people's
floors, I began for the first time to understand what she meant when
she said, ``Get something in your head so you don't have to work with
your hands like I have worked with my hands all of my life.''
I went on to get my high school diploma and was drafted into service
in World War II. My brother Carl dropped out of school at 16. Carl quit
school, went out to Republic Steel to get a job, sweeping floors.
Shortly after I was drafted, he too was drafted into the service.
When I came out of service, I realized that I needed an education, I
wanted an education. Fortunately some people in the United States
Congress whom I never saw, whom I never knew, had the vision to provide
something called the GI Bill of Rights. And so I took advantage of
that.
I went home one night and told my mother that I was going to go to
college and she said, ``Well, what would you do?'' And I said, ``I get
$95 a month and I'm going to go to Western Reserve University full-
time.'' She said, ``You can't do that. You have to go to work.'' She
said, ``I've spent all these years just trying to get you and your
brother a high school diploma. I need you now to help me.''
She was right. And so I went and got a job. And I went to college
nights. I worked a job all day and went to college nights. I went on
from there to law school. I went to law school, worked a job all day,
went to law school five nights a week, sat in law class from 6 to 10
every night and studied all weekends in the library.
Carl when he came out at 21 years of age went back to East Tech High
School because he saw I was going on to college. He went back to high
school at 21, got his diploma, followed me then into college. Much of
the rest is history. He went on to become the first black Democrat to
ever be elected to the Ohio legislature, then became the first black
mayor of any major American city. He served two terms. He went on to
New York, he became an award-winning Emmy TV anchorman. He came back to
Cleveland, went back in the practice of law, got elected to a
judgeship, and then President Clinton appointed him as the United
States ambassador to the Seychelles.
I on the other hand spent 14 years practicing law as a criminal trial
lawyer. I had the opportunity to participate in three cases in the
United States Supreme Court and, as you have heard on the floor today,
argued Terry v. Ohio which has become a landmark case in criminal
constitutional law.
In this body, I was given some very historic assignments: The
privilege of chairing the Ethics Committee twice where we handled
Abscam cases. We handled the sex and drug cases involving Members of
Congress and the pages. The last case we handled was that of Geraldine
Ferraro when she was running for the vice presidency of the United
States. I was given the privilege of chairing the Assassinations
Committee investigating the assassinations of two of the greatest men,
two of the greatest Americans who ever lived, President John F. Kennedy
and Dr. Martin Luther King. I was given the privilege of being the
first African-American to chair the Intelligence Committee of the
House. The only African-American that served on the Iran-Contra
committee. I was a part of the team sent to Grenada to investigate the
invasion by the United States of that tiny island Grenada.
And so I have had a great and wonderful and historic career here.
This is why on so many occasions I have pinched myself to ask that this
man, brought up in the housing projects of Cleveland, my mother
scrubbing floors, winds up standing in the well of the United States
Congress.
Today as I say farewell to the House, having had the privilege of
working on my last VA-HUD bill, I can only say to all of you that I am
proud that I am an American. No matter what gripes we have, this is the
greatest country in the world. The story I have recited to you today of
the Stokes brothers could only happen in America. Only in America, Mr.
Chairman. Only in America.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I proudly yield back the
balance of my time that Louis Stokes and I had together.
The CHAIRMAN. The bill is open to amendment from page 52, line 3 to
page 65, line 16.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
As many Members know, I have submitted an amendment that would amend
the language in the bill submitted by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Knollenberg). The gentleman from Michigan's language makes it clear
that no funds appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency could
be used in the implementation or contemplation of implementation of the
Kyoto protocol.
In discussion with the advocates for this language on both sides of
the aisle, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman
from California (Mr. Waxman) and others, I have decided, Mr. Chairman,
not to offer my amendment, but I would like to take this time to
address the House as to why it is that I thought it was important to
offer this amendment in the first place.
The issue of the Environmental Protection Agency's activities with
regard to greenhouse gases has created suspicion on both sides of the
argument. Suspicion on the part of industry that the Environmental
Protection Agency would take a backdoor approach to implementing Kyoto.
That is a legitimate concern. In fact, the United States Congress,
namely, the Senate, has not given the authority to the Environmental
Protection Agency to implement Kyoto and it should not do that without
the proper authorization. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, the
environmental advocates in this country
[[Page H6243]]
are concerned and have a deep suspicion on the other side, and that is
that the Knollenberg language would not be used simply to prevent EPA
from implementing Kyoto but in fact would stand in the way of the
Environmental Protection Agency's legitimate role in studying
greenhouse gases and modeling CO2 throughout the atmosphere
and implementing voluntary reductions and promoting technology that
would reduce carbon dioxide and in fact regulating other pollutants
such as mercury in a way that has the least impact on the emissions of
carbon dioxide.
Why is this important, Mr. Chairman? Why is it so important that we
ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency is not stripped of
these powers? Mr. Chairman, regardless of where one stands on the
issues of climate change, there are certain facts that are absolutely
beyond scientific dispute. One of them is that we are carbon-loading
the atmosphere. We have been carbon-loading the atmosphere since the
dawn of the Industrial Age. The percentage of carbon dioxide in our
atmosphere is now 20 percent over what it was before the Industrial Age
began. The biosphere in fact consumes carbon dioxide and turns it into
oxygen. Some of my colleagues and others have said, ``Well, that is the
harmless and natural state of the planet.'' Well, it is except to the
extent that the human race in burning fossil fuels, coal, oil, gas,
wood at an increasing and dizzying pace over the last 100 years has
increased the carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere far more
than they can be consumed by the biosphere, and the trends are known
that this will get worse until we humans learn to build societies that
can meet the needs of our people without unbalancing that thin and
precious and delicate layer of the atmosphere that allows us to live in
this thin band of temperatures in which humans and other life on this
planet can live.
Mr. Chairman, we have to lead the world in research on global change,
climate change. We have to lead the world in research on greenhouse
gases. We cannot shrink from that. We cannot be in denial regardless of
the interests that would have us do that. Some of my colleagues in the
earlier debate this morning talked as if it were clear that we are
experiencing global warming today. We cannot prove that, Mr. Chairman.
We do not know that. What we do know is that this planet and its life
is far, far too precious for us to be cavalier about this issue. Our
children certainly will live in a world affected by what we do in our
generation, in our time with regard to greenhouse gases.
Mr. Chairman, I will not offer this amendment this evening, but those
of us who care passionately about this issue will watch the effects of
the Knollenberg language. If the Knollenberg language does what its
advocates purport it to do, and, that is, to simply prevent the
implementation of Kyoto in ways that are unauthorized, then that will
be fine and we will move on from there. But if this language, Mr.
Chairman, is used to subvert EPA's legitimate role in studying carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases, then we will be back here next year
and we will fight and we will not withdraw amendments because we stand
firm on the proposition that the Environmental Protection Agency must
lead this Nation in the study of this phenomenon.
{time} 2030
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Greenwood) has expired.
(On request of Mr. Waxman, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Greenwood
was allowed to proceed for 5 additional minutes.)
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to my colleague, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to identify with the outstanding
statement of my colleague from Pennsylvania who has been a leader in
this area.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the intent of the Greenwood
amendment. While my colleague will not formally offer the amendment,
it's important to understand precisely what is at stake in this
critical debate.
This debate is not about the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol could
not--and should not--be ratified in its current form, and no one should
behave as if the treaty has been ratified. On that there is total
agreement.
The problem is this: the fact that Kyoto is not acceptable right now
doesn't mean that climate change is not a potential threat. It doesn't
mean that we know everything we need to about greenhouse gas emissions.
It doesn't mean that we shouldn't be encouraging actions that would
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
So how do we strike a balance? How do we ensure that Kyoto is not
implemented while still allowing sensible research and planning and
thinking about greenhouse gas emissions to go forward? The answer is:
we strike a balance by supporting the Greenwood approach.
The Knollenberg language is a classic case of overreaching. In their
zeal to prevent ``back door implementation'' of Kyoto, the Knollenberg
backers have come up with a provision that is so broad that it would,
in effect, prevent informed debate and sensible information gathering
related to climate change. The report language accompanying the
provision makes this intent clear by explicitly directing EPA to stop
discussing ``policy underlying'' Kyoto.
What kinds of positive activities would the Knollenberg language
stop? It would stop efforts to find out more about who is emitting
greenhouse gases and about how those might be controlled. It would stop
intelligent planning under which EPA would ensure that controlling
other pollutants did not make greenhouse gas emissions worse. It would
stop efforts to develop some programs to encourage industry to reduce
emissions voluntarily. It would stop planning the other body has
requested to help determine the costs of complying with Kyoto. I could
go on and on.
Does it make sense to stop such defensible activities? What are the
Knollenberg supporters so afraid of? It seems that they believe that
any new information about climate change will weaken their case.
And remember, it's not as if Congress is powerless to influence
policy absent the Knollenberg language. If the Administration did
something foolish, such as try to declare carbon dioxide a criteria
pollutant under the Clean Air Act, Congress has ample means to block
such action without the Knollenberg rider.
So it comes down to this: regardless of how you feel about Kyoto,
regardless of whether you can imagine some policy you might want to
block, you need to support for Greenwood--that is, unless you disagree
with the vast majority of scientists and believe that there is no
chance at all that climate change is a threat.
Support for Greenwood is not necessarily support for Kyoto. Greenwood
does not give the Administration carte blanche. Greenwood wishes to
allow open, informed debate on climate change to continue. It
represents the sensible middle ground. It has earned my colleagues'
support.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Waxman) if he wishes to comment.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I
want to commend him on his statement. I think the gentleman's amendment
is one that should be passed by the House, but I respect the fact that
we are going to let the process move forward on this legislation.
I think 50 years from now, people would look back at the
appropriations bill with dismay if it were to stay in its present form,
because, as I read the bill that came out of committee, the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Council on Environmental
Quality would be restricted from educating and conducting outreach and
holding informational seminars on policies underlying the protocol
relating to the Kyoto Conference. And not only that, it would be
prevented from thinking through and developing proposals to deal with
the global climate questions.
The amendment we just adopted a while ago offered by the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) would have struck, did in fact strike the
most egregious parts of the committee's recommendation to us. I would
hope that, as this bill moves forward, there will be other approaches
that will assure those who are anxious about this matter that the
treaty, if there is one, will not be implemented until it is ratified.
We do not implement laws that have not been passed, and we do not allow
executive branch agencies to adopt regulations to enforce treaties that
have not been ratified.
I think it is a mistaken notion for fear that that treaty would be
implemented in any way to stop EPA and
[[Page H6244]]
the CEQ from going forward and thinking about strategies and developing
plans.
So I want to identify myself with your comments and to express the
fact that we made a step in the right direction with the Obey
amendment. I think we need to go much further on this issue when the
bill moves into conference.
As I understand it, the Senate has a different approach. Even Senator
Byrd has a different approach than what is in this legislation. I would
think it would be doing a disservice to the American people if we
stopped everybody from looking at this problem because the problem is
not going to go away.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the chairman of the subcommittee
in a colloquy, but first I would like to thank the chairman for all of
his hard work on a complicated and important appropriations bill which
funds the Department of Veterans, Housing and Urban Development, and
independent agencies. I would also like to commend his staff who have
so diligently worked with me on an important issue concerning my
district.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that the report language to H.R. 4194
indicates that the EPA should take no action which will utilize
dredging as a remediation tool until a joint EPA-National Academy of
Sciences study has been completed and analyzed. This study is needed to
help determine in what situations dredging is an appropriate method of
remediation.
The EPA has recently signed an action memo to begin a dredging
project of the Pine River in St. Louis, Michigan, in my district. St.
Louis badly needs EPA action, which includes dredging, to save this
important river.
It is the gentleman's understanding that the language in the report
is not intended to prevent dredging in the case of the Pine River
project and that he will work to address this issue further in
conference?
Mr. Chairman, I would yield to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, first, let me express my
appreciation for the gentleman's cooperation and the work that we have
been able to do together on this matter. Yes, it is my understanding,
as you have outlined. As we move to conference, I would be happy to
work with the gentleman to address the issue further.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for his
commitment to our Nation's environmental resources and again for his
hard work on this bill.
Amendment Offered By Mr. Waxman
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Waxman:
Page 59, after line 12, insert:
Any limitation on funds in this Act for the Environmental
Protection Agency or the Council on Environmental Quality
shall not apply to:
(1) regulatory determinations for mercury emissions from
utilities;
(2) utilizing dredging as a remediation tool;
(3) implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act;
(4) implementation of the Regional Haze Program; or
(5) cleanup requirements for facilities licensed by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
where such activities are authorized by law.
Mr. WAXMAN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, since the beginning of 1995, the House has
produced a steady stream of assaults on the environment. Bills have
been introduced to repeal the Clean Air Act, simply repeal it. Riders
have been snuck in to must pass legislation, particularly
appropriations bills, to cripple protection of endangered species,
exempt oil refineries from air pollution laws, and block the
Environmental Protection Agency from regulating arsenic levels in our
drinking water.
Earlier this year, I had thought that the House would finally halt
its war on our environment. I had hoped that the sneak attacks on the
environment would cease, and I would hope that we would reject the
antienvironment extremism that is so out of touch with American values.
Unfortunately, it seems that, once again, our environment is being
attacked. As in years passed, the VA-HUD appropriations bill contains
antienvironmental riders in both the bill and the report accompanying
this legislation which would hinder our efforts to protect the
environment under existing successful programs.
Specifically, there is language that would prevent the cleanup of
PCB-contaminated sediments, stall implementation of our pesticide
safety laws, prevent adequate cleanup of old nuclear facilities,
interfere with efforts to control air pollution in our national parks,
and block controls of dangerous mercury air pollution.
These riders do not belong in this legislation. This is a bill to
fund the EPA and other agencies. They do not belong in this bill, and
they are all an affront to every person who cares about the quality of
the air we breathe and the water we drink.
My amendment would prevent a rollback of our important and popular
environmental programs. It would strip out the environmental riders
attached to this legislation. In effect, it would halt this attack on
our environment.
One of the provisions of the bill and the report accompanying the
bill prevents EPA from regulating emissions of mercury pollution. This
provision is extremely damaging, not only to our environment, but to
people's health.
Mercury is a known toxic pollutant of special concern to pregnant
women. Important studies have been released this year on the massive
mercury air pollution caused by emissions from power plants. Yet,
despite these substantial threats for mercury, the report contains
language which could block any regulatory determinations regarding
mercury air emissions for years.
The report accompanying this bill also contains language which would
block the cleanup of PCB-contaminated sediments. PCBs are known to
cause cancer and contaminate large areas of the Hudson and Housatonic
Rivers of the Northeast and a large area off the coast of California.
Many experts have called for removing this contamination through
dredging, but the report language would prevent EPA from requiring any
dredging, leaving the local communities contaminated.
There is also language that would make it hard for EPA to ensure that
pesticides do not exceed safe levels in our food. In 1996, just 2 years
ago, Congress unanimously passed legislation to make sure that all food
is safe from pesticides that might harm infants and children.
We must allow this law to be implemented, not impede its
implementation as the report would do. The goal of my amendment is
simple. It would eliminate those and other objectionable
antienvironmental riders.
Some of my colleagues urged me not to address global warming issues
in this amendment, and I have modified my amendment so as not to
address global warming. I believe it is essential to remove those
extreme restrictions on the administration's ability to deal with
global warming, but in deference to my colleagues, the global warming
riders are not being addressed in this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Waxman was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Knollenberg provisions are not affected
in any way by this amendment. The riders my amendment addresses are
contained in the report on this bill. Technically because these
directives are report language, they are not binding on the agencies,
but that is only technical.
It is, however, important to realize that they are a message to the
agencies to not go forward with enforcing existing laws. That is why it
is important to eliminate them in order to clarify that they should not
affect the agencies in any way.
Mr. Chairman, Congress should be working to solve our environmental
problems, not working so secretly to include antienvironmental
provisions in appropriations bills at the request of many big
polluters. Let us not roll
[[Page H6245]]
back our environmental laws with these antienvironmental riders.
I urge all Members to support this amendment and give us a clean VA-
HUD appropriations bill.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, very reluctantly I rise in opposition to this amendment
by my colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). As many of
you know, Henry Waxman and I have worked on a number of issues in the
past that relate to the environment, and we have done things like
sponsoring alternative fuels for clean air purposes. The gentleman
knows of my work in connection with the clean air amendments in
California.
But having said that, let me say that this amendment, together with
some of the advertisements distributed by what can only be either
misinformed or very extreme environmentalists within that community, is
nothing less than a bizarre attempt to create controversy where none
should exist at all.
To label the committee's direction to the EPA, direction that is
contained solely within the report accompanying the bill, as somehow
being a rider is about the furthest stretch of imagination that I can
fathom. These folks are really scraping the bottom of the barrel if
their primary objections would somehow raise report language to the
level of statutory law.
But let me take just a few moments to specifically address some of
the concerns raised in the Waxman amendment. With respect to mercury,
the committee report directs the agency to, first, complete an ongoing
Federal-State study on mercury transport in Lake Superior; secondly,
complete another ongoing study on fish consumption and mercury
ingestion; and, thirdly, enter into a final study agreement with the
National Academy of Sciences in order to prepare recommendations on the
appropriate level of a mercury exposure reference dose.
Mr. Chairman, these are not new issues. The committee is merely
attempting to push the EPA to finish its research before issuing
regulations.
With respect to utilizing dredging as a remediation tool for
contaminated sediments, the committee last year asked EPA to contract
with the NAS to conduct a thorough study of this method which was
requested to be completed by April of 1999.
In part, this study was requested because EPA itself stated in a 1996
report that the preferred means of controlling sediment contamination
risk is through national recovery. Subsequently, the committee has
become aware of what may be a reversal of this policy. It occurred to
us that maybe we should let the NAS report shed some light on this
matter before we allow EPA to stir up billions of cubic yards of
contaminated sediments.
Regarding directions of the committee relative to the Food Quality
Protection Act and the Regional Haze Program, the language merely
suggests that the agency should follow both its spirit and the letter
of the law in implementing these programs. The Regional Haze Program is
a case in point.
The Clean Air Act sets up a regime for the States to develop
visibility transport commissions in order to research and monitor
visibility impairment. The law also requires EPA to report to Congress
on visibility improvements achieved through implementation of other
sections of the Clean Air Act.
These and other provisions of the law have been ignored by the
agency, and the committee's language merely directs the EPA to get
itself back on a firm statutory footing.
{time} 2045
Finally, the committee's direction with respect to cleanup
requirements for facilities licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission would do nothing more than tell EPA to maintain the status
quo with respect to regulatory oversight of nuclear facility clean up.
The Congress has given the authority to the NRC, not to the EPA. Not
surprisingly, the EPA is trying to further enlarge its domain by
claiming jurisdiction where they do not now have any. If the Congress
in its wisdom wishes to give such authority to EPA, so be it. In the
meantime, however, this body should not allow the Waxman amendment to
circumvent the law and permit his favorite government agency to grow
even larger.
Mr. Chairman, these and other directions of the committee as
contained in the report accompanying H.R. 4194 are intended to put the
EPA back on a path of following the law. None of these directions
reinterpret the law in any way. None of these directions put a
political or partisan spin on what EPA is expected to do. But, for the
life of me, Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand why anybody in this body
would want the EPA to ignore the laws that Congress has passed. For the
life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would want this agency to
enlarge its domain through its interpretation of what the law means.
Yet that is exactly what my colleague from California by way of this
amendment would allow to happen.
I strongly urge that the gentleman withdraw his amendment, and, if
not, that it be soundly defeated.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, first let me point out that one of the items mentioned
here, the regional haze regulations, are in fact one of the areas where
we are concerned that EPA may be preceding to implement a global
warming policy without that Kyoto Protocol being ratified by the
Senate. We have not definitively heard back from the agency on that
because they have not yet complied with our request for information on
the oversight hearing, but it is an area of great concern to us.
Let me also say, harking back to the amendment by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), which he withdrew, I appreciate his doing
that. I will include my statement to be put into the Record following
the discussion of that subject, including a list of all of the
countries and whether or not they are covered by the treaty and the
study and the state-by-state breakout of the economic costs.
Mr. Chairman, I would at this point yield to one of my colleagues,
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) the balance of my time
for his remarks on that subject.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, it has been interesting tonight as we have heard the
discussion here about a number of issues dealing with EPA, an agency
that I find sometimes more troubling than the IRS. They have one of the
most important jobs in this country. But if you ask your local
communities, you ask your state agencies, you ask anyone who deals with
them, they are one of the most difficult.
One of the issues that was shared here a short time ago was that the
Knollenberg language was going to prevent the EPA from doing their job.
This administration asked in this year's budget for $6.3 billion on the
Kyoto treaty and global warming. Now, they claim they do not want to
implement, but many Members have said they are going to implement and
they have done many things that would start that process.
$6.3 billion is almost equal to the EPA budget. I guess that is
beyond my imagination, that a government would ask for $6.3 billion to
market a theory, ``global warming.''
When this issue started, I asked one of the top climatologists in
America, who was having lunch with me downstairs, if there was global
warming, because I wanted his opinion. Without any doubt he just looked
at me and said, ``There is no evidence, and I have been in this
business all my life.''
I want to share with you that climate researchers do not agree
whether the earth will become warmer during the coming century.
Seventeen thousand scientists have recently signed a petition stating
that man-caused climate change does not exist, 17,000.
The petition states, in part, ``we urge the United States Government
to reject the global warming agreement and other similar proposals. The
proposed limits on greenhouse gasses would harm the environment, hinder
the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and
welfare of mankind.''
``There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of
greenhouse gasses is causing or will cause
[[Page H6246]]
catastrophic heating of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is
substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon
dioxide produces some beneficial effects upon the natural plant and
animal environment of the earth.''
One of the reasons for such certainty and optimism about the future
of these 17,000 scientists is that both written and oral history
informs us that between 900 AD and 1300 AD, the Earth warmed by some 4
to 7 degrees, 4 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit, almost exactly what the
current computer models now predict for the coming century.
Did this warm period produce the catastrophe being sold to us by
alarmists? It did not. The warming created one of the most favorable
periods in human history. Crops were plentiful, death rates diminished,
and trade and industry expanded, while art and architecture flourished.
There was less hunger, as food production surged because winters were
milder and growing seasons longer. Southern England developed the wine
industry, and Viking settlers pastured cattle in Greenland on what is
today frozen tundra. Soon after 1400, however, the good weather ended
and the world dropped into what is called the Little Ice Age.
Recently Dr. Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist with Harvard-
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and one of the Nation's leading
experts on global climate change, believes we may be nearing the end of
a solar warming cycle, and that there is a strong possibility that the
Earth will start cooling off in the early part of the 21st Century.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh)
has expired.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for
two additional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Indiana?
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I do so only
for the purpose of informing the gentleman that this amendment contains
nothing on global warming. That was discussed as a possibility in this
amendment, but, as I announced in my opening remarks, we withdrew that
particular section from the amendment. So we are not dealing with the
global warming question.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, it says we may be nearing
the end of a global solar warming cycle, and that there is a strong
possibility that the Earth will start cooling off in the early part of
the 21st Century.
Still none of the global warming computer models, the foundations for
nearly all the claims that warming is the result of man-made greenhouse
gasses, account for solar variability, and none adequately account for
the interaction between the oceans and the atmosphere, or the addition
of a large portion of the very warm South Pacific to the worldwide grid
of temperature reporting stations in the past half century. Also,
satellites and weather balloons that have been tracking temperatures
for the last 20 years show a slight cooling.
I would like to conclude my comments by saying we have 16 agencies
being funded by the EPA to propose and sell the global warming
advocacy. The Greenwood amendment, which was before us a little while
ago, in my view, I was very pleased that he withdrew that, because it
really cleverly destroyed the well-crafted Knollenberg language that
was so vital.
The interesting thing I would like to say, in conclusion, the Kyoto
treaty is so flawed, if all of the countries that have agreed to bring
it to their governments for approval follow it to the hilt, the
developing countries, the 132 which are the growth areas of the world
will more than make up for the savings. There will be no change.
It seems pretty flawed for Americans to take it in the neck and let
the developing world steal our jobs. There are many who feel that as
many as 1 million American jobs will move to Third World countries,
where there will be no controls, where there will be no penalty paid,
and our American workers will take it in the neck.
It is an ill-conceived treaty. I think it is time to send someone to
the next treaty, besides Al Gore, to negotiate a treaty that is a fair
to American workers.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think that my colleague, my friend from Pennsylvania
who preceded me, points out by example the reason we should not have
the type of language in this bill. In fact, I know it is a time-honored
tradition of the Committee on Appropriations to try and micro-manage
and administer the specifics of many laws, but the fact is, when I
voted for these laws, that is what I meant. I meant that I wanted our
Superfund dollars used to clean up the problems.
This bill prevents the use of the brownfields dollars to clean up. I
wanted the mercury out of our air. That is what I wanted the EPA to do.
This particular provision stops the EPA from implementing the removal
of mercury and of necessary standards for utilities. I wanted the PCBs
that are lining our lakes and waters and riverways cleaned up so that
it was not in our waters and riverways. This particular provision in
the bill before us micro-manages the EPA and says you cannot do that
particular dredging.
When I voted for the Food Quality Protection Act, I wanted the
pesticides out of our food, as did almost every other Member. And I do
not want some staff member or other groups that are there making a
contrary decision in appropriations report language, I want the EPA,
the scientists and the other professionals, to set those pesticide
standards so that I am not eating such pesticides, and so do the people
I represent.
When we voted for the Clean Air Act, we wanted to in fact be able to
see the Grand Canyon and the other vistas that are on our American
landscape; not putting this off and postponing it and frustrating the
implementation of these laws.
Finally, of course, we do want our radioactive waste materials
cleaned up. For my part, I think the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
needs a challenge to the type of job they have done in the past, and I
think the EPA is pursuing this. I do not want to strip them of some
responsibility with regards to radioactive wastes.
So I hope my colleagues will look at this, and recognize the
importance of letting the administrators and others that are supposed
to administer and implement our laws do their job, and not be
frustrated and hamstrung and limited by these inappropriate type of
second-guessing that is going on here, and often I think with the type
of scientific analysis I heard here on greenhouse gasses preceding me.
That is not the type of effort, that type of guessing, that type of
unusual theories that seem to abound, that I want guiding and
implementing our laws. I want the EPA and the administration, and they
are held accountable, incidentally, by courts and by results and
regulations and open hearings. Once that process gets done, which is
sometimes very, very long lengthy, takes a long time, I do not want the
Committee on Appropriations coming back and pulling the rug out from
under them and then frustrating the implementation of the laws.
That is what is happening in this instance, and that is why we need
to vote up the Waxman amendment or defeat this bill.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in very, very strong support of the Waxman
amendment. I do so because passage of this amendment is critical to
moving forward on a number of important environmental issues, including
a matter close to the hearts of many New Yorkers, cleaning up the
Hudson River.
Among the many egregious legislative riders tucked into this bill is
a provision which would delay cleaning up PCB contamination in the
Hudson River, as well as the Housatonic River in Massachusetts and
Connecticut. Thanks to 30 years of PCB discharges, the upper Hudson
River has the distinction of being one of the Nation's largest
Superfund sites. Not surprisingly, the upper Hudson River has also been
designated as one of the most endangered rivers in the United States by
[[Page H6247]]
North America's leading river conservation organization, American
Rivers.
{time} 2100
PCB contamination in the Hudson has taken a huge toll on the River's
economic recreational and environmental resources. Fish caught
throughout 200 miles of the river are contaminated at unsafe levels. As
a result, the river's commercial fishery industry, valued at more than
$40 million annually in 1976, has been almost completely closed down.
In addition, PCBs from the upper Hudson are responsible for about
half of the sediment PCB contamination in New York Harbor. This
contamination greatly increases the cost of dredging the harbor, which
is so critical to the economic vitality of the New York metropolitan
region.
Most troubling is the threat to public health posed by PCBs. These
chemicals have long been regulated as human carcinogens, and scientific
evidence continues to mount about PCBs' impact on disease resistance,
reproduction and cognitive development. For example, studies of PCBs in
the Great Lakes region have shown startling effects on the birth
weights, cognitive abilities and emotional stability of children
exposed in utero.
The EPA has spent years examining the Hudson's PCB contamination in
order to develop an appropriate cleanup plan. This process is already
years behind schedule, and that is bad enough. We certainly do not need
more delay, but that is just what this bill will do, and that is why I
urge support of the Waxman amendment, so that the long awaited cleanup
of the Hudson can move forward.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman
for yielding, for I know that she is very, very seriously concerned
about the questions that she has raised, especially about the Hudson. I
think the gentlewoman also knows that EPA has not spent years figuring
out whether dredging is the best way to solve that problem.
We are just suggesting, not in statutory language, in report
language, that EPA follow the direction of the Congress and the law.
Report language, as the gentlewoman knows, is not law. It is just
trying to get their attention, because they have been off track on this
issue and on many other issues for too long now.
So I urge the gentlewoman to actually look at our report language.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just like to
say to the Chairman, having worked on this issue since the 1970s when
there were many, many different heads of EPA, I am aware of the
complexity of this issue.
There have been serious debates on whether dredging or remediation or
covering the PCBs is the best method to move forward. However, as I
understand it, the report was completed last year, reading from a
letter from the current head of the Environmental Protection Agency,
Ms. Browner, and there are areas, such as in the Housatonic, smaller
areas, where they could move forward on the dredging.
However, there is concern, and I would appreciate any further
elaboration, that this language does hold up that process. Because of
the complexities of a river such as the Hudson, they are still
determining which is the best method, and I believe that study will not
be completed until the year 2000.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will
continue to yield, I certainly would not want to interrupt the process
here, but I think the gentlewoman knows that the National Academy of
Sciences report is not due until April of 1999, and, indeed, this is
report language that simply puts the needle where it ought to be
applied, to this agency that tends to want to do its own thing, almost
regardless of what the law says or what Congress says.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inform the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis) that the National Academy of Sciences last year
issued an authoritative report on cleanup strategies for contamination.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey)
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Waxman, and by unanimous consent, Mrs. Lowey was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, just last year the National Academy of
Sciences issued this authoritative report on cleanup strategies for
contaminated sediments. So this is just simply, they say, a provision
in the bill asking for a study.
Well, they are asking for another study and they are telling EPA, do
not do anything, after all these years of studying, after all the years
of working on this problem with the National Academy of Sciences
telling us that there are strategies that we ought to be using to
protect people from PCBs. For God's sake, that is what causes cancer,
and they want to stop indefinitely the EPA from acting until another
study and another study and another study. It is a dilatory tactic.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to remind
my colleagues that I began working on this issue when I was at the
Department of State in the 1970s. EPA has delayed this and delayed this
decision. We are concerned. As I said, the decision has been delayed
and delayed because of the complexity of the issue.
As I understand it, the decision has just been delayed 18 months
again, will not be completed, and the decision will not be made until
after the year 2000. There is great concern from Carol Browner that
this language would then delay it even further.
So for many of us who are concerned about this issue, who respect the
complexity of the decision, we feel after this report has been filed,
it is time to move forward, based on the scientific evidence and make
an appropriate decision.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman
yielding. The question really is by way of comment. The gentlewoman
knows that there will be huge amounts of material if dredging is the
way we solve this problem. As of this moment I do not believe EPA can
tell us what they are going to do with that material. Maybe we are
going to create another huge Superfund site, that they can have another
area of activity to broaden their responsibilities. But, indeed, all we
are doing is by way of report language, no weight of law, per se,
nudging this agency to get back on track.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mrs. Lowey was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like again to say to my
distinguished chairman that we understand the complexity of the Hudson.
It has already been delayed an additional 18 months, after many years
of delay, but it is my understanding from Carol Browner that there are
areas, such as the Housatonic, which could move forward, could be an
important demonstration, so we can make an appropriate decision as to
what to do with the Hudson, understanding the complexities, and this
report language would just delay further.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would yield
further, in the Housatonic, I believe they are planning to dredge 12
miles of the river. I have no idea what they are going to do with that
dredging material. But, in the meantime, it is amazing to me that my
colleague from California would raise the statutory level, when the
report language is simply trying to urge this agency to get back on
track and follow the laws we have outlined.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, this language does limit the agency. I do
[[Page H6248]]
not think it is binding, but they feel a limitation when the committee
that is appropriating their money to stay in existence tells them not
to do anything until you get another study, and this additional study
would keep them from doing things like putting a cap on settlement of
PCBs.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I oppose the Waxman amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to take a couple of seconds, as I was
unable to be here when this House paid tribute to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Stokes).
This last month I heard four of the greatest speeches of my life: The
speeches of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson); the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton); the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hyde) today; and certainly the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes).
Cleveland would not have transformed itself into the great city it is
without Mr. Stokes, who never got the credit for that politically.
Without Lou Stokes, Cleveland would not be the city it is.
Mr. Chairman, we will be through our committee finding a building to
name to pay tribute to our great distinguished leader from Ohio, and I
would ask all of my colleagues to cosponsor that when the building is
selected.
Today I heard one of the finest speeches I have ever heard from the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes), and we are very proud of him.
With that, I oppose the Waxman amendment. I think the Environmental
Protection Agency has got into a little too much all over our country,
and I think there is a balance between jobs and protection, and
sometimes we have been a little zealous.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support
of the Waxman amendment. This is the amendment that would allow the
agencies covered by this bill to continue to carry out the laws of the
land, as is their constitutional responsibility.
What we see in this legislation, whether it is in legislative
language or whether it is report language, is we see a continuation of
an assault by the Republican Party of the environmental laws of this
country, the very basic, basic fundamental laws of this country, clean
air and clean water.
They tried it once in a frontal assault in 1995. They were turned
back by the minority in the Congress, and they were turned back by the
American public. Since that time they have been having tree planting
days, they have recognized the African elephant, they have tried to
recognize the Year of the Ocean, and they have had Tropical Rain Forest
Week, all of which was to suggest that they were environmentalists.
They have issued instructions to the Republican majority to plant
trees, invite the press, try to show up at environmental events, to
give themselves a ``green'' look. But when it comes to the hard ball
legislation, they are right back at it.
In this bill, what they seek to do is to keep the Environmental
Protection Agency of the United States of America from doing its job.
What is its job? It is to protect the American public from the
polluters who would pollute our waterways, our lakes and our streams,
our recreational areas; it is to protect the American public from the
polluters who would pollute our air as it moves across all
jurisdictions. It is a national problem. Emissions in one area cause
cancer and in another area cause asthma and in another area cause
children to have serious health disruptions.
That is what its job is, is to protect Americans. It is the
Environmental Protection Agency. It is to make sure that in fact
Americans have the ability to have a quality of life that they think
that they are entitled to. Maybe the Republicans do not support the
Environmental Protection Agency, but over 80 percent of the American
public supports the Environmental Protection Agency, because they know
that it is all that stands between them and the corporate greed of the
polluters, the same polluters who have polluted our streams and
polluted our water, the huge corporate farms that pollute the waters of
the central valley or the waters of the Midwest now as they run huge
hog operations, the same polluters who dump into the Chesapeake Bay.
They were not turned back by voluntary action.
San Francisco Bay was cleaned up and is being cleaned up because of
the EPA. The Chesapeake Bay is being cleaned up because of the EPA. The
Great Lakes are being cleaned up because of the EPA. The air today is
cleaner in California than it was 20 years ago because of the EPA.
Now they want to strip that. Why? Because we have a very effective
and tough administrator. They have dragged her up here time and again
in front of numerous committees to beat up on her, and most of them do
not have enough comprehension of the subject matter to ask a question.
But they are going to continue to do it. It is a little disingenuous,
unless one just showed up in Congress in the last week or two to say,
well, this is just report language.
No, this is not just report language, this is a means by which, in a
few months from now, if EPA does not do what they want to do, they will
drag them up in front of the committees; they will accuse them of not
carrying out the will of the Congress; they will beat up on the
administrator; they will beat up on the regional people; they will tell
them they are exceeding their authority. Why? Because they are trying
to get to the Election Day, when they think they can take over the
presidency and get rid of EPA. So they want to delay all of these
projects, the cleanup of the Hudson River, the brownfields, the cleanup
of the Superfund sites, the mercury emission standards, and all of the
rest of it. They are trying to delay that. Why? Because their corporate
clients want them to delay that, because they think they will get a
better shake after the next presidential election.
This is fundamental politics. This is about our environment. This is
about whether our children have a safe home, a safe environment and a
safe school, because nobody volunteered to clean it up. They had to be
taken to court and they had to have regulations issued, and that has
been the 30-year history of this agency. It is what has made America
better, it is what has made our schools safe, it is what has given our
children the chance to have a decent neighborhood and to breath clean
air, to reclaim the rivers that when I came to Congress were on fire,
rivers we could not touch. When I came to Congress, they told us,
``Don't touch the Potomac River.'' Today people water ski and they have
crew races. That is because of the EPA.
Now, the oil companies do not like it, and the chemical companies do
not like it, and the mining companies do not like it, and the big
farmers do not like it. Who gives a damn? The American people like it.
The American people like it, because they can see the tangible
benefits.
So let us not pretend that this amendment somehow is only report
language, that this is just an innocent effort.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller
of California) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Miller of California was allowed to
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would caution the Member against the use of
profanity.
Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, this is not an innocent effort. This is going around
through the back door, because politically they are afraid to go
through the front door because they were turned back by the American
people. When the American people understood what the Republicans meant
by regulatory reform, they overwhelmingly rejected it and it was
abandoned.
The American people know a good deal when they see it, and the
Environmental Protection Agency is a very, very good deal for the
American public.
{time} 2115
It is a very, very good deal for the health of the American public,
and it is a very, very good deal for the health of the American
environment.
[[Page H6249]]
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALVERT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman
from California (Mr. Calvert) yielding to me. I asked him to yield to
respond in part to the comments made by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Miller).
Mr. Chairman, I must say that my colleague knows very well of my
involvement, my personal involvement, in environmental matters over the
years I have been involved in public affairs. I wrote the law that
created the toughest air quality management district in the country
that others are trying to replicate--the South Coast Air Quality
Management District. To suggest that we are not concerned about air and
about these other matters, to say the least, extremism.
I further object to the gentleman from California suggesting that we
would design these report language items in order to bring people
before our committee and beat them over the head or otherwise. I do not
know how the gentleman ran his committee when he was Chair, but we do
not bring people in to beat them over the head.
We are in the business of responsibly developing public policy
direction here, and to have that kind of frontal attack is not helpful,
acceptable, or appreciated by this Member.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waxman amendment and I
thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for offering this
amendment and allowing me to speak on this amendment and doing what he
has done on his committee, to protect our environment.
This amendment would eliminate controversial anti-environmental
riders that threaten the public health and safety of citizens from my
State of Connecticut and from States across this Nation.
This amendment would override language that interferes with agency
actions to protect our environment and clean up hazardous waste
materials in our rivers and in contaminated industrial sites known as
brownfields.
The Waxman amendment is particularly important in my home State of
Connecticut, because it will allow the dredging of the Housatonic River
to clean the riverbed that has been contaminated with PCBs. The
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and the
Environmental Protection Agency have both stated that the prohibition
on the use of dredging as a means to clean up the river pose a serious
threat to the ability to take the next actions to control immediate
threats to public health.
Exposure to PCBs is dangerous and poses health risks to intellectual
functions, the nervous system, the immune and reproductive system. We
in Connecticut know that the Housatonic is unacceptably polluted. It is
unconscionable for the House to tie the hands of the EPA in an effort
to clean up contaminated sites like our river and others like it across
the country.
I am also pleased that the Waxman amendment would allow the EPA to
issue regulatory determinations for mercury emissions. Mercury is
highly toxic and exposure can cause serious neurological damage. It is
critical that we permit EPA to take steps to control mercury emission
into the air and into the water.
According to the Toxic Action Center, there is a mercury advisory for
every single lake in the State of Connecticut. We need to control the
release of mercury. These regulations are an important step toward
cleaner air, cleaner water, a cleaner environment. I thank Mr. Waxman
for offering this amendment this evening.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am in earnest support of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) because it would remove
dangerous anti-environmental riders from this piece of legislation, as
well as other aspects of the bill which would be very dangerous to the
environment and very dangerous to public health.
There is report language, as has been discussed already, in the bill
which directs EPA to take no action which will utilize dredging as a
remediation tool until a referenced National Academy of Sciences study
has been completed and distributed and analyzed by all interested
parties. That is an issue which will bring about very substantial delay
in the remediation of many places that contain PCBs and other
contaminants.
The effect of this would prevent the EPA from dredging the Housatonic
River of PCBs and will prevent the EPA from dredging the Hudson River
of PCBs. And what will the effect of that be? The language in the
report appears to be intended to promote indefinite delay. It does not
tell the EPA to halt action until the NAS report is out; it orders
delay until ``all interested parties'' have had time to analyze it.
The interested parties certainly include the polluters. In the case
of PCBs in the Housatonic and the Hudson, that is the General Electric
Company. General Electric favors a cheaper answer. GE analyzes every
move EPA makes at great length. How much time will this financially
interested party require to ``analyze'' this report? A long, long time
I am sure.
What is at stake here? First, human health. PCBs are a known
carcinogen in animals and a probable carcinogen in humans. They are
also suspected of being a serious endocrine disrupter and of being
responsible for other serious health problems.
New Yorkers have been strongly advised to limit their intake of local
fish for this reason, and EPA has just announced additional funding to
educate people about the dangers of locally caught fish. The
contamination damages the fish and other wildlife in and around the
river.
New Yorkers want the PCBs cleaned up. They do not want our river to
be an experiment used by the General Electric Company, or anybody else,
for their particular chemistry work.
The report language uses an earlier EPA survey of how to deal with
contaminated sediments as the basis for the committee's direction. It
implies that EPA's own science has concluded that the GE so-called
``natural recovery'' method is the best way. It should be clear that
EPA does not agree with this interpretation of the study.
EPA points out that there are different kinds of PCBs, different
kinds of deposits, different kinds of rivers, and there is no one
solution that applies to all. EPA has been studying the Hudson River
situation, reassessing it for years, and many of us have been unhappy
with the repeated delays because of EPA's own painstakingly slow
review.
We do not want further delays, and we certainly do not want the
public health and the river's health left hanging while all interested
parties are given more time to think about it.
Just today, new information has come out which reveal that the PCB
deposits in the upper river of the Hudson are moving out. Forty percent
of those deposits are moving out from where they are located, and 75
percent of those deposits that are moving out are becoming involved in
the water column.
This information just out today tells us very clearly why all aquatic
life in the Hudson River is now infected with PCBs. The PCBs in the
Hudson River are ubiquitous. They are affecting every form of aquatic
life. And we know how dangerous and damaging PCBs are. They cause
cancer in animals. They are a probable carcinogen in humans. They cause
abortions and they cause nerve disorders and endocrine disorders in
human beings.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very serious problem. The delay that is
contained in this legislation only prolongs the period where these PCBs
will remain in the river, remain in the aquatic life, contaminate the
estuary and the river basin itself, and become involved with people's
lives and be damaging to public health.
That is why the Waxman amendment must be passed, because it deals
forthrightly and directly with this problem and would remove this
report language from the legislation.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), and several
others, have focused in on the Hudson River where I happen to live. I
have lived there for 40 years. I have raised
[[Page H6250]]
my family there and my six grandchildren and my five children.
We drink the Hudson River water, and we have done quite well drinking
that Hudson River water. Not only does my family drink that Hudson
River water, but it is the auxiliary emergency supply for 8 million
people in a place called New York City, which is 200 miles downstream
from where I live.
About 40 miles upstream are cities like Poughkeepsie, Hyde Park and
Red Hook and Rhinebeck and Hudson and all the way up to where I live.
And we take our drinking water directly out of the Hudson River.
It is approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. It is approved
by the New York State Health Department and the New York State
Environmental Conservation Department, two of the toughest regulatory
agencies in America. They are so tough, that they even take precedent
over the regulatory EPA. Think about that.
I hear a lot of arguments about why these PCBs ought to be dredged.
First of all, I represent the twentieth largest dairy producing
district in America.
Mr. Chairman, I know you represent a few cows, too. We represent a
lot of corn growers and we represent a lot of apple growers. We live in
the Rust Belt. From New York City to Albany, New York, is the old Rust
Belt. We have lost all of our jobs. They have all moved either to
Maquilladora out in Mexico or they have moved overseas to China. We had
that debate yesterday.
I have constituents who now are in their forties and fifties, I
mentioned this yesterday, and they worked all their life at
manufacturing and now the manufacturing jobs are gone. They do not want
to move out of the beautiful Hudson Valley. That is where they live.
That is where their kids grew up. That is where their grandchildren
are, but they cannot find jobs.
So what do they do now? Some of those people that were now making
$40,000 a year, they now work for McDonalds and maybe they take home
$15,000 a year on that job but they carry a second job and maybe they
make an extra $10,000 there, and that is about it. They have lost half
of their earning capacity.
Why would Jerry Solomon stand up here and argue against dredging
PCBs? Well, first of all, back in the early seventies and I was a town
mayor and then a county supervisor and a State legislator and now a
Congressman, and I have been there where the General Electric Company
used to put PCB-laden water into the Hudson River.
You know why they did it and how they did it? They did it with a
permit from the Federal Government and they did it with a permit from
the New York State Environmental Conservation Department. They were
forced to do that because before that they were using, in making
capacitors, they were using a formula that created fire hazards and
something had to be done about it. It was dangerous. So they switched
at the request of the Federal Government and the State government.
It was all legal, whatever they were doing, maybe you want to call it
polluting but they were putting PCB-laden water into the river.
All of a sudden, one of the public utilities, like you have in your
community, decided they wanted to remove a dam just below these
factories and the Federal Government and the State government gave them
permission to remove this dam. Well, this dam had been there for 100
years. Guess what was behind that dam? You cannot believe what was
behind the dam. All of the stuff that had come down from all of the
papermaking industries, and that is the only jobs practically we have
left now, but all of the chemicals used had piled up behind this dam
and some of the PCBs but, sure enough, when they were given permission
to remove the dam all of this stuff began to flow downstream for
awhile.
Most of it just went on downstream 200 miles and went out into the
Atlantic Ocean and that was the end of it, but the bit that did not
were 40 hot spots which are stretched over about a 40 mile area and
those 40 hot spots have been silted over now for 30 years.
So what my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and
others are talking about happened 30 years ago. You would think that
this happened just yesterday or last year or the year before. It
happened 30 years ago. Those hot spots are silted over.
Now, why could we not just go in there and dredge those hot spots
out? Let me tell you what would happen. We all know when we take a
glass of water and we put some sand in it and then we take a spoon and
stir up the sand, what happens? The whole glass of water has got sand
all through it.
From New York City to Albany, we have a 34-foot deep water channel.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Solomon was allowed to proceed for 5
additional minutes.)
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, we have a 34-foot deep water channel, as I
was saying. It has to be dredged every year because the Hudson River,
different from where I live because the Hudson River is only an inch
wide where I start, when you get down to New York City it is a mile
wide or more, but Hudson River has to be dredged. It has a sandy
bottom. So we can get our oil barges up and we can get our feed grain
barges and we can get our food supplies up the Hudson River by barge,
we have to keep it open. So the Army Corps of Engineers every year
comes in and dredges a portion of this 150-mile long 34-foot deep water
channel.
If we were to go ahead and dredge the PCBs, which are laying there
dormant, buried and will not surface unless there is some major, major
flood that has not taken place in 100 years, they will lay dormant.
{time} 2130
But if we go in and dredge them, what happens? And this is what the
scientists will tell us. And this is what the National Academy of
Sciences is going to tell us in about 4 or 5 more months. If we dredge
the PCBs upstream, it raises the level of PCBs all along the 200 mile
long corridor. Then we have to dredge the channel every year.
Now, presently, when we dredge that channel, and my colleagues have
seen a dredge barge come up and they throw the sand on the lower banks
of a river and then it is above water level, just above water level,
and that dredging material volatilizes, gets into the air, goes into
the corn and the apples and the crops that are grown along there, and
there is no problem. But when we raise the level of PCBs downstream,
not only do we begin to affect the water supplies, which are healthy
now and there is no problem from any of these regulatory agencies about
it, about the drinking water, now where are we going to put these
dredge materials? If we throw it on those lower banks and it
volatilizes, we are then putting PCBs over a 200-mile long stretch.
Now, what do we do? We either do not dredge the Hudson River or we
encapsulate these dredgings about every 30 or 25 miles along the river
all the way up to where I live. Now, 57 municipalities representing
about 700,000 people have come out with resolutions saying please do
not dredge this Hudson River. Please do not do this. The New York State
Farm Bureau, and the New York State Department of Agriculture have all
come out and said do not dredge the Hudson River until we know for sure
that there is not a better way.
The better way is contained in this report language, which is not
law, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Jerry Lewis) has said. The
report language simply says, and I would just say to my good friend,
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and others, where were they
last year when this language was ordered in the report? Not a word was
raised on this floor about asking for this study that will be completed
in about another 8 months. Not one word was raised on this floor.
Let me briefly just read the actual language so we all understand
what we are voting on here. The language says, ``The committee is aware
of EPA's draft National Sediment Quality Survey issued in July of 1996
in which the agency concluded,'' listen to this, ``the agency
concluded, among other things, that the preferred means of controlling
sedimentation contamination risk to human health and the environment is
through natural recovery.'' Natural recovery.
``Despite this,'' this is continuing with the language, ``Despite
this conclusion, however, dredging is currently
[[Page H6251]]
being considered as a remedial tool, even though the impact of such an
invasive approach is often unknown. Last year the committee directed
the agency to enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of
Sciences to conduct a review which evaluates the availability,
effectiveness, cost and effects of technologies for the remediation of
sediments contained in these kinds of things.''
Then it goes on and it says, ``In light of this, the committee
directs the agency to take no action which will utilize dredging as a
remedial tool until this study has been completed and distributed and
analyzed by interested parties, including Congress.''
Now, let me tell my colleagues something. My colleagues have heard
about 700,000 people that are opposed to this and all these
municipalities. Who wants this dredging to take place? I can tell my
colleagues who it is. It is a very, very small group, and we can count
them on our fingers and toes, of some extreme environmentalists down in
Westchester County or someplace down there who really want to upset the
lives of all of these farmers that I represent up river. That is who is
for this. Nobody else is for it. So all we are asking, in other words,
all I am asking, is that we wait until April of 1999.
Now, Mrs. Browner has already agreed to do this. She has agreed with
me, with a quid pro quo and with others, with the New York State Farm
Bureau, that we will wait until the year 2001.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon)
has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Solomon was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. HINCHEY. With regard to the report language, the gentleman knows
full well that there was an earlier attempt to put that specific same
language in the ISTEA bill. This House passed that bill. We were
successful in getting this language, this anti-dredging, anti-
environment, pro-pollution language out of the ISTEA bill over in the
Senate.
That having been done, now some people are coming back here putting
this anti-environment----
Mr. SOLOMON. I will just have to reclaim my time.
Mr. HINCHEY. Pro-pollution language----
Mr. SOLOMON. I ask for regular order.
Mr. HINCHEY. Into this bill.
Mr. SOLOMON. The gentlemen are out of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemen will suspend.
Mr. SOLOMON. I have reclaimed my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Both gentlemen will suspend.
Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman knows better than that.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemen from New York will suspend. The gentleman
from New York (Mr. Solomon) reclaims his time and may proceed.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, as I was about to say, Helen Browner and
the EPA have entered into a quid pro quo where they will wait until the
year 2001, until we know exactly what the results are, and then they
will take some action.
Now, the only problem is we have these environmentalists that are
stirring things up, they are trying to stir up the Hudson River, but
they are stirring things up and now they are trying to get her to
change her mind. So that is why we ought to defeat this amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I would like to say to the gentleman, Mr.
Chairman, that the time he has used has been very valuable to the
debate. It was a very articulate presentation of the real world, where
the gentleman lives and, frankly, it is helpful to the discussion and a
very positive contribution.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I invited all my colleagues to come up to
my district and have a drink of water. They will love it.
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am here today in support of my colleagues from Maine
and California and everywhere in between who are trying to ensure that
the Environmental Protection Agency has the ability to make the
regulatory determinations for mercury emissions from utilities.
The committee report contains language that limits the ability of the
EPA to issue rules on mercury emissions. We are working to make sure
that such restrictions do not apply to activities authorized by law.
I would like to emphasize a few points. The health risks of mercury
are proven and they are significant. They are threatening society's
most vulnerable: Pregnant women and young children.
Mercury has spread and accumulated far throughout the United States.
Officials in a total of 39 States have warned their citizens about the
danger of consuming fish caught in streams, rivers, ponds and lakes.
The fish contain levels of mercury that trigger the warnings. In about
a dozen States every single body of water is posted with a health
advisory.
Earlier this year the EPA released a report to Congress in which it
identified mercury emissions as a hazardous air pollutant of greatest
concern for public health, and EPA's scientists offer additional
monitoring of emissions from power plants.
The provisions in this bill and language in the report would prevent
the EPA from even gathering that data; that information that is needed
to better gauge the scope of the problem.
Last spring the Maine legislature passed and the governor signed
landmark legislation that would slash emissions of mercury from in-
State sources. We are taking care of our own. The people of the State
of Maine are looking upwind to see what steps are being taken in the
regions that produce the emissions.
Last month the governors of New England and the premiers of Eastern
Canada called for, and I quote, ``The virtual elimination of discharges
of mercury from human activity into the environment.''
One of the key components of their action plan was the recommendation
for more research, more analysis and strategic monitoring. They saw the
need to identify and to quantify sources of mercury deposition. They
want to monitor deposition patterns and to develop ways of measuring
and tracking progress.
The report would prevent the EPA from providing assistance in the
cross-border effort. The report would prevent the EPA from taking the
steps that are essential to protect the health of young children and
women of childbearing age.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, it appears from this discussion that the only thing
that Congress fears is fear itself. We are afraid of existing law
because the existing law is feared by special interests. We fear the
cleanup of licensed nuclear facilities. We fear the cleanup of the air
in Yosemite and the Grand Canyon, the hazy air. We fear the pesticide
manufacturers, who oppose the implementation of the Food Quality
Protection Act. We fear, as we have heard, New York and New England
industries who oppose the dredging as a remediation tool. We fear the
utilities, who oppose the regulatory determinations for mercury
emissions. Most of all, we seem to fear our very own Environmental
Protection Agency and the Council of Environmental Quality.
My colleagues, this fear can be conquered. It is very simple. It only
requires that we vote in favor of the Waxman amendment.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, for anyone who sacked out back in 1995 and pulled kind
of a mini Rip Van Winkle and just woke up this week, we are right where
they left off when it comes to clean air and clean water, because the
same anti-environmental spirit that dominated this Congress back in
1995 is alive and well tonight.
Now, most Americans remember 1995. They remember not the words of
Democrats, perhaps, but the words uttered at
[[Page H6252]]
that very microphone by one of the top three members of the Republican
House leadership, who stood there and said of the chief environmental
law enforcement agency in this land, his words were ``It is the Gestapo
of America. It has its claw holds in the backs of Americans.''
That is the philosophy of the House Republicans. It has not changed.
The attitude is still there. The philosophy is still there. The effort
is still there. But they have become a little more subtle in their
tactics, and that is what this Waxman amendment is all about, the
subtlety of those tactics.
The American people want clean air. They want their children to have
clean water to drink, they do not want it full of mercury or PCBs. They
want their children to have a healthy environment. So, unable to come
to this floor and legislate directly on these issues, these Republicans
come and do it indirectly by legislating on an appropriations bill;
and, in some cases, even more subtly, afraid to legislate in the
appropriations bill, they just write a command into the committee
report.
I have enjoyed the Republican responses to our concerns: ``Oh, don't
worry. We just wrote it in the report. It doesn't really make any
difference.'' Well, they were not writing it in the report to just fill
white pages with black ink. There was a purpose in writing it in the
report. These are the folks that write the budgets for the people that
enforce our Nation's clean air and clean water laws.
What do my colleagues think those people think when they get a
command from the people that write those laws, that also happen to
write their budget, that sets their salary, that sets their travel,
that sets all the support money that they have to enforce the laws of
this land for clean air and clean water? They do not just view it as an
idle thought. They view it as a command.
That is why even this more subtle tactic of sticking it in the report
is very, very important. When we look through these riders we find the
same Republican Party that talks about less government and less red
tape, trying to tie up the chief environmental law enforcement agency
in this country and prevent it from doing its duty of enforcing the law
of the land.
Let us look at the specifics. The requirement that the EPA, though
authorized under existing law to reduce the dangerous levels of mercury
into the air, they want to force the EPA to study that some more.
Mercury has been responsible for killing fish in 50,000 different
bodies of water across this land. It can have life-threatening effects,
and yet they say that the Environmental Protection Agency cannot make
any regulatory determination; that they must study and study some more.
The same thing with reference to the food supply for infants and
children. The only study they really want there is to study how to
exempt more food providers from those rules.
Let me tell my colleagues about these studies. They are being urged
by the same group of people that when they heard from the Surgeon
General in 1964 that tobacco causes lung cancer and emphysema, they are
the same folks that are still studying it today, and not wanting to do
anything about it on the floor of this Congress.
{time} 2145
They are going to study it until time eternal rather than taking
effective action to do something to protect our clean air and our clean
water.
Then the other excuse that was advanced this evening was the
suggestion that if we dealt with haze, the kind of haze we hear about
down on the Rio Grande River or the kind of haze that sometimes lingers
over the Grand Canyon, spoiling that wonderful vista, that if we dealt
with haze in the air, that that might be because, and they do not have
all the documents they contended, that might be some way that they are
actually going to do something about global warming. Heaven forbid.
The very thought that the ostrich would take its head out of the
sand, getting hotter all the time, and actually do something about
global warming before the glaciers melt and the forests and the farms
are burnt up. What a horrible thought that is that they might actually
do something.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Doggett was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, so eager are they to thwart even the
possibility that someone might study this growing danger of global
warming, of the greenhouse effect, of the fact that a lot of this
planet is warming up, much warmer than this debate I must say, and the
threat that that poses to the health and safety of the future of all
the people on this world, so eager are they to prevent even a study
that they have come in and tried to limit a study of haze that relates
to the ability to see the great national wonders in our national parks
and forests across this land.
That is the same extreme position that led one of the Republican
leaders to talk about our environmental law enforcers and to denigrate
them as the gestapo of America.
Then there is the issue of PCBs in our water. It was only a few
decades ago that one of our Nation's leaders was said to have commented
about the Housatonic. There is no tonic quite like the Housatonic.
Well, I do not think he had in mind a river that was full of PCBs. The
EPA is talking about trying to do something about it. There is a fear
that they might actually go ahead and do something about it.
All this talk about things just being report language, when is it
that we are going to see in a report that we want the Environmental
Protection Agency to do a more vigorous job of enforcing our laws,
cleaning up our water, cleaning up our air, protecting our natural
resources so they will be there for our children in future generations?
That is the kind of report language I would like to see in this
report instead of tying the hands and crippling the efforts of this
agency to do its job. That is what is going to happen when we adopt the
Waxman answer and reject this extremist agenda.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman.
This amendment would override several provisions of the VA-HUD report,
and I would like to speak to two of them.
First, the amendment of the gentleman would roll back a much needed
report on mercury emissions, language that will direct EPA to complete
the scientific research it needs to make informed regulatory decisions.
EPA recently settled a mercury-related lawsuit brought by the
National Resources Defense Council. In that settlement, it promised to
decide by November 15 of this year whether more stringent controls on
mercury emissions are needed.
What is the problem with that settlement? The problem is that there
are large gaps in our scientific knowledge about mercury. Most
scientists agree that a certain amount of mercury is safe to ingest.
However, EPA and the other government agencies do not agree, do not
have a common understanding about what the levels are.
So it is perfectly reasonable, it seems, to ask EPA to step back and
work toward some inner-agency agreement before issuing mercury
regulations that, in all likelihood, will be more stringent than
necessary and which has real job consequences.
Therefore, this VA-HUD language would simply require EPA to work with
federal agencies, like the Food and Drug Administration, the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and the National Academy of
Sciences. Together these agencies will, under this language, complete
several ongoing studies on mercury transport and safe levels of mercury
ingesting, giving EPA the sound science needed to reach common sense,
informed regulatory determinations.
Mr. Chairman, secondly, in addition, I would like to comment on the
regional haze provision of the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California. I am a bit unclear if this portion of his amendment would
have the effect which he intends. But recently many States raised
concerns about EPA's regional haze implementation schedule.
It appeared as though EPA was going to use its regional haze program
to accomplish what it had agreed not to do under the new particulate
matter implementation schedule. However, these
[[Page H6253]]
concerns were addressed in the recently enacted ISTEA reauthorization.
Language in that legislation linked the PM 2.5 implementation schedule
to EPA's regional haze program, and the effect is to prevent EPA from
taking any action to implement the regional haze program before it
implements the 2.5 standard.
Nothing in the VA-HUD report can change that or does. It is for this
reason that I do not understand the purpose of this portion of the
amendment of the gentleman. The language in the VA-HUD provisions only
does one thing, direct money for EPA to establish up to eight regional
visibility transport commissions, VTCs.
The organization of these VTCs will fully engage the States and the
program, and this fulfills the Clean Air Act provisions that give the
States the lead roll in addressing regional haze.
To date most States have not been able to take part in these. Only
one has been established. The Grand Canyon VTC was formed in 1990 as a
model and a model that, for whatever reason, has not been duplicated.
The language in the VA-HUD report would do nothing more than correct
this.
For these reasons, with regard to these two provisions of the
gentleman's amendment, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Waxman
amendment.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman) for the careful work he has done on this amendment and for his
effort to ensure that activities authorized by law to protect the
environment and the public health are not compromised.
In that spirit, I would like to ask the gentleman to enter into a
colloquy to clarify the effect of his amendment on report language
regarding the Food Quality Protection Act.
As the more dangerous pesticide uses are eliminated under the Food
Quality Protection Act, as they should be, it will become very
important for farmers to have new, safer substitutes to continue
growing high-quality crops.
Short-term emergency exemptions, such are allowed under current law,
will in some cases be necessary where no viable new alternatives are
available. The report language directs the EPA to devote sufficient
resources to increase the pace of registration decisions and emergency
exemptions.
Would your amendment affect the committee's direction in this area?
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. WAXMAN. It is not the intention of this amendment to slow down
EPA's implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act in any way.
Registration of new, safer pesticides and issuance of emergency
exemptions are important to agency functions, just as tolerance
reassessment is.
My amendment would address the concern that report language
accompanying this bill could be construed to reprioritize
implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act away from public
health protection and undermine the new statutory safety standards
established by the FQPA.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the
report also directs the EPA to issue regulations governing emergency
exemption tolerances which were statutorily required by August 3, 1997.
I assume that your amendment would not affect this language.
Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina is correct. This rule
is long overdue and should be issued immediately. Nothing in my
amendment would prohibit the EPA from implementing any statutory
requirement under the Food Quality Protection Act.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The report instructs the EPA to review
and issue emergency exemption tolerances in a manner which minimizes
resource demands. Would the intent of your amendment affect this
language?
Mr. WAXMAN. No, it would not. Obviously, for emergency exemptions to
be effective they must be issued in a timely manner. Nothing in my
amendment would undermine that goal.
I am aware that there is disagreement among stakeholders on what
EPA's priorities should be in the implementation of this law. It is my
hope and expectation that the Tolerance Reassessment Advisory
Committee, convened at the request of Vice President Gore, will help to
bring consensus to implementation of our pesticide laws.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Finally, I would like to ask, as the
report instructs the EPA to ensure the use of reliable data in
calculating exposure to pesticide residues and to clearly explain the
legal and scientific basis for its policies, would the intent of your
amendment affect this directive?
Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman is correct that EPA should clearly explain
how it is reaching its decisions. I am aware that EPA is currently
developing guidance to help in this regard, and my amendment would not
interfere with this process.
I also agree that EPA should use reliable data when available.
However, sometimes reliable data is unavailable and EPA must make
reasonable assumptions in order to not ignore legitimate public health
concerns. When these assumptions are not dictated by the statute, the
agency has greater discretion.
I hope that the EPA's guidance will help clarify issues regarding
what information is required and how and when assumptions are used so
that all stakeholders can understand how the law will be implemented.
Additionally, I expect the agency will fully consider any data
brought to them.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
taking the time to clarify the intent of his amendment on these points.
The Food Quality Protection Act is an important tool for improving
the safety of our food. We should work to implement it in a timely
manner. At the same time, we must make sure that farmers continue to
have the tools which allow them to make a living, producing safe, high-
quality food.
Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina and commend him
for his leadership on this issue.
There has been recent misinformation on this issue, and I
congratulate the gentleman for working towards a consensus approach.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield now to the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), who also has expressed
concerns about these matters.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank my colleague from
North Carolina in bringing this colloquy to clarify some of the
misconceptions about the inability for farmers to proceed in getting
the protection they need under the Food Quality Protection Act. I think
this means that we can have both an environment that is safe but also
for the opportunity for farmers to move forward.
I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) and I thank the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for his response and clarifying
the record that this is not an anti-farmers provision.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
(Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I was not sure that I wanted
to become engaged in this debate. But I do have some concerns about the
Food Quality Protection Act; and since we have been discussing that in
a very enlightening way, I thought that I would proceed with the
remarks which I had prepared.
I am speaking as a member of the Committee on Agriculture and one who
has been involved in working on pesticides for about the last 25 years.
I thought that I was finally witnessing some substantive progress with
the passage of the Food Quality Protection Act in the 104th Congress. I
should have known it was too good to be true.
The committee report language appears to place pesticide decisions
into two categories: the ``please-go-faster'' category includes
registering new products and granting emergency exemptions.
I note that reregistration decisions are not included in this
category, even though we have been promising the public and the farming
community for over 26 years that all pesticides on the market today
would be reviewed to ensure that they meet contemporary health and
safety standards. We have yet to keep that promise.
[[Page H6254]]
In the ``please-go-slow-if-you-go-at-all'' category includes the
implementation of the science policies and new methodologies required
to fulfill the mandate that Congress gave the agencies 2 years ago to
take account of the special needs of infants and children. And we have
had some serious public furor over that, as some of my colleagues who
may remember the Alar controversy with regard to apples will recall;
consider cumulative pathways of pesticide exposure; and to address
groups of chemicals which have a common mode of action.
All of these, after all, might lead to further restricting pesticide
use or to the agency making a decision to cancel the older, riskier
products that have been on the market for decades and whose continued
presence acts as a disincentive for farmers and consumers to use newer
and safer products.
{time} 2200
I recognize a period of transition is inevitable with the passage of
any new law. The need for a transition should not become an excuse for
paralysis in decision-making at the agency. Many decisions the agency
needs to make are long overdue and should not be deferred indefinitely
while we develop perfect scientific information or a consensus of all
interested groups. The days of politically safe and scientifically
perfect decisions will never arrive. I can guarantee you that.
The Administration and the Congress promised the public a science-
based food safety law that would ensure that safe pesticide products
would be used in our homes, workplaces and to grow our food. We said we
could accomplish this without hampering our farmers' ability to grow
the products we all need and enjoy. The colloquy that we just heard a
few minutes ago confirms that. We should not be so afraid of change
that we cannot make good on these promises and move ahead to further
improve the safety of our food supply and the health of our
environment. We should not get caught in the trap that has immobilized
progress on this issue for the last quarter century.
I urge Members to vote for the Waxman amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. One of the needs for this report language is
that it would appear as though the agency is cherry-picking the way it
will interpret the very law that your committee wrote, and it is a
comprehensive bill. Remember, Mr. Brown, that this is the same agency
that has a hand in the problems in our own territory like the Delhi
ever-loving sand fly and the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. The EPA needs
some direction. That is all this report language does.
Mr. BROWN of California. Let me say to my good friend from my
neighboring congressional district that I am well aware of the defects
in the way the EPA operates. I have no objections to giving them some
direction. I do not wish, however, to withdraw the direction that we
may have already given them in which they are not fulfilling at the
present time.
I think that this is the whole intent of the Waxman amendment. I
cannot perceive why it should even be controversial. I do not object to
the directions coming from the Committee on Appropriations except
modestly when they intrude on the prerogatives of the authorizing
committee, but I even overlook that once in a while when I feel that
the goal is worthwhile. But I think in this case, we may have gone too
far in an effort to prevent the agency from doing the job that we have
told it we want them to do.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered
by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). I had planned today to
offer my own amendment to nullify one of the antienvironmental riders
attached to the VA-HUD appropriations bill but instead my language will
be included in this amendment and I want to thank the gentleman from
California for his support and leadership on this matter.
This bill includes detrimental report language that would seriously
and unnecessarily delay the EPA's efforts to address the risk of
exposure to mercury contamination from utility emissions. Let me be
perfectly clear. The effect of the language is to say that EPA can
issue no regulations with respect to utility emissions for 3 years.
That is the effect of this language. It is significant, and that is why
those on the other side are fighting so hard to keep it in.
Mercury is a naturally occurring element that has built up to
dangerous levels in the environment due to releases from coal-fired
power plants, waste incinerators and other types of manufacturing
plants.
After mercury is released into the air, it can travel great
distances. It eventually settles in water, and, unlike other
pollutants, it accumulates in the aquatic food chain and becomes more,
not less, toxic over time in the tissue of fish. There in its most
toxic form, methyl mercury, it contaminates humans who eat the fish.
The health risks related to mercury exposure are significant. The
most vulnerable to mercury contamination are pregnant and nursing women
and young children. Mercury poisoning can result in severe neurological
damage to developing fetuses. Older children and adults can see effects
such as paralysis, numbness in extremities and kidney disease.
In my home State of Maine, loons hold a special place in our hearts,
but U.S. Fish and Wildlife studies have shown that loons in Maine have
the highest level of mercury recorded in this country, far higher than
in States to the west.
The 1990 Clean Air Act did not address mercury utility emissions but
it did require the EPA to report to Congress on the impacts, sources
and control strategies for mercury. That long-awaited report, and, I
would say, delayed report finally was delivered to Congress this past
September. Here it is. This is the executive summary of that EPA report
to Congress. The whole report is huge.
Here is another report. The States are acting on their own. The
northeastern States together with the maritime provincial governors
have gotten together and done a study of mercury. We have studies. We
have got plenty of studies on mercury. What we need now is for EPA not
to fall behind but to keep up with our State departments of
environmental protection.
Now, those reports conclude that there are serious health risks
involved with mercury exposure and that contamination is on the rise.
We have heard statements tonight about the big, bad Federal agency,
the EPA. Take a look at this chart. Thirty-nine States have water body
advisories related to mercury contamination. Thirty-nine States. I ask
those on the other side, take a good look at this map. Chances are your
State is one of those States that has a mercury water body advisory.
This is not the EPA. This is your State Department of Environmental
Protection, the biologists. To those that oppose the Waxman amendment,
what I say is what are you going to tell your States, what are you
going to tell your State biologists, what are you going to tell the
mothers and children in your States who are at risk of mercury
contamination, and frankly many of them do not know that. Are you going
to tell them that, well, we ought to do nothing for 3 years?
I do not think that is an acceptable approach. These reports conclude
that coal-fired power plants emit more mercury into the air than any
other source. Estimates are that they release 52 tons of mercury every
year, one-third of the annual emissions.
Now, what we are asking is for EPA to go to the utilities and gather
information about utility emissions. We do not want to stop that. We
want that to continue because the public has a right to know. They have
got a right to know this information.
Right now EPA is finalizing its information request to utilities. We
know the problem. We know the sources. And accurate monitoring data by
the EPA is necessary. We need to know. The report language would
require several studies to address what are claimed to be current gaps
in the scientific understanding of mercury. But the studies that we are
waiting for, that those on the other side want to wait for, are not
expected to be completed until 2002.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) has
expired.
[[Page H6255]]
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Allen was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, waiting for duplicate studies before we act
will only achieve further delay in the agency's efforts to address the
risk from mercury exposure.
We know there is a link between mercury emissions from power plants
and the contamination in our Nation's lakes, rivers and streams. It is
in our neighborhoods. It is affecting our children. We do not need
additional reports to tell us that. I urge my colleagues to protect the
public's right to know and support the Waxman amendment.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ALLEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to commend the
gentleman for his leadership on this issue. I know he had a similar
amendment which we have incorporated into our amendment. It is
important that we deal with this issue. I was pleased by the assurances
from the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) that these report
language provisions do not have any binding impact on the agencies. But
I fear that when we ask them to do another report after they have
already done so much, as the gentleman so eloquently pointed out, that
it may be intimidating on them to go forward. I think that is a reason
why we need to adopt this amendment.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman) is right. Report language does state that the EPA not issue any
regulatory determination for mercury emissions from utilities until
more studies are done.
But studies have already been done. It is a fact that coal-burning
utilities emit mercury from their smokestacks. It is a fact that
mercury gets deposited in our soil and water. It is a fact that mercury
accumulates in fish. It is a fact that mercury works its way up the
food chain to people. Coal-fired utilities emit 52 tons of mercury each
year nationwide.
Mercury contamination is a serious problem in Ohio. The National
Wildlife Federation has determined that coal-burning utilities are
responsible for 55 percent of the State's total mercury emissions.
These utilities are responsible for more than 9,000 pounds per year of
mercury released into the air. The Ohio Department of Health has issued
a statewide fishing advisory for every river, lake and stream in Ohio
due to mercury contamination in Ohio's waterways. Ohio affects New
York, Pennsylvania, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and
Canada as well with mercury contamination. These emissions are damaging
our quality of life, the areas where we live, where we work and where
we play.
Yet the committee language will prevent the EPA from acting now. We
cannot accept and we do not have to accept the logic that jobs depend
on pollution because everyone knows that in the next millennium we can
have both jobs and a clean environment and that pollution represents
wasted resources.
Mr. Chairman, one of the most disconcerting aspects of the
environmental debate is that it demonstrates a kind of thinking that
man has disconnected himself from his natural environment. We speak of
the air as if it is out there. We speak of water as if it is a wet
abstraction. We speak of global warming as if the globe is somewhere
other than that upon which we stand, where we live.
Human life depends on the life of the planet. Our children's life
depends on the life of the planet. A famous Indian chieftain once said,
I think it was Chief Seattle, ``The Earth does not belong to us, we
belong to the Earth.''
The Earth and the environment which contains it are the fundamental
preconditions of life. Now, if you believe that life is sacred, and I
do, then you believe that it is a seamless web. That if life is sacred,
the Earth is sacred. If life is sacred, the air is sacred. If life is
sacred, water is sacred. If life is sacred, the globe is sacred and all
who live upon it are sacred.
Now, this is not a mere rhetorical or philosophical proposition. This
is not about the intricacies of environmental politics. This is a
spiritual imperative. Without a place for us to work out our fate,
there is no physical life for us to do the work of the spirit. This is
a matter of life. The God on which our Nation trusts is the same God
whose work is all creation. Creation is the work of God and if we are
created in God's image, then we ought to have more respect for God's
creation. The mere possibility, the mere hint that greenhouse gases may
be changing our global climate, that PCBs are contaminating our waters,
that mercury is poisoning people should cause Members of this House to
leap to the defense of our common home. It is time to reconcile with
the Earth, it is time for us to remember where we came from, and to
remember that all life is precious and that life depends on us.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat taken aback by the distinguished
chairman's belittling of the importance or impact of the report
language here. I have to think that if he really believed that, that
that language was so weak, that he ought to be supporting this
amendment and we could have saved a great deal of time this evening and
he could have sent a letter or two letters or a series of letters to
EPA on this point with at least equal effect.
{time} 2215
In fact, he does not believe that. He knows that this is more
important language, and that is why we are having this debate.
But I think what we have got, then, is something that I will
characterize as ghost riders. The appropriations process that we have
before us is haunted by these ghost riders. We passed the bill last
night and voted on several of them today, and it attempts to remove
several of these ghost riders from that bill and those were
unsuccessful.
Here we have a series of these antienvironmental ghost riders on
today's bill that threaten the public's health and safety. This is a
simple strategy that every American can read. The strategy is to tie
the hands of the EPA and prevent them from performing the duties that
they were statutorily charged with carrying out. The American people
sent us here to serve them. The people who sent us here both expect and
deserve more.
Now we have rivers that are not safe to swim in. The fish from those
rivers are not safe to eat. The river banks are not safe for children
to play along. I think it is clear that we need an Environmental
Protection Agency that is armed with all of its tools.
The majority in this House wants to suspend river cleanup and pretend
that PCBs and DDT will simply go away on their own. They are not going
to go away on their own. Polychloro-biphenyls are among the most stable
compounds, chemical compounds that we know. Their solubility in water
is extremely low so they get caught up in the sediments.
They are not going to stay under the sediments when the rivers'
oxbows move. By the normal action of the river, those sediments turn
over, those PCBs or DDT. DDT and PCB are similar really only in the
fact that they are both heavily polyalginated, and that is really their
only similarity other than the fact that they are both proven
carcinogenic compounds.
The kind of normal action of the river continually releases that
material into the environment again time after time and keeps the
rivers unclean. However, the PCBs, when ingested by human beings or by
fish, they go into the fatty tissues; and that is the route by which
they become carcinogenic.
Our rivers should be available to the owners of the banks of those
rivers, if we have any concern for private ownership, for them to use.
They should be available for vacationing families. They should not be
closed with ominous ``keep out'' signs with skulls and crossbones that
say ``do not eat the fish.''
There is an implication here that dredging is not a tried and proven
method. It has been used. It has been a steady part in 23 of the 25
Superfund cleanups involving PCBs or DDT, either one of them, in river
sediments. It is a remedial dredging procedure that has been used again
and again successfully. There is no question about its having been used
and it being tried.
[[Page H6256]]
The National Academy of Sciences presented a study entitled
``Contaminated Sediments in Ports and Waterways, Cleanup Strategies and
Technologies.'' Doing another study when they have already done that in
the way they have is basically unnecessary. It is dilatory. It ends up
leaving us in a position where we may not be able to reach a conclusion
here at all.
My district is the Housatonic River. The Housatonic River, when PCBs
run down that river, goes on into Connecticut and affects the districts
from several Members of the State of Connecticut.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Olver) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Olver was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, that river is completely
outside the area that is represented by the gentleman from New York,
the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
The people in our area and the people in Connecticut and the
governmental authorities in both Massachusetts and Connecticut are
deeply concerned about making certain that this process is not slowed
down, that it goes forward.
All the Environmental Protection Agencies in those States and the law
enforcement agencies in those States are agreed upon that. We can argue
about the merits of a do-nothing Congress in the case of these ghost
riders. I suspect that the American people would be very much served
and very happy if we did exactly nothing in relation to such items that
have been attached to the report language of the bill. But at least
then the Congress would be doing no harm. Surely, to do no harm ought
to be the goal for every one of us.
But American people at least in my area surely do want the EPA to do
its job. So we should adopt and support the Waxman amendment in order
to eliminate these ghost riders from this bill.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise, obviously, to oppose the amendment and with
some concern because I do not wish to discuss the amendment. We have
had a lot of time to consider this amendment and several others in this
bill. I do wish that we could conclude our debate and bring it to a
close, because I think it is a very important bill that should be
concluded tonight, and we can go on to other business.
I cannot for the life of me understand why we are dragging out the
debate as long as we are. But since we are dragging it out, it has
given me an opportunity I do not often get; that is, to read the New
York Times. I mean, I come from New Orleans. We have the Times-
Picayune. Then when I am in Washington, sometimes I read the Washington
Times and even the Washington Post. I venture forth and sometimes I
read the Wall Street Journal going all the way up to New York.
I picked up the first copy of the New York Times I have seen in
months, perhaps even years. I am sitting over there waiting for this
debate to be over with. For the life of me, when is it going to be
over? It is no reflection on the author of the amendment. He means
well. And all the opponents, they mean well. And good grief, we just
keep debating it.
So I am reading this lead editorial. It says ``The Firestorm
Cometh,'' Mr. Chairman. I would like to take an opportunity to read it.
Charles Labella, who has been leading the Justice
Department's campaign finance investigation, has now advised
Attorney General Janet Reno that under both the mandatory and
discretionary provisions of the Independent Counsel Act she
must appoint an outside prosecutor to take over his inquiry.
The other important figure in this investigation, Federal
Bureau of Investigation Director Louis Freeh, has already
recommended an independent counsel. Ms. Reno can give her
usual runaround about being hard-headed, but she cannot hide
from the meaning of this development.
The two people in the American Government who know most
about this case, the lead prosecutor and the top
investigator, are convinced that the trail of potentially
illegal money leads so clearly toward the White House that
Ms. Reno cannot, under Federal law, be allowed to supervise
the investigation of her own boss. When it comes to campaign
law, this is the most serious moment since Watergate.
These are not the judgments of rebel subordinates or hot-
headed junior staff members. Freeh, a former Federal judge,
has been, if anything, too loyal to Ms. Reno during the nine
long months that she has ignored his advice. Labella was
hand-picked by Ms. Reno on the basis of his experience and
skill to run this investigation. Either she has to come
forward and make the impossible argument that they are
incompetent or bow to the law's requirements.
I got to this last paragraph, and I had to stop. I said, is this the
New York Times? Certainly it is the Washington Times or maybe the
Times-Picayune. But I checked the headline. No, it is the New York
Times, right out of New York City. It is the lead editorial.
This is the last paragraph. It says,
Ms. Reno may grumble about leaks of supposedly confidential
advice, but the fact is that the American people need to know
that the two top law enforcement officers believe the
Attorney General is derelict.
The New York Times.
Moreover, Freeh and Labella are right to separate
themselves from Ms. Reno, because if her attempt to protect
Presidential fund-raising from investigation continues, it
will go down as a black mark against Justice every bit as
historic as J. Edgar Hoover's privacy abuses. ``Firestorm''
is an overused word in Congress, but if Ms. Reno does not
make the appointment, the Republican Senate leadership ought
to ignite one, today.
I think the gentleman's amendment ought to be rejected, but this is
something to consider.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I will not use the 5 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I thought I had to be in the Senate to listen to an
old-fashioned filibuster, but at least the gentleman from Louisiana
gave me the opportunity to witness one for the first time. So I
appreciate that.
Let me just say that I hope that the Republican leadership
understands from this debate tonight that Democrats will not stand by
and let the Republican assault on the environment through these various
riders continue.
I was very happy to see so much debate on the issue of the riders,
because I think it shows that we, as Democrats, intend to draw the line
on these various appropriations bills, and that is why we support the
Waxman amendment tonight.
I am just going to mention two brief things. First, with regard to
the provision prohibiting the EPA from taking any action to remove
contaminated sediments from rivers, lakes, and streams, I just wanted
to point out that there are numerous sites in the United States that
are on the national priority list of Superfunds and that might be
listed on the Superfund site list in the future that could require the
removal of contaminated sediments.
Since 1984, the EPA has included the remedial dredging of 23 of 25
Superfund decisions at sites with PCB-contaminated sediments. To
prohibit or delay the EPA's ability to use dredging at these sites is
to greatly increase the risks for America's citizens or serious health
impacts and even greater environmental degradation than has already
occurred from these sites.
So we have to pass this Waxman amendment, otherwise we are going to
have even more problems with our Superfund sites.
Secondly, with regard to a rider that would delay an already
prolonged process from reducing mercury emissions from electric
utilities, just last Thursday, I spoke at a press conference to launch
the release of a report that addresses mercury emissions from
utilities.
My colleagues have talked about this because of the concern that this
type of pollution from utilities causes to the environment, and I just
wanted to say that, as States and eventually the Federal government
move towards a more competitive electricity utility market, addressing
mercury and these kind of emissions in a uniform and equitable and
prompt matter is going to become increasingly important.
We simply have to recognize that this rider will make it only more
difficult to address mercury pollution in the context of electricity
deregulation.
So I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support
this critical Waxman amendment, to protect the environment and
America's taxpayers. This really is a serious issue. Although some on
the other side think that we can just as easily read the telephone
book, the fact of the matter is that this is important for us. I am
very proud to see that so many of
[[Page H6257]]
us on the Democratic side stood up tonight and pointed out that this
continued assault on the environment will not continue to take place in
this House as long as we are around here and able to express ourselves.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support
of the amendment offered by Mr. Waxman of California. This amendment
would eliminate controversial, anti-environmental riders attached to
the bill at the last minute. This amendment would override language
which interferes with agency actions to protect the environment and
public health authorized by existing statutory authority. Specifically,
the amendment would override provisions in this bill which would
significantly delay efforts to clean the PCB contaminated Housatonic
River in my home state of Connecticut. The Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection has contacted me in opposition of these
provisions and the Environmental Protection Agency has indicated that
these provisions pose a serious threat to their ability to take actions
necessary to control immediate threats to public health.
PCB contamination poses threats to the health of individuals who come
in contact with PCB contaminated soils, sediments, and wildlife.
Exposure to PCB is carcinogenic, and poses health risks to intellectual
functions, the nervous system, the immune system, and the reproductive
system. The amendment would also correct language which would delay the
cleanup of sites contaminated with mercury, exposure to which can cause
serious neurological damage.
We must act immediately to clean up these contaminated sites and
reduce the possibility of exposure to these dangerous chemicals. This
amendment is supported by the National Environmental Trust, the
National Resources Defense Council, the Public Interest Research Group
and the Sierra Club, and several other environmental groups. I urge my
colleagues to support this important amendment and protect our children
from exposure to environmental hazards.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176,
noes 243, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 334]
AYES--176
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Bilbray
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Forbes
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Green
Greenwood
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Porter
Poshard
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Rangel
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schumer
Scott
Shays
Sherman
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stokes
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wynn
NOES--243
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrich
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lucas
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
NOT VOTING--16
Brady (PA)
Conyers
Ford
Gonzalez
Hall (OH)
Lewis (GA)
Markey
Moakley
Serrano
Shuster
Smith (OR)
Stark
Whitfield
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
{time} 2248
Messrs. WiSE, REDMOND and REYES changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. SHERMAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this section of the
bill?
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the attention of the
distinguished gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) a problem with
the Environmental Protection Agency. Since early this year, I have been
working with the EPA on a support contract for the Superfund reportable
quantities on oil spill programs.
These discussions focus primarily on the issue of bundling non-
Remedial Action Contractor (RAC) restricted work with a RAC-restricted
work in a single competitive procurement and limiting competition to
non-RAC firms only.
Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from California knows, a constituent
company of mine located in Fairfax has been performing a scope of work
for EPA that is deemed highly necessary in this program. The
contracting vehicle is due to expire. Rather than conducting a new
competition, EPA has arbitrarily and without justification decided to
include this work under a restricted contracting vehicle, for which my
constituent and every other RAC-restricted contractor would be
precluded from competing as a Remedial Action Contractor. This violates
Federal competition in contracting rules and is clearly unfair.
Mr. Chairman, I have attempted to resolve this matter by working with
EPA, but in a letter to my office dated June 16, 1998, EPA reasserted
its position to exclude RAC contractors from competing for bundled
Superfund work.
[[Page H6258]]
I rise today to seek the assurance of the gentleman from California
that if EPA does not move expeditiously to resolve this important
matter prior to conference, that he will work with me in the context to
reach a resolution.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself
with the remarks of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis). In May, I
joined the gentleman in sending a letter to EPA attempting to resolve
this important issue. I am disappointed in the response we have
received and hope that the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis)
will work with us in conference, should congressional action be
necessary.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), my friend, and would ask if the
gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) can help us in this
endeavor.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Davis) and would like to offer my assurance that should
EPA not work to resolve this issue prior to conference, that I will
work with the gentleman on language addressing this issue at that time.
Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of engaging the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis), chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and
Independent Agencies Appropriations, in a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, in 1995, in a bipartisan effort, the Edible Oil
Regulatory Reform Act, Public Law 104-55, was signed into law. This law
required the Federal Government to differentiate between edible oils
and other oils, such as petroleum, when issuing or enforcing any
regulation relating to the transportation, discharge, emission or
disposal of oils under Federal law.
Unfortunately, the EPA has yet to provide for differentiation
treatment of these oils, despite common sense industry proposals for
bringing the agency's rules into compliance with the Edible Oil
Regulatory Reform Act.
The animal fats and vegetable oil industry has been working with the
Congress and the Federal Government on this issue for more than 6
years. The Congress expressed its will when it passed the legislation
in the 104th Congress.
It is time to bring this issue to conclusion and stop the
bureaucratic red tape. The Senate has included an amendment to the EPA
appropriations that requires the EPA to promulgate a rule by March 31,
1999, that will bring this issue to closure and provide for a
regulation that is in compliance with the law that this body passed by
unanimous consent in 1995.
The House Committee on Appropriations has included report language
also calling for closure to this issue by March 31, 1999.
I would urge the Members to include the Senate language in the final
version of this legislation as it makes its way out of conference. I
hope the Members would agree that the EPA should move forward with
common sense and balanced regulations on these nontoxic edible animal
fats and vegetable oils.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EWING. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the
gentleman from Illinois, for bringing this matter to our attention. I
certainly agree that the EPA should move forward in this matter and we
will work closely with our Senate counterparts in conference to see
that the Agency does so.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage our distinguished chairman of
the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies of the Committee
on Appropriations, in a colloquy.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I
would be happy to join in a colloquy with the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I am a former home builder
and very familiar with the role of home mortgages in the country. We
have about 23,000 mortgage brokers that originate half of all home
mortgages throughout the country. These are small businessmen and women
who provide a convenient and valuable service to both wholesale lenders
and home buyers.
Sometime the lender pays the mortgage broker for their services which
allows lower upfront costs to the home buyer. These payments are known
as lender paid mortgage broker fees or yield spread premiums.
Confusion has arisen over the legality of lender paid broker fees.
Nearly everybody agrees that Federal law does not make lender paid
mortgage broker fees automatically illegal. Yet, HUD has difficulty in
fully clarifying this point.
Although the bill does not help HUD clarify this issue, I know the
gentleman shares my concern and I appreciate his efforts during the
committee markup.
Is it the Chairman's intention to address the lender paid mortgage
broker fees in the conference committee?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, first, let me say to my
colleague, who is a member of the subcommittee, that I absolutely do
intend to continue working with the gentleman. The gentleman's effort
to make sure that we are on target in connection with this issue has
been very, very helpful. We want to provide clarity on the legality of
lender paid mortgage broker fees and will do so in the conference
report. Between now and then, I know the gentleman will make sure that
I pay attention.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your assistance.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to enter into a colloquy with my good
friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies, to discuss a matter
of concern that impacts my district, the 17th District of New York, and
is also a matter of national concern.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I
would be pleased to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from New
York.
{time} 2300
My sense-of-the-Congress amendment supports expanding the ability of
States and localities to recommend alternative methods to filtration
for meeting EPA water standards, by applying to the Federal Government
the filtration avoidance based on information, technology, or evidence
not available prior to an EPA determination that the State or locality
had to adopt filtration. Under my proposal, if the EPA determines that
the States or localities' alternatives do not comply with Federal
standards, the EPA can still reject the State alternatives.
I do not believe my amendment is controversial, and I have received
support from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and a number of
Members from both sides of the aisle who have gone on record in their
willingness to work with me in a bipartisan manner on this important
issue.
I hope that I can work with the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lewis), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), and the EPA as we go
to conference and over the next year to resolve this very important
issue.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ENGEL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the
gentleman from New York for his work on this important issue. The
committee encourages EPA, States, and localities to work together in
finding better solutions to protect our environment.
I would encourage EPA to work together with the gentleman and the
Committee on Commerce over the next year in resolving the problems
facing the gentleman's district and the Nation. Presently, the
Committee on Commerce is considering the proposal, and I will work with
that committee and the gentleman from New York as we move toward
conference and over the next year.
[[Page H6259]]
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his encouraging
words and look forward to working with him and the gentleman from
Virginia and the EPA over the next year to find a way to afford my
community and others even greater flexibility in their efforts to offer
Americans the cleanest water possible.
Mr. Chairman, with the gentleman from California's reassurances at
this time, I will not offer my amendment.
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from California
(Mr. Lewis), the chairman, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes),
the ranking member, for engaging in this colloquy with me and with the
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen). I appreciate their work on this very
important legislation.
We rise to discuss the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation, or
VERA system. My colleague from Maine and I have been confronting a very
difficult situation in our State of Maine, which is part of Veterans
Integrated Service Network, or VISN, 1. Under the VERA system, VISN 1
has lost funding in the past, and is expected to lose additional
funding this year. We are concerned about the level of care that our
veterans are receiving.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BALDACCI. I yield to the gentleman from Maine.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the Togus, Maine VA Medical Center has been recognized
in the past as a center of excellence. Now, however, the Maine
delegation is hearing continual complaints from Veterans that they are
having to wait longer for appointments; that they are being asked to
travel out of Maine to receive services; and that their doctors do not
have time enough to spend with them. I am concerned that VISN 1 is not
receiving adequate resources under the VERA system to serve Maine's
Veterans.
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, this is not a new concern. Last year the
House VA-HUD conference report requested a GAO study of how the VERA
system affects the VISNs. We had expected this report to be concluded
by this point so we could have the information before voting on another
appropriations bill. It is now my understanding that the report has
been significantly delayed and is not yet available.
I would ask the chairman and ranking member when are we expecting the
GAO report to be issued?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BALDACCI. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, it is our understanding that
the GAO intends to issue its report by September 1 of this year.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, my
colleague and I expect that the information to be concluded in the GAO
report may assist the subcommittee and all Members in examining the
reallocations that are underway. It would have been our wish, and I
suspect the wish of the chairman and the ranking member, to have this
information in hand before considering this legislation. At a minimum,
we hope that it will be given careful consideration during conference.
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, to ensure that this year's appropriation
bill provides adequate resources to every VISN to provide every veteran
with the quality health care to which he or she is entitled, I would
ask the chairman and ranking member to assure the body that as this
legislation goes to conference that they will do all they can to ensure
the recommendations of the GAO are taken into consideration.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Speaking for myself, I tell the gentlemen
from Maine that we will carefully examine the GAO report and will take
the GAO's recommendations in due consideration as we go through the
conference.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BALDACCI. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STOKES. Also speaking for myself, I similarly assure the
gentlemen from Maine that I will carefully examine the VERA allocations
and the GAO's recommendations. Providing quality health care to all of
our Nation's veterans must be our highest priority.
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking
member for their commitment to the veterans of this country.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise to engage the distinguished chair from California in a
colloquy. I want to highlight the merits of an innovative approach to
water-management related plant research and wastewater system
management that has been initiated by a terrific project called the
Oregon Garden Project in Silverton, Oregon. It has national
implications and is a national model.
By publicly showcasing how wetland functions as a natural water
filtration system, and demonstrating unique water conservation
techniques within a world class garden, the project provides an
outstanding public education opportunity.
The garden, a $16 million construction project, is being funded by $8
million in private dollars and contributions from a partnership of
State, Federal and local government. In fiscal year 1999, I am
requesting a final $1 million to be provided within the EPA account for
completion of construction, complementing the $2 million already
federally invested.
The Oregon Garden holds a great deal of promise for teaching the
public and developers about the critical role wetlands play in habitat
and ecosystem management. While developed wetlands will never be able
to replace preservation of existing wetlands, the reality is that
wetlands must be restored and created. Developers must know how they
function to accommodate runoff from community growth. The Oregon Garden
will also serve as an educational site for horticulture, wetland
management, and wastewater processing.
The nursery industry in the State of Oregon is the fastest growing
industry in our State. It holds great potential for job development. We
feel like the more than $9 million that have already been invested in
this project makes us an excellent partner.
I recognize the chairman cannot grant every request, but I wonder if
the chairman would work with the other body in the conference and try
to find funding for the Oregon Garden.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. The gentlewoman probably does not know this,
but my first grandchild, being born some years ago, the kids named her
Katelyn Rose, and since that time I have been in the gardening
business. So I want the gentlewoman to know that not only do I
appreciate her making this effort, we will try to do everything we can
to move the item along and we will be glad to be cooperative with her.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California [Mr. Lewis], the
chairman of the VA-HUD appropriations subcommittee, for the time and
hard work which he and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) have
rendered in bringing this legislation before the House. I want to raise
an issue related to a component of the bill before us today, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA].
On July 6, residents of my district and five adjacent districts in
Los Angeles County came under a mandate to purchase flood insurance
through the National Flood Insurance Program administered by FEMA, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency. This has caused a spirited debate
within the region as to the necessity for this insurance and the
accuracy of the maps of the Los Angeles County Drainage Area, which
includes the Los Angeles River, the Rio Hondo River, and the San
Gabriel River. Those maps simply are not accurate, and yet one has to
purchase insurance based on those maps.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HORN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Is it not correct that the city of Lakewood,
[[Page H6260]]
California, paid for a new survey and found that almost 5,000 homes and
businesses were mistakenly included in the floodplain and, thus, would
have been required to purchase insurance when it was, in fact, not
required?
Mr. HORN. That is true, and 5,000 structure were exempted.
Lakewood did this at no small cost based on its limited budget. The
city undertook the survey to ensure that the revised insurance rate
maps were as accurate as possible. And as I say, there were many
inaccuracies.
It strikes me as unfair that the Federal Government has placed this
insurance mandate upon 500,000 constituents from six congressional
districts. But FEMA has not made the proper flood plain insurance maps
as accurate as possible.
{time} 2310
James Lee Witt, the director of FEMA, has been very helpful over the
years and I commend him for his willingness to work with us on the many
issues related to this new mandate.
However, Mr. Chairman, I feel that before the Government acts, it
should make a good-faith effort to use the best information that is
available, particularly when good citizens--and many of these citizens
are in a lower-economic category--must pay out of their pockets for any
mistakes the Government might make.
For this reason, I would like to ask the distinguished chairman if
funding could be made available to ensure that new maps would be
prepared more accurately and reflect the true areas which might be
impacted by the 100-year flood event.
I would hope that the flood insurance now being imposed would also
have a moratorium placed on it until the maps of the flood plain prove
to be accurate.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HORN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, my colleague is raising a
very, very important point; and this issue is one that has been around
for a while and yet it needs some serious oversight and review. It is a
problem that I would like to continue to explore with my colleagues,
especially the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) and I appreciate
his bringing this to our attention further.
Mr. HORN. Reclaiming my time, I would hope that something could
happen in conference or in another way.
Mr. LEWIS of California. If I know the gentleman from California (Mr.
Horn), he will see that we try.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak about my amendment and
engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
As the gentleman is undoubtedly aware, the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative was established by an executive order and has not gone
through the entire committee process. It has not received any
Congressional authorization. It has not received any appropriation, and
it has not received sufficient oversight by the committee of
jurisdiction.
A number of Members, including myself, are very concerned about this
American Heritage Rivers Initiative program primarily because it has
not been authorized by Congress. So I rise today to ensure that the
Congressional intent is not to be misconstrued by the Council on
Environmental Quality, or CEQ.
The CEQ should not rely on the Committee on Appropriations VA-HUD
Appropriations report language to fund the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative, and I am just asking the chairman, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis), if that is his understanding.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am very well aware of your
concerns; and if you recall, I shared them with the administration on
several instances during the past year. It is not my intent that the
report language be a base for funding.
Mr. STEARNS. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the concern of the
chairman because, as it points out, the committee states that the
Council on Environmental Quality should ``strike a balance when
allocating resources so as to adequately fund Congressional priorities
as well as the administration's priorities such as the American
Heritage Rivers Initiative.''
So primarily I was concerned that CEQ would construe that statement
through the House committee report that it spoke for the entire House.
So I appreciate the statement of the chairman on this.
Mr. Chairman, do you acknowledge this as a program that has really
not been approved by Congress?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I do not only acknowledge but state flatly
that this is an unauthorized program, and I want my colleague to know
that I intend to make certain when we go to conference that both the
House and Senate are very clear on this matter.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
concern of the gentleman and I appreciate what he just spoke, the
endorsement.
The language as is written could be construed, but I think my
colleague has made it clear tonight, that if a program is not
authorized by Congress, and this report language does not do that.
As the chairman is aware, the federal involvement in local land
issues has been a rocky history lately.
At this point I include for the Record, Mr. Chairman, the following
body of my remarks, which gives this rocky history without belaboring
it here on the House floor:
By way of background, on April 13, 1998, a US District Court Judge
ruled that the National Park Service had the authority to block the
construction of a proposed St. Croix River Bridge connecting
Stillwater, Minnesota, with Houlton, Wisconsin. Minnesota and Wisconsin
spent $14 million on bridge design and purchase of required right-of-
way. This construction block was allowed despite Department of
Transportation approval of the project. Why was the project halted?
Because the St. Croix River is designated as a Wild and Scenic River,
under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. This Act was the basis
for the National Park Service's Authority.
The decision turned on the interpretation of the project as a ``water
resource project'' by the National Park Service. This gave the National
Park Service authority over the project, even though apparent
Congressional intent was to prevent any bridge over a designated river
to be considered a ``water resource project'' under the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act.
In the case of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, as Congress
was not involved in the creation of the program, courts would have no
Congressional history as guidance should disputes arise.
If the Wild and Scenic Rivers Program is any indication, we have
reason to be concerned about increased federal involvement in our local
affairs. It is still unclear exactly what American Heritage Rivers
designation means.
Already, we are seeing that the policy on this Initiative is far from
clear. I wrote to the CEQ over a month ago to request clarification on
what a kind of an exemption a Congressman whose District was opted out
could expect to receive. I still have received no response from the
CEQ.
Does the Chairman agree that the CEQ should not use VA/HUD
appropriation funds to operate the American Heritage Rivers Initiative
without Congressional approval?
Mr. LEWIS. Yes, I do. I will work with concerned members of this body
to make sure that we prevent the CEQ from operating the American
Heritage Rivers initiative with public money without Congressional
Approval.
Mr. STEARNS. Given Mr. Lewis' agreement to resolve this situation, I
would like to withdraw my amendment to prevent the CEQ from using VA-
HUD Appropriation funds to administer the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative. I look forward to working with the Chairman and ensuring
that the CEQ does not use federal funds to operate the American
Heritage Rivers Initiative without Congressional approval.
I would like to thank the gentleman for his continued leadership on
this issue.
Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying, does the chairman agree that
the CEQ should not use VA-HUD appropriation funds to operate the
American Heritage Rivers Initiative without Congressional approval?
Mr. LEWIS of California. That is the strong position of the chairman.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lewis) here and I look forward to working with him
in ensuring that the CEQ does not use federal funds to operate the
American Heritage Rivers Initiative without
[[Page H6261]]
Congressional approval, and I thank the gentleman for his continued
leadership.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate very much the colloquy and
agree with the gentleman.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns)
did not offer this amendment. Let me say that the American Heritage
Rivers Initiative has garnished more support in northeast and central
Florida than any other issue in recent history.
Why? Because this involves one of our Nation's most important
resources, the St. Johns River. This initiative was announced by
President Clinton in his 1997 State of the Union address. But it was
pursued by local and State leaders. This is the only way a river can be
a part of this program, through local efforts. So this initiative is a
perfect example of the partnership that we should support, not
eliminate.
In Florida, we value our natural resources. The local elected
officials throughout the Third Congressional District, both Republicans
and Democrats, put all of their efforts into getting the American
Heritage Rivers designated for the St. Johns.
Our river has been recommended for the list of 10, and I stand here
to let my colleagues know that the Stearns amendment or the comments of
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) do not reflect the sentiments
of Florida.
I am glad that he did not offer the amendment, and I urge all my
colleagues to support the environment and support restoring our
Nation's rivers, which we all treasure in our community.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to point out that I have two
amendments, amendments No. 10 and 11, both of which would have restored
nearly $30 million to successfully yet consistently underfunded FEMA
emergency food and shelter program with an offset for various other
accounts.
This emergency food and shelter program is a unique program that
partners the Federal Government with some of the largest national
charity organizations down to the local level. These charities work in
partnership with FEMA. They do great work, Mr. Chairman. Second Harvest
reported 8 million children, 3.5 million seniors were served in 1997.
I would point out that this amendment and initiative was supported by
various groups, including the American Red Cross, Catholic Charities,
the United Way, Council of Jewish Federations, and many others. I have
been supported by many Members on this, not the least of which is my
colleague and friend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), who I
yield to at this point to make a statement and to enter into a colloquy
with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
{time} 2320
Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would otherwise have
risen in strong support of the gentleman's amendment. But what we have
decided is we will have a colloquy to discuss this. If the gentleman
from California would join us, I would like to ask a question.
Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from California is aware, the
Emergency Food and Shelter Program is a model program that acts as a
vast safety net for homeless and hungry individuals nationwide. I know
that the gentleman has been supportive of this program and has
indicated a willingness to see what can be done to provide additional
resources for this program.
Would the gentleman agree that the Emergency Food and Shelter Program
is an effective, well-run program and that it has become increasingly
difficult to accommodate all the requests from charitable organizations
for emergency food assistance?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I concur with the gentleman from New York
that the Emergency Food and Shelter Program is a well-administered,
effective program. The program is a model of public-private partnership
with local boards distributing funds quickly and efficiently to the
neediest areas of the country with minimal but accountable reporting. I
also recognize that there are growing requests for emergency assistance
from charitable organizations that have made it increasingly difficult
to meet all the requests for food assistance.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, in the event that additional resources
become available when the House conference with the Senate begins on
this bill, will the gentleman work with us to see if some additional
funds may be made available for this effective, vitally needed program?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate the gentleman's continued
interest in this program. Let me assure the gentleman from New York and
the gentleman from Minnesota and others with an interest in supporting
the Emergency Food and Shelter Program that to the degree that
additional resources become available when we go to conference on this
bill, I will continue to work together with these gentlemen to see if
additional resources can be found for this important program.
Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I, under the circumstances, will not offer
the amendment. I would just point out that these are effective programs
that very often the benefits go directly to people. There has been very
little in increase that has been provided for these programs over the
last 4 or 5 years. I think that they are due an increase especially
because the local groups that are in fact operating these programs are
operating on overload and much need help. I appreciate the gentleman's
willingness to work with us and therefore will not be offering the
amendments and will withdraw them.
The Emergency Food and Shelter program is a unique program that
partners the Federal Government and some of the largest national
charity organizations down to the local level. The charities that work
in partnership with the FEMA program are continually on overload.
Demand for food and shelter is rising and the funding level of EFS has
not kept pace with the need. Second Harvest has reported to us that 8
million children, 3.5 million senior citizens, and millions of the
working poor people sought emergency food assistance in 1997. The U.S.
Conference of Mayors has reported that 86 percent of cities cite an
increase in food demand and that some 19 percent of the requests for
food have gone unmet.
Given this additional funding, the Emergency Food and Shelter program
through its partners, can help these citizens in need. The EFS program
has had an outstanding record of fast allocation of funds to the
neediest areas in our country. The Emergency Food and Shelter Program
provides just that, food and shelter or emergency housing assistance,
to hundreds of thousands of families, with 97 percent of the funds
going directly for food and shelter services.
The offset for this bill is coming from a program that has received a
$268 million increase over FY 1998 funding, while the EFS program has
not received an increase of even $1 million since 1990 and in fact, it
was cut by $30 million in FY 1995.
The effort to increase funds for this program is supported by a solid
group of organizations deeply concerned about the increased demand for
emergency food and shelter. Groups like the American Red Cross,
Catholic Charities, the United Way, Council of Jewish Federations, Food
Research and Action Center, the National Council of Churches, Bread for
the World, National Alliance to End Homelessness, National Law Center
on Homelessness and Poverty, National Low Income Housing Coalition,
Second Harvest, and many others. This effort is deserving of other
members support as well.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word. I move to do this in order to recognize the statesmanship of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) who has put his 5-minute
speech in the Record. I will put my 10-minute speech in the Record,
also.
Mr. Chairman, a mere 10 minutes is not enough to praise the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes)
for the way in which they have conducted themselves.
I do want to take a minute for a very brief colloquy with the
gentleman from California with regard to FEMA if he is willing to do
so.
[[Page H6262]]
I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for
directing the Federal Emergency Management Agency in last year's bill
to submit a report assessing the need for additional Federal disaster
response training capabilities.
It is my understanding that FEMA acknowledged the need for an
expanded program to meet the increased demand for training of emergency
personnel. Therefore, I would like to inquire as to the gentleman's
intent regarding the development of an additional FEMA training
facility. Is it the gentleman's intention to encourage FEMA to take a
more thorough look at this option?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. First let me say I very much appreciate my
colleague from California raising this question. I very much appreciate
not only his interest but our mutual interest in this subject, the item
having to do this with this colloquy about having FEMA establish an
additional disaster procedures training center in or near the territory
that we represent. It is absolutely my intention to see that this
project is given additional consideration and to work closely with the
gentleman toward that end.
Mr. BROWN of California. I thank the gentleman for his response.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word to enter into a colloquy with both the gentleman from California
(Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes).
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from California and
the gentleman from Ohio for engaging me in this very important
colloquy. The State of Texas, along with my district in Houston, faces
a grave heat crisis. This current disaster has resulted in hundreds of
dead cattle, wasted crops and diminished water sources throughout
Texas. Worse yet, there are reports of people dying in Houston as a
result of the torrid heat. Sadly, it appears that our elderly are the
greatest at risk. Over 2.5 million Texans are at least 60 years old, 14
percent of the overall population. Additionally, my district includes
many low-income Houstonians living in homes without air conditioning.
According to reports from FEMA after convening many Federal agencies
including the National Weather Service, this crisis will persist into
the winter.
Mr. Chairman, I urge us to examine how FEMA can address and provide
relief for this crisis across the Nation. I believe that the Federal
Government should work concurrently with Houston and the Texas State
government to rectify the situation.
I would like to clarify several points. One, the State of Texas
experiencing this heat crisis, which is an act of nature, can receive
help from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Number two, FEMA
could act to assist by the request of local officials through their
State government. FEMA is not precluded from using the proper
appropriated funds for the easing of this heat crisis in Texas and
other States. And FEMA will not be precluded from consulting with local
officials in helping to develop a format for outreach teams to visit
Houston neighborhoods and determine the extent of the crisis and need.
FEMA may find solutions in funding to provide cooling equipment,
alternative sources of water, educational forums for citizens to learn
how to counter the harmful effects of the heat and other forms of
relief. Today the President has astutely recognized our current plight
and has provided $100 million in relief to the 11 States plagued most
by the unrelenting heat which includes Texas. FEMA's expertise in
fighting the devastating effects of a national disaster will be an
important component to the President's newly announced assistance.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from
Texas for bringing this very important matter to the VA-HUD
appropriation subcommittee's attention. I agree that the present heat
crisis threatens both the lives and livelihoods of a great many of our
citizens. FEMA has pledged to reduce loss of life and property and has
promised to protect our Nation's critical infrastructure from all types
of hazards. We will do everything within our power to work with you
until a viable solution is available for everyone. I want the
gentlewoman to know that it is my intention to work very closely with
her and with FEMA on this matter.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STOKES. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas for
yielding to me. I would say to her that I must concur with the
chairman. I too thank her for bringing this serious item to our
attention. FEMA is a Federal agency with more than 2,600 full-time
employees. FEMA often works in partnership with other organizations,
including State and local emergency management agencies. We would
encourage FEMA to work with Houston and Texas authorities to bring a
quick end to the current problem in hoping to bring relief to this
current devastating heat.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank both the gentleman from California
and the gentleman from Ohio. I thank them for their concern and their
willingness to help. I bring this serious matter to the attention of
the VA-HUD appropriations subcommittee and the whole House because we
must be concerned about how we will protect our citizens from this
deadly and unusual heat. Texas, especially its elderly citizens,
deserves our help. I urge Congress to endeavor to resolve this severe
situation with FEMA's assistance. I thank them very much for their
cooperation.
{time} 2330
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, just a few moments ago, several of our colleagues
engaged in a colloquy with regard to the subject of the Veterans
Administration and the implementation of the Veterans Equitable
Resource Allocation System.
From the course of that colloquy, they drew the attention of the
House to the impact of the implementation of this system on the funding
for the veterans services, particularly veterans health care services
in the State of Maine and elsewhere in New England.
I intend at the appropriate time of the consideration of H.R. 4194 to
offer an amendment which would prescribe that none of the funds
available in the act may be used by the Department of Veterans Affairs
to implement or administer the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation
System.
The reason that I will do that is because there is nothing equitable
in the administration of this system by the Veterans Administration. In
fact, it is having a profound negative effect on the quality of health
care in many of our veterans health care institutions across the
country, resulting in the deterioration of the health care of veterans
and their health and even the loss of life in many instances.
Mr. Chairman, I would like at this time to draw to the attention of
the House to the impact of these proposed cuts in veterans health care
funding in various sectors of the country which will take place shortly
unless we intervene and make it impossible for the Veterans
Administration to implement this program.
They are as follows: For network number 1, Boston, serving Maine, New
Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, the cut there will
be $38.8 million. For Albany, serving upstate New York, the cut there
will be $12 million. For New York City, serving lower New York, Newark,
and New Jersey, the cut there will be $48 million. For Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, serving Pennsylvania, Delaware, and part of West
Virginia, the cut there will be $3 million. That is network number 4.
For network number 6, headquartered in Durham, serving North Carolina
and part of West Virginia and Virginia, the cut there will be $1
million. For network number 9, headquartered in Nashville, serving
Tennessee, part of West Virginia, and Kentucky, the cut there will be
$12 million. For network number 12, headquartered in Chicago, serving
part of Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, the cut there will be $28
million.
For network 15, headquartered in Kansas City, serving Kansas,
Missouri,
[[Page H6263]]
and part of Illinois, the cut there will be $20 million. For network
17, headquartered in Dallas, serving Texas, except for Houston, the cut
there will be $10.5 million. For network 19, headquartered in Denver,
serving Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and Montana, the cut there will be $13
million. In network 22, Long Beach, serving California, lower
California and Nevada, the cut there will be $23 million.
Mr. Chairman, I will offer at the appropriate time an amendment to
strike this provision from H.R. 4194, which will result from these cuts
taking place. I wanted at this moment to take this opportunity to bring
to the attention of the Members of the House the impact of these cuts.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman is proposing is to roll
back VERA, which was passed last year, which made an allocation on
funds based upon population. As the gentleman knows, there has been
many, many years with the population, particularly the veterans who
have been moving to the Sun Belt. As the gentleman knows, lots of
hospitals have given back money that they could not even use. So the
VERA allocation was worked out in the Senate and the House after strong
long deliberations.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to
respond to the gentleman because he raises a very important point. The
gentleman suggests that the Veterans Administration has even required
funds to be returned from certain Veterans Administration hospitals.
This is absolutely true. In fact, $20 million was returned from
veterans hospitals in southeastern New York.
At the time that that $20 million was forced to be returned by the
Veterans Administration, alleging that it was excess money, enormous
profound problems were taking place at the Castle Point Veterans
Hospital and the Montrose Veterans Hospital.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hinchey was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I will not go into detail at this moment
about the profound health care affects except to say that many veterans
lost their lives as a result of the return of this money. That is
substantiated by a report which was done by the Inspector General of
the VA itself.
So while this Veterans Resource Allocation Program is going forward,
it is causing veterans to suffer unjustly and unfairly and unreasonably
and is also resulting in the loss of life of veterans in these
hospitals.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from New York will rise, I do want to
join in his statement and make a very strong statement of my own on
behalf of New Jersey, which he did reference in his statement. But it
is true throughout the Northeast and really in different locations
across the country. Believe me, this should not be a regional fight.
But may I ask the gentleman, is he withdrawing his amendment in
deference to the colloquy that was conducted?
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I did not hear the question.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of questions here. We
did not hear the gentleman's introduction. But I had come here with the
intention of joining in his amendment and supporting his amendment.
However, did the gentleman indicate on the face of the colloquy that
was conducted that he is not presenting the amendment?
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, If the gentlewoman will yield, I thank the
gentlewoman for the question, and I appreciate the opportunity to, once
again, make it clear that, at the appropriate moment in the
consideration of this legislation, I intend to offer this amendment.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. That was my understanding. But the question had been
raised on this side. I certainly would look forward to that, because
this should not be a regional issue. Clearly, the issue has been
distorted here in terms of the certifiable health needs of the veterans
in our region.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is absolutely correct.
That is my understanding. This is a very serious matter. We believe
that, at this particular moment, this is the proper way to address it.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. ROUKEMA. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to all the
parties involved that, if there is going to be an amendment later, we
could discuss this later instead of talking about it now.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. That is certainly correct. And I wanted to clarify the
point.
The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments to this section of
the bill, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Executive Office of the President
Office of Science and Technology Policy
For necessary expenses of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, in carrying out the purposes of the
National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and
Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6601 and 6671), hire of
passenger motor vehicles, and services as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109, not to exceed $2,500 for official reception and
representation expenses, and rental of conference rooms in
the District of Columbia, $5,026,000.
Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality
For necessary expenses to continue functions assigned to
the Council on Environmental Quality and Office of
Environmental Quality pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, the Environmental Quality Improvement Act
of 1970, and Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, $2,675,000:
Provided, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law,
no funds other than those appropriated under this heading
shall be used for or by the Council on Environmental Quality
and Office of Environmental Quality: Provided further, That
notwithstanding section 202 of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1970, the Council shall consist of one member,
appointed by the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, serving as chairman and exercising all
powers, functions, and duties of the Council.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
office of inspector general
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $34,666,000, to be derived from the Bank
Insurance Fund, the Savings Association Insurance Fund, and
the FSLIC Resolution Fund.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
disaster relief
For necessary expenses in carrying out the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), $307,745,000, and, notwithstanding 42
U.S.C. 5203, to remain available until expended.
disaster assistance direct loan program account
For the cost of direct loans, $1,355,000, as authorized by
section 319 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act: Provided, That such costs,
including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as
defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, as amended: Provided further, That these funds are
available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal
amount of direct loans not to exceed $25,000,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct loan program, $440,000.
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for,
including hire and purchase of motor vehicles as authorized
by 31 U.S.C. 1343; uniforms, or allowances therefor, as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not to exceed the
per diem rate equivalent to the maximum rate payable for
senior level positions under 5 U.S.C. 5376; expenses of
attendance of cooperating officials and individuals at
meetings concerned with the work of emergency preparedness;
transportation in connection with the continuity of
Government programs to the same extent and in the same manner
as permitted the Secretary of a Military Department under 10
U.S.C. 2632; and not to exceed $2,500 for official reception
and representation expenses, $171,138,000.
office of the inspector general
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector
General in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, $4,930,000.
emergency management planning and assistance
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, to
carry out activities under the National Flood Insurance Act
of 1968, as amended, and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C.
[[Page H6264]]
5121 et seq.), the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977,
as amended (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the Federal Fire
Prevention and Control Act of 1974, as amended (15 U.S.C.
2201 et seq.), the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended
(50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), sections 107 and 303 of the
National Security Act of 1947, as amended (50 U.S.C. 404-
405), and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, $231,674,000:
Provided, That for purposes of pre-disaster mitigation
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5131(b) and (c) and 42 U.S.C. 5196(e)
and (i), $30,000,000 of the funds made available under this
heading shall be available until expended for project grants.
The U.S. Fire Administration is to conduct a pilot project to
be completed within 15 months from the date of enactment of
this Act, to promote the installation and maintenance of
smoke detectors in the localities of highest risk for
residential fires. The U.S. Fire Administration shall
transmit the results of its pilot project to the Consumer
Product Safety Commission and to the Committe on Science of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate.
radiological emergency preparedness fund
There is hereby established in the Treasury a Radiological
Emergency Preparedness Fund, which shall be available under
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and Executive
Order 12657, for offsite radiological emergency planning,
preparedness, and response. Beginning in fiscal year 1999 and
thereafter, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) shall promulgate through rulemaking fees to be
assessed and collected, applicable to persons subject to
FEMA's radiological emergency preparedness regulations. The
aggregate charges assessed pursuant to this paragraph during
fiscal year 1999 shall not be less than 100 percent of the
amounts anticipated by FEMA necessary for its radiological
emergency preparedness program for such fiscal year. The
methodology for assessment and collection of fees shall be
fair and equitable; and shall reflect costs of providing such
services, including administrative costs of collecting such
fees. Fees received pursuant to this section shall be
deposited in the Fund as offsetting collections and will
become available for authorized purposes on October 1, 1999,
and remain available until expended.
For necessary expenses of the Fund for fiscal year 1999,
$12,849,000, to remain available until expended.
emergency food and shelter program
To carry out an emergency food and shelter program pursuant
to title III of Public Law 100-77, as amended, $100,000,000:
Provided, That total administrative costs shall not exceed
three and one-half percent of the total appropriation.
national flood insurance fund
(including transfer of funds)
For activities under the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968, the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as amended,
not to exceed $22,685,000 for salaries and expenses
associated with flood mitigation and flood insurance
operations, and not to exceed $78,464,000 for flood
mitigation, including up to $20,000,000 for expenses under
section 1366 of the National Flood Insurance Act, which
amount shall be available for transfer to the National Flood
Mitigation Fund until September 30, 2000. In fiscal year
1999, no funds in excess of: (1) $47,000,000 for operating
expenses; (2) $343,989,000 for agents' commissions and taxes;
and (3) $60,000,000 for interest on Treasury borrowings shall
be available from the National Flood Insurance Fund without
prior notice to the Committees on Appropriations. For fiscal
year 1999, flood insurance rates shall not exceed the level
authorized by the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of
1994.
General Services Administration
consumer information center fund
For necessary expenses of the Consumer Information Center,
including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $2,619,000,
to be deposited into the Consumer Information Center Fund:
Provided, That the appropriations, revenues and collections
deposited into the fund shall be available for necessary
expenses of Consumer Information Center activities in the
aggregate amount of $7,500,000. Appropriations, revenues, and
collections accruing to this fund during fiscal year 1999 in
excess of $7,500,000 shall remain in the fund and shall not
be available for expenditure except as authorized in
appropriations Acts.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
human space flight
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the
conduct and support of human space flight research and
development activities, including research, development,
operations, and services; maintenance; construction of
facilities including repair, rehabilitation, and modification
of real and personal property, and acquisition or
condemnation of real property, as authorized by law; space
flight, spacecraft control and communications activities
including operations, production, and services; and purchase,
lease, charter, maintenance and operation of mission and
administrative aircraft, $5,309,000,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2000.
{time} 2340
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Roemer
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Roemer:
Page 72, line 15, strike ``$5,309,000,000'' and insert
``$3,709,000,000''.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment with my
friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), to cancel the funding
for the International Space Station. While I have the deepest respect
for my chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and my dear
friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes), who has received so many
accurate tributes tonight, I deeply disagree with them on the funding
for this Space Station.
Now, while the facts continue to pile up for, I think, our side to
cancel this Space Station, the votes continue to go down, but I hope
that my colleagues will pay attention to the debate tonight and to
three reasons why I think we should cancel this Space Station.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that my colleagues will be patient at the late
hour of this evening. I have three arguments to cancel the Space
Station: The Space Station of the past, the Space Station of the
present, and the Space Station of the future.
First of all, the past. When the International Space Station was
first devised by then-president Ronald Reagan, President Reagan said
that the cost of the Space Station would be about $8 billion, would
house eight astronauts and do eight scientific missions. It would be
completed in 1992.
Mr. Chairman, today, in 1998, the International Space Station,
according to the General Accounting Office study, the total cost of
maintaining, of research and development, of protecting the
International Space Station, has gone from $8 billion to $98 billion.
Now, one might say, $98 billion for eight missions, that is not too
bad. Well, of the eight missions, staging is gone; transportation, no,
we cannot do that anymore; manufacturing facility, we cannot do that
anymore either; assembly facility, storage facility, we cannot do any
of those. But for $98 billion, I have a bargain for you. We can do some
research.
$8 billion for eight scientific missions has gone now to $98 billion
and one scientific mission. That is the General Accounting Office. That
is not Tim Roemer, that is not the opponents, that is a bipartisan
study. That is the Space Station of the past.
The Space Station of the present: Mr. Golden, who I deeply respect
running NASA now, has appointed an outside accounting of what the Space
Station is going to cost us in the future.
I was delighted to see our chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Livingston), he has read the New York Times, he said for the first
time in a few months. Those of us who are reading the New York Times
and the Post and our daily papers have also discovered that the
Russians need a $22 billion IMF package. Yet they are our key partner
in putting the Space Station together. They cannot come through with
funding the Space Station. They need $22 billion from the IMF.
Who is going to pay for the Russian participation? You got it. The
taxpayer. The taxpayer is going to pay.
Mr. Chairman, the Space Station of the present, according to the Jay
Chabrow report, appointed by Mr. Golden, if everything goes perfectly
now with the Space Station, it will cost us $100 billion. But if the
Russians pull out, they are just getting a $22 billion bailout package,
they are not going to be able to pay for their fair share. The costs do
not cover the likelihood of losing a launch vehicle, they do not
include delays, they do not include what this report, the Jay Chabrow
report, indicates that will be somewhere between a $130 million and
$250 million cost per month, per month, from now into the future.
So that is the Space Station of the past and the Space Station of the
present. What about the Space Station of the future?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Roemer was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, the Space Station of the future, what we
[[Page H6265]]
have in this bill, and we have agreed to a balanced budget, we have in
this bill zero funding of AmeriCorps, yet full funding for the Space
Station. The President asked for 100,000 Section 8 vouchers for the
poorest of the poor in our communities. We could not even pass an
amendment to get vouchers for 35,000 of those poor people. And $80
million is cut for community development block grants from the 1998
level, again for the poorest of the poor, the people who have not
benefitted from the economic bull market. That is the Space Station of
the future, taking money away from other valuable programs.
{time} 2350
The past, going from $8 billion to $98 billion. The present, Chabrow
saying $120 million to $250 million cost overruns per month. The
future, not funding other important programs.
In conclusion, let me quote from Shakespeare in the Merchant of
Venice. He said, ``They are sick that surfeit with too much, as those
that starve with nothing.'' ``They are sick that surfeit with too much,
as those that starve with nothing.''
Mr. Chairman, the choice is easy. Do we continue to pour 10 and 20
and 30 billion dollars into a science program that we can admit has not
been successful? And do we starve with nothing the people that have not
benefited from this economy? The people that did not invest in this
stock market? The people that are not in the winner's circle in this
economy? The people that are not getting Section 8 vouchers? The
Community Development Block Grants that are not going to our inner
cities?
Mr. Chairman, we are a great country because we are a good country,
and we will only continue to be great if we are good. Let us be good
and fair in the allocation of our resources. Let us be good and fair in
the allocation of those resources to the most vulnerable people in our
society.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) talked so eloquently about a GI
program that helped his family, and about temporary welfare. What about
AmeriCorps to help our people get to college? What about Community
Development Block Grants to help our inner cities? What about justice
and fairness? Let us make some of these tough decisions to be just,
fair, and right to all Americans.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to please support the bipartisan
Roemer-Camp amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I would first like to inquire of the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Roemer), we have had this debate on a number of occasions,
as the gentleman knows. If people do appear restless, it is not just
the hour, but it is we have heard the argument so many times.
Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the gentleman whether he is in a
mood to consider some time limitation on this amendment.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lewis) would yield, let me say to the distinguished gentleman that I
have not been able to control the time that has been allocated to this
bill all day.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I can tell
that the gentleman is not interested.
Mr. ROEMER. Well, we may not have very many speakers, Mr. Chairman,
and we may not need a time agreement. I am sure after the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Camp) speaks, we may not have very many more.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, let
me say that we have had this discussion on many an occasion. The last
time we had a vote on this same proposal, admittedly that vote was on
the authorization bill, the vote was 305 to 112 in favor of maintaining
the station.
The important point here is that I think my colleagues recognize that
one of the reasons that this bill is so difficult, and that the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) and I work so hard to provide some
balance in this bill, is because we have got a variety and mix of
important Federal responsibilities within this package.
The question of VA medical care is a very, very critical part of this
bill. Our housing programs are a very important part of the bill. EPA
is. But also NASA's work happens to be a part of our bill. And for
someone to suggest that one way or another we are going to juxtapose
our vital work in space versus housing programs is not only not fair,
it is a reflection of a lack of understanding of the significance of
the work of this subcommittee.
There is not any doubt that Space Station is fundamental to our
future work in space. And, indeed, if we find ourselves at one point or
another faltering on Station, then NASA, in my judgment, will all but
disappear from being the agency that we now consider it to be. Its
budget will shrink dramatically and our role in space will be radically
impacted.
I think it is important for my colleagues, those who are especially
mindful today of the role and importance of the United States human
space flight program, I think it is important for them to focus upon
the sad news that we received yesterday of the death of Alan Shepard,
the first American in space.
On May 5, 1961, Alan Shepard was launched into space aboard a
converted missile which had an imperfect success record in a capsule
that had never been tested with a human occupant, with many, many
questions about what the impact of space flight would be on human
beings. It was this Nation's first step in human space flight.
Alan Shepard was welcomed back from his brief 15-minute suborbital
flight 115 miles into the Florida sky and 302 miles downrange, and as a
true American hero he was welcomed back. He was awarded the
Congressional Medal of Honor for space, two NASA Distinguished Service
Medals, Exceptional Service Medal and numerous other medals and awards.
His death is a great loss to the Nation and I join with all of those
who mourn his passing and celebrate his life, but indeed there is
little question that America is most interested and supportive of man's
role in space. Fundamental to that role in space is the work that we
are about Space Station.
Indeed, to step back from that at this point in time would really be
a great disservice, not just to our country but to the world's interest
as well as our future in space.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
(Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
California for yielding. Let me associate myself with his remarks.
Voting down the Roemer amendment is essential if NASA is to stay alive.
We have spent $22 billion already on the Space Station. There are
several hundred thousand pounds of materials that are set and ready to
go for launch. We should put those in orbit. We should not put them in
a museum.
I have a rather lengthy statement in support of the Space Station and
against the Roemer amendment, which I will not give due to the lateness
of the hour.
Today, Representative Roemer is offering an amendment to cancel the
International Space Station. While he has offered the amendment before
because he felt this was a poor investment of taxpayer money, he is the
unexpected beneficiary today of the fact that the Space Station has run
into difficulty.
Nevertheless, this amendment asks Congress to turn our backs on a
commitment the United States made to 15 other countries investing
billions on their contributions to the International Space Station.
This would have us throw away some $22 billion the American taxpayers
have already spent building the hardware for the International Space
Station. Most of that hardware already exists. Several hundred
thousands of pounds are being processed for launch into space at
Kennedy Space Center right now. The Station's opponents would have us
forego all of the scientific benefits that are going to flow from this
unique research laboratory. Finally, it would turn us away from our
future in the human exploration and development of space. That is not
the vision of a space program that most of us have. It is not the space
program that the American people want, and it is not the space program
we should pass on to future generations.
The responsible thing to do for the International Space Station is to
offer solutions to the program's problems, which this body did last
year in passing a two-year NASA authorization. That bill contained a
decision-tree that would prevent these problems from continuing and
offered commercialization options that would reduce the obligations the
taxpayers face while preserving the scientific research they deserve.
[[Page H6266]]
Since the President has declined to suggest a solution of his own to
the problems created by Russia's involvement in the program or to
enforce his own budget caps, Congress must hold the Administration's
feet to the fire.
The Senate has proposed one option of isolating the International
Space Station in its own appropriations account in order to end the
financial shell games that the Administration has been playing for the
last few years.
While this is an important step, we also need to hold the President
to his promises. H.R. 4194 does just that, providing all of the funding
for the International Space Station that the President originally
promised us he would need. But, in holding the President to his
original promise that the Station would cost no more than $2.1 billion
a year, this bill reflects a lack of confidence in NASA's justification
for program increases in the absence of meaningful reforms necessary to
prevent further schedule slips and cost overruns.
The decision to fund the International Space Station at $2.1 billion
despite the Administration's $2.27 billion request reflects the reality
that NASA's budget numbers for this program have no credibility. In
recent years, NASA has a track record of revising their estimates just
a few weeks after Congress funds the Station at their requested levels.
I don't think anyone should be surprised that this budget strategy has
worn thin. NASA has $400 to $500 million of carryover in the Space
Station program which should satisfy any budget shortfall.
Members who vote against the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Indiana will vote to provide an adequate level of funding while sending
a message that NASA must get its fiscal house in order.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I feel the underlying bill continues our
commitment to the human exploration of space while responsibly
addressing the program management's flaws. I urge my colleagues to
support human space exploration, our international commitments, and
those who have dedicated themselves to get this research laboratory off
the drawing board and into space.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would
announce to Members that because there is no time agreement, this will
be the last debate this evening and there will be no more votes.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I did not hear what the gentleman from
California said and I am not certain what he meant by what he said.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman stated that the debate on this subject
would be the last debate tonight and there would be no more rollcall
votes tonight.
Mr. OBEY. Does that mean that the gentleman intends to finish the
debate on this amendment tonight?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I
do intend to finish the debate on this amendment this evening. We will
roll that vote. We will not go any further than the NASA section this
evening and so essentially this will be the end of the debate.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, could I ask, has that arrangement been
cleared with our leadership?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I believe that is correct. I have been
instructed that is correct.
Mr. OBEY. That the debate will continue on this amendment until it is
finished tonight, but no more amendments?
Mr. LEWIS of California. No more amendments, that is correct, and no
votes. In other words, the vote will be rolled until tomorrow.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to speak on this amendment but,
frankly, we have had a good day filled with a lot of congeniality and
camaraderie, but one of the observations made by the subcommittee
chairman frankly got my dander up a little bit.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I
did not mean to do that, I want the gentleman to know.
Mr. OBEY. I simply want to suggest that I do not think that the
juxtaposition that the gentleman from Indiana laid out between spending
in space and spending here on the planet is at all illegitimate, as the
gentleman seemed to suggest.
{time} 2400
I remember being thrilled when Alan Shepard went into space, and I am
still thrilled by the prospect of space exploration. But times have
changed and budgets have changed. When Alan Shepard went in space, we
were meeting our obligations to house people on the ground, we were
meeting our obligations to our environment, we were meeting our
obligations to the poorest among us. We still had national standards
for the treatment of persons who were not in the winner's circle.
Today, we have none of those.
It just seems to me that when we see that this system has been
redesigned seven times, when we see that the cost has exploded, when we
see that this Congress is apparently willing to kill the low-income
heating assistance program to keep houses warm for four million people
on the face of the Earth, then I feel no guilt whatsoever in suggesting
that we ought to shut down that fancy house in the sky for eight
people.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate where my
colleague is coming from. We have had this discussion a number of times
on the floor, as the gentleman knows. And the gentleman certainly knows
that our committee is doing everything we can to adequately fund those
programs.
But having said that, within this specific category the entire
administration is supporting our position regarding this.
Mr. OBEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, that, to me, frankly, is
irrelevant. The fact is that none of these discussions have taken place
on this floor since the gentleman reported out on his side of the aisle
the labor, health, education and social services bill, which guts
services to the most defenseless and vulnerable people in this society.
And we need in that context to debate the issue that the gentleman from
Indiana is trying to debate tonight.
When we are willing to kill 500,000 summer jobs for kids who started
out in life just like the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Lou Stokes), then I
apologize not one whit for suggesting that the money that is being
spent on the Space Station, for now, perhaps, ought to be spent down
here on the ground.
When the gentleman indicates that he is willing to cut, to absolutely
wipe out reading and math help for 520,000 kids in our society, then I
make no apology for saying perhaps the Space Station ought to take the
back seat.
When the gentleman is going to kill safe haven after-school centers
for 400,000 kids on the ground, then I make no apology for trying to
take on or to raise the question of whether the spending in space ought
to be cut back.
We talk about making tough choices here. Oh, yes, we are really tough
if we are willing to take on the kids, if we are willing to take on the
poorest people in this society with no lobbies. But, boy, I do not see
anybody very tough when it comes to taking on the contractors who are
behind this, or behind the C-130s, or behind the F-22s, or any of the
other hardware that produces the glitz and produces the campaign
contributions. Not many campaign contributions for supporting help to
low-income kids.
And I think that is why we will have a quite different outcome on
these votes. And I could not help but say that after I heard the
direction that this debate was taking.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Roemer-Camp amendment. Last
year I stood on this floor and urged my colleagues to vote down
additional funds for the International Space Station, and at that time
the launch of the first module was scheduled for November and the total
cost of the project was estimated to be $94 billion. Well, guess what?
The module was never launched and now the cost overruns estimate this
project at $98 billion.
Last year the Congress decided to stick with the Space Station. I now
ask my colleagues when is enough enough? Will we vote to end funding
when the costs pass $110 billion, $120 billion, $150 billion? How high
do we have to go before we say no more?
Many of the original uses for the $8 billion Space Station, as were
so ably pointed out by my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Roemer), have now been superseded by other
[[Page H6267]]
NASA projects and missions and other technological advances. Now the
Space Station is simply a floating lemon that will cost 24 times its
weight in pure gold. This is a project plagued with delays, cost
overruns and unfulfilled promises. The Russian assurances have fallen
short and the American taxpayer has been left picking up the tab.
The other day I listened to two renowned scientists argue this $98
billion black hole is not necessary and is actually hurting the
sciences. In fact, the presidents of 10 different scientific societies
have called the Space Station, and I quote, ``A project of little
scientific or technical merit that threatens valuable space-related
projects and drains the scientific vitality of nations.'' The $80
billion not yet spent on the Space Station could provide an enormous
benefit to earth-based research.
I am not advocating we stop exploring space. In fact, I support space
exploration. But we must recognize the costs of this project far exceed
the benefits. Last year NASA captivated the world when it successfully
landed the Pathfinder on Mars at a cost of $267 million, a mere
fraction of the cost of the Space Station. Let us not forget that while
space is infinite, the American taxpayers' deep pockets are not.
We must get serious about what the core functions of the Federal
Government are. We continue to pay over $350 billion of interest on the
debt year after year. And while children have been amazed by the
promises of space exploration and the excitement it generates, I am
concerned with the debt each of these children will inherit. Congress
should invest the $80 billion in those children's future, not in a
flying lemon.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the persistence of the gentleman from
Indiana and the gentleman from Michigan. The Space Station was being
debated when I first got here. And one of the major arguments for it
was that we had to do it before the Russians did. I would recommend
that people go back to the Congressional Record. This started out as
something we had to do to frustrate the Russians. We now have to do it
to help the Russians. The justification has flipped on its head, but
the thrust goes forward.
The gentleman from California does do, in my judgment, a very good
job within the constraints that he has. We want to lessen his
constraints. I do not know how many Members of this body have told
veterans how much they regret having cut the smoking benefit. I daresay
that a great majority of the Members of this House have said to the
veterans, ``I am very sorry, but the constraints made me do it.'' This
is the very appropriations account where we could reinstate that
veterans health benefit for smoking simply by reducing this particular
item.
So the gentleman says, well, we do not understand how the Committee
on Appropriations works. We do. We have rules, and the rules say the
allocation goes to this particular subcommittee and they decide among
NASA and EPA and HUD and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Members
have a right to say that they want to continue with the Space Station.
I do not think Members have the intellectual or moral right to say to
veterans that they are very sorry that they could not fund their health
benefit if they vote to go forward with the Space Station. That is the
kind of choice we are making. Or to say to people, we wish we could
clean up more Superfund sites, or house more people who are hurting.
The other thing I must say. We sometimes get into rhetorical excess.
The worst things I have ever heard about NASA sometimes comes from its
defenders, because people come to the floor and say if we kill the
manned Space Station we are killing NASA. What an unfair denigration of
the important scientific work of NASA. The gentleman from Michigan just
mentioned the Mars Pathfinder. That was not dependent on the Space
Station. Indeed, those other things are competitors with the Space
Station.
The gentleman from California correctly mentioned Alan Shepard, one
of our great heroes. And we all lament the fact that he died. We care a
lot about human life.
{time} 0010
When we put human beings into the situation, we greatly increase the
cost because of our concern for human life. There are times when human
participation is scientifically very important.
The justification for the amount of money being spent to put those
people up in space in a Space Station is not scientific. It is
psychological. It is political. Go back and look at what the arguments
used to be.
No one has argued to me and I have never seen any group of reputable
scientists not directly involved in this project say that if the
Federal Government were to make available to scientists this amount of
money, that is how they would choose to use it.
Of course there is some worth to it. It is not money wasted. The
question is not whether it has got any value at all but whether this is
the single best use of that money. And no one thinks there is a
scientific justification. As I said, this started out with a political
justification and a military justification.
I am sorry I did not have time to go back into old Congressional
Records of 10 years ago, when we were being told we had to do this as a
matter of national security, we had to do it because if we did not do
it the Russians would do it. Now it has become a part of the foreign
aid program.
The general point is very clear, as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Roemer) has made clear, the money has been spent. The gentleman from
Wisconsin said we already spent $22 billion. I assume what he was doing
was submitting for us an illustration in the dictionary of idioms.
The gentleman from Wisconsin wanted to illustrate the meaning of
saying ``throwing good money after bad.'' Because the argument that
having spent $22 billion on a project that was originally supposed to
cost 8, we should now spend another 70, has a logic which defies me.
I do not understand why having already spent three times as much we
were told we should, we should go on so we spend 12 times as much. We
are in a very constrained situation. There is no case to be made that
this is the best use of the money.
I hope the amendment is adopted. If the amendment is adopted, we
would have more money to use for housing, for the Environmental
Protection Agency, for restoring the smoking health benefit for
veterans, and to enhance the scientific mission of NASA. Because the
great bulk of the money could go back to NASA.
The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) has made an excellent case.
Does anyone think if we had been told at the outset that this is what
the Space Station would cost and what it would give us that we would
have voted for it? The answer is no. It is not too late to ask for the
correct information.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) try to set a comparison about how we spend
money in the Government. And I want to commend the chairman, also a
member of the Committee on Appropriations, not the subcommittee, but
the whole committee, and I appreciate the chairman and the subcommittee
allocating the funds appropriately in a very tough budget climate.
I would just say to my colleagues, what is it worth to cure cancer,
that is what we are talking about, or helping cure diabetes, or helping
cure paralyses? There is a great body of scientific research going on
through NASA that is planned for the International Space Station to
cure these diseases, to grow cells and try to see what impact
microgravity or near-zero gravity has so that we can employ that kind
of technology and research and information and bring it here on earth
and replicate it and cure disease.
So I think I make the argument very forcefully that I think we are
going to do perhaps more to help people in the years ahead through the
International Space Station through medical research. It has got a
tremendous potential to help people in need. And there is nothing that
has a greater need in our society than health care for our people and
in combating disease.
I was in Huntsville and went to the Marshall Space Center just about
2 or 3 weeks ago and had a wonderful opportunity to see what is going
on there.
[[Page H6268]]
And I can say to my friends from firsthand experience, and I do not
know if the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) or the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Camp) or others have gone there, but if they have not, I
suggest they do to get a sense of what is being planned.
They can see the American portion of the Space Station built. It is
being built now in a very high-tech environment, in a high-energy
environment I might say. Certainly, Boeing is the contractor and has an
interest in this, which has an interest in my state. Well, that is
fine. But I tell my colleagues, the morale of the people working on the
Space Station is extremely high. They have great hope and great
interest in the good things that will come of this Space Station.
So I would just say to my friends and my colleagues, I think this has
great, great future value, this whole Space Station concept and all the
medical research. Just from a medical research standpoint, I think
there is tremendous potential in the disease areas that I mentioned
earlier, cancer, diabetes, microgravity and paralysis. I mean, there is
a tremendous potential here that we should not overlook and be short-
sighted about.
So I urge rejection respectfully of the Roemer-Camp amendment because
I really think this is something we have to do in order to meet the
future needs of our country and pay attention to the future and
certainly the health future of this great Nation and the world.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Roemer-Camp bipartisan
amendment. And to my colleague from California, the subcommittee
chairman that I respect so very much, I think we should know that maybe
the reason this discussion is ongoing from year to year to year is that
each year we are trying to make it clearer to those who are voting here
on the House floor that our investment, that of the United States, and
Russia's investment is going deeper and deeper in the hole and, in
turn, it is negatively affecting our very own domestic budget. And
those of us that keep talking about this do it for a purpose. I mean,
bad money after good money does not make sense when we have such tight
budgets.
I oppose further funding for the Space Station because I believe it
is wasteful. It is wasteful spending that drains resources from our
Nation's most urgent needs. This project, I believe, is an unwise
investment for our Nation, not only fiscally but also scientifically.
To date, the Space Station has experienced cost overruns resulting in
billions of dollars that our taxpayers are paying, and it comes out in
bills to them. Even worse, Russia's inability to pay its fair share of
the project is extremely troubling to me. This is an international
project. I mean, it is supposed to be. I think that is one of the
things we should be deciding, is it or is it not an international
project.
Also, supporters of the Space Station say we can learn many things
from microgravity research. We just heard that. Well, with $1.6 billion
savings from this amendment, we could offer college education,
including tuition, fees and books to 500,000, a half a million,
students who could not otherwise afford college right here on earth.
With $1.6 billion, we could provide prenatal care to pregnant women
who do not have access to routine health care right here on earth. With
$1.6 billion, we could expand the WIC program so that all eligible
pregnant and nursing mothers can get the food supplements; and we would
still have money left over.
Supporters of the Space Station make claims that research in space
will advance health research. Well, with $1.6 billion, we could fully
fund the National Heart, Lung and Blood institutes right here on earth.
With limited funds available for programs right here on earth, we
must focus our resources on our Nation's most urgent needs in order to
ensure a bright future for our children.
Let us not send our tax dollars out in space on a project that is
clearly lost in space when we have needs not met right here on earth.
Let us cancel the Space Station. Do it now. Stop wasting money. Vote
yes on the Roemer-Camp amendment.
{time} 0020
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words. I rise in strong opposition to the Roemer
amendment. In this era, more than at any other time in history, our
future depends on our staying on the cutting edge of the knowledge
frontier. That is why in this budget and other parts of the budget we
have this year and we have other years increased our investment in NIH,
in the National Institutes of Health. That is why we struggled to get
more and more money in the National Institutes of Science. That is why
we support R&D tax credits, to help companies invest the amount into
research and development that they need to be on the cutting edge of
product development. If you are not on the edge of science, if you are
not out there pressing the frontiers of knowledge now, in this era of
extraordinary, fast-paced change, our children will not have the
economic opportunity we would hope for them nor the opportunity to
improve the quality of their lives that we have had.
Investing in the Space Station is part of keeping America at the
cutting edge of the knowledge frontier. That will have enormous
dividends for people here and now. Our work on the Space Station is
leading to developments that could more than make up for our Federal
investment. For example, the U.S. is currently using space-based
research to gain a better understanding of combustion, which accounts
for nearly 85 percent of the world's energy production and is a leading
cause of the world's atmospheric pollution. Consider that U.S. fuel
consumption is approximately $300 billion a year. If microgravity
combustion research helps make our energy use more efficient, even if
we only use 1 percent less fuel, we will save more than $3 billion a
year and reduce industrial pollution at the same time. The kind of
research that can go on in space is the kind of research that cannot go
on elsewhere and can have enormous dividends both in freeing up
resources and in attacking some of our most serious problems. But it is
not just what we can do when we get there. It is what we are doing in
the process of going there. And, yes, it has been more expensive than
we thought because we have never done it before. It has taken longer
than we thought, because no one has ever done before what we are trying
to do in building this Space Station. But we are learning an enormous
amount along the way. What we are learning is strengthening our
manufacturing base and our capabilities in many, many ways.
To build a Space Station, you have to build product, parts,
components to a 30-year life standard. You cannot run down to the
hardware store and get something to repair it if it does not work in
space. You cannot run back down to Earth and get a fix-it quick. When
we work to build a Space Station, we are building to 30-year life
standards and that has never been done and has extraordinary
implications for manufacturing and other areas. It has led to the
development of increased productivity through integrating design and
manufacturing in frankly truly revolutionary ways.
When I go through the plants in my district that are building parts
for the Space Station and see the developments that have come out of
this demand for 30-year life, it is awesome. It is going to have
enormous implications as the years go by for the quality of products
like automobiles, for their safety, for their strength, for so on and
so forth. When I go into companies in my district that design and
produce for the Space Station, I am struck by the extraordinary
challenge of keeping a clean environment, clean air, clean water within
a tight capsule for months and years at a time. Think what that has
already done for the science of cleansing air, for managing liquids. It
is extraordinary what we have already learned just in trying to invent
to the standard that the Space Station challenge puts upon us.
And so along with the Space Station commitment goes the development
of many, many thousands of high-paying jobs, 500 high-paying, high-tech
jobs just in the companies in Connecticut. These are the very kinds of
jobs that not only can do this job but keep America at the cutting
edge. I urge
[[Page H6269]]
Members to be far-sighted and oppose this amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. MOLLOHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
This amendment would end U.S. participation in the international Space
Station program. Once again as we do year in and year out, we find
ourselves debating whether or not to continue U.S. leadership in this
vital space initiative. Opponents of this program ask you to focus on
cost. But any cost analysis must also involve a benefit analysis. The
benefits to be gained from research and technological leadership
reverberate far beyond space exploration and will be shared by all
Americans.
The international space station will serve as a research laboratory
for present day advances in medicine. Information gained will lead to
enhanced drug design and better treatment of diseases.
Technology developed for the space station will also lead to advances
in numerous fields, including environmental systems, communications,
and computer technology. Micro technologies and robotic systems
developed for the space station are just two areas where businesses are
already reaping benefits. More gains will follow.
New technologies will allow for the expansion of existing businesses
and the creation of new businesses. Advances gained through NASA
programs have been, and will continue to be, an important source of
commercial development.
Just as the race to the Moon propelled the United States to the world
leadership role in science and technology in the second half of the
20th century, the space station will guarantee the United States
remains the leader far into the 21st century.
While the full participation of our partners remains a concern, NASA
has taken concrete steps to plan for any contingency. NASA is
proactively addressing these problems--establishing the Russian program
assurance budget to provide contingency planning funds, and initiating
development of an interim control module should the Russian service
module be delayed.
With the first components of the space station planned for launch in
the next several months, now is not the time to retreat from our
commitments.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and continue support
for our Nation's space program.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I associate myself with the
remarks of the gentleman from West Virginia, and simply say that for
each dollar that we invest in the space program we receive up to nine
in return in new products, technologies and processes on Earth.
I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Roemer), but let me say to you that the numbers are somewhat skewed.
The gentleman from Indiana knows and we know that the original 1984
estimate of $8 billion for the Space Station was development cost. In
1993, NASA estimated that a redesigned international Space Station
would cost $17 billion. The $17 billion include research and operating
expenses, along with hardware development. The $98 billion figure
includes costs such as $43 billion for the space shuttle flights and
$13 billion for 10 years of operating expenses. The real cost for the
international Space Station is $21 billion.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I would simply say we cannot afford to get rid
of the Space Station. Our Russian friends and our copartners around the
world are committed to saving the Space Station. The Space Station
provides us in the show and tell with an array of opportunities, air
conditioning, advanced materials for airplanes and many others. I
oppose the amendment because I believe we cannot look back, and in
tribute to Alan Shepard we must look to the future. I think all
Americans would want us to do that.
Mr. Chairman, I rise against the amendment offered by Representative
Roemer, and in support of our efforts in space.
The persons who support this amendment argue that they can no longer
afford to invest in the International Space Station. I believe, on the
other hand, that this space station is an opportunity that we cannot
afford to pass up.
NASA has a proven track record. The science experiments that have
been performed have led to spinoffs that not only make our lives more
convenient, but also improve our health and well-being. For each dollar
that we invest in space programs, we receive up to nine in return in
new products, technologies, and processes here on Earth. Fellow
colleagues, we owe it to our constituents to make sure that the
International Space Station becomes a reality.
I want to remind you all, the materials research that has been done
by NASA in space has been invaluable to us. With the help of the
International Space Station, we can only expect more breakthroughs and
innovations for manufacturers, businesses, and consumers.
I would like to give you an example of how research in space is
helping our materials research on Earth today. If you look around, you
will notice a plethora of metal items. Metals like steel and aluminum
are often cast directly into the shapes that you see, and even more
likely, the metal started out as a liquid, way back at the beginning of
its manufacturing life.
If you were in the business of making things out of metal, like
casting an engine block for a car or the circuitry for a microchip, you
would want to know some very important things--for instance, how
durable will the metal be? Or how long will it take to make this
product?
For manufacturers, knowing these things is extremely beneficial,
because it affects the cost and the quality of their products. To
answer these questions, scientists must rely on the science of micro-
physics, or the study of microstructure, which helps predict the
behavior of materials at the molecular level.
Because gravity affects the way that things solidify, gravity also
affects the formation of microstructure. This makes it very difficult
for engineers and scientists to predict what will happen when you begin
the manufacturing process. In other words, it is simply too difficult
to make any predictions about what gravity will do to the formation of
the microstructures, unless you know what will happen when there is no
gravity to complicate matters.
Experiments conducted on the Space Shuttle by Professor Martha
Glicksman have helped materials scientists and engineers take
significant strides toward the goal of being able to predict how
microstructures will develop during the manufacturing process.
As a benefit of these experiments in space, scientists have obtained
the highest quality information every produced on the development and
evolution of dendrites, a basic building block of microstructures. This
research has produced a benchmark against which theories and computer
simulations that predict microstructures can be rigorously tested.
This information would not be available to us today without the help
of NASA, and its programs in space. The International Space Station
will undoubtedly produce similar breakthroughs, especially in light of
the fact that these experiments will be conducted over a much longer
period of time than those done on the space shuttle.
By funding the International Space Station, we make an investment
that is bound to pay off. I urge you all to vote against this
amendment, and for our future.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman
yielding. I specifically wanted to respond to the gentlewoman from
Texas as well. I appreciate both of your participation in this.
The gentlewoman from Texas mentioned very briefly the international
partnership that is involved here. We have not discussed that very much
this evening, and I think certainly we should. The fact that our
international partners in the European space agency are being so
cooperative, the fact that we do have an ongoing relationship with
Russia in spite of their economic difficulties in which they are
putting the money that they are obligated to in the pipeline. The
reality that this is now a world Space Station that provides our future
hope for man's work in space, that has so much potential in terms of
economic and medical and other kinds of breakthroughs, is a very
important item, and I appreciate very much both of you participating in
it.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Roemer amendment and
I encourage all my colleagues to vote ``no.'' We have been engaging in
this debate for many, many years and it is true that each year more and
more Members vote against killing the Space Station and in support of
continuing this project. The reason I believe is obvious. This project
has a tremendous potential to yield incredible
[[Page H6270]]
benefits to mankind. Balancing the budget is a very, very noble task
and it is certainly something that is important to our children.
Indeed, it is a very good thing for us to do that. But I can tell you
from my experience of talking to kids in my district, while they
recognize balancing the budget is good and fixing Medicare is good and
cleaning up the environment is good and even improving education is
good, nothing excites them more than telling them and teaching them
about our space program and the Space Station and its potential.
{time} 0030
Indeed, I have talked to teachers all over this country, and they all
invariably tell me, teachers of math and science, that there is nothing
that motivates their kids and their class more than the Space Station
and talking about the manned space program.
Here to my left is a diagram of the Space Station when it will be
fully assembled and complete. I am very happy that the chairman of the
committee spoke about the international partners involved with this. We
have the Europeans who have spent over $6 billion; the Japanese, $4
billion; the Canadians, $1 billion.
This project is on the verge of being a huge success. We have no idea
of the potential spin-off benefits to mankind.
Indeed, I spoke on the floor of this House 1 month ago about a
product that is a spin-off of our space program called Quick Boost that
has the potential to improve the efficiency of air conditioning units
all over this country and has the potential to save energy costs
equivalent to the entire cost of our manned space flight program from
its very beginnings, from the beginning of the Mercury Program to this
date.
I encourage all of my colleagues to, again, resoundingly reject the
Roemer amendment and vote ``no'' on the Roemer amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my very good friend and colleague, the
gentleman from the great State of Alabama (Mr. Cramer).
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Florida for yielding. I want to associate myself with his remarks. I,
too, rise in opposition to the Roemer amendment.
This is a first for us. We have debated this amendment many, many
times before. We have had a fair fight. But never have we debated it in
the wee hours of the morning like this and under these circumstances.
But my colleague, the gentleman from Florida, makes excellent points
about our international partners. By the end of this year, NASA and the
international partners will have built over half a million pounds of
flight hardware. The first two elements of the Space Station will be in
orbit. It is too late to turn our back on this project now. If we turn
our back on this project, we are turning our back on human space
flight; and we cannot do that either.
Make no mistake about it, the type of medical research that we have
been talking about here tonight, we cannot do that unless we go up
there in space on a permanently manned orbiting laboratory. This has
been in design. We spent millions and billions of dollars on this, and
we cannot turn our back on it.
I also want to congratulate the chairman of the committee and ranking
member of the committee. They have had to make some tough choices. They
have had to engage in a tough balancing act, but they have done it. I
thank them for it. We in Alabama are proud of them for having done it.
I say let us get off of NASA's back. We have made them dot I's. We
have made them cross T's. We held the NASA employees hostage. It is
time for us to move forward. Oppose the Roemer amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman
yielding to me.
I want to just say to my colleagues as well as all who might be
interested to this discussion, no one has made the contribution that
the gentleman from Florida has regarding this effort. His consistent
and intensive focus upon the future that we have in space and the work
that involves the Station itself is very much appreciated, and he has
made a very significant difference in the effectiveness, not just in
our discussion, but also the rapidity of which we are moving forward in
this program.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to add one more thing. I
have gone into the Space Station processing facility of Kennedy Space
Center, and I have gone into the first elements. I want to tell my
colleagues that the people who are working on this program are excited
and ready. The kids are excited to see this program flying in the sky.
The potential benefits that can accrue to mankind are huge. They are
not even imaginable.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Roemer amendment. I do so
reluctantly because I have always been a supporter of the space
program, and I believe that we have a bright future for manned
exploration in space.
But I think that it simply does not make sense to continue with this
project at this time on several bases. First, I want to associate
myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in
terms of the priorities within this budget now in terms of our social
programs here at home.
Second, however, let us talk about the space program. I fear we are
repeating a mistake we made in the 1970s and 1980s. Santayana defined a
fanatic as one who redoubles his efforts when he has forgotten his
purposes. I think that characterizes the Space Station.
We are told that the Space Station is now justified for manned space
exploration. But we do not have a program for manned space exploration.
If we had made a national goal of reexploring the moon, of going back
to the moon and starting to exploit its natural resources, of having a
manned program for Martian exploration, I might support such a program;
and then the Space Station would make sense as part of it.
But every justification for the space program that I have seen, save
one, can equally or better be done without the expenditure and the
Space Station. That one is research on the long-term physiological
effects of manned space flight. For that, we will need a Space Station.
But we do not need that until we make the commitment to manned space
flight to Mars, and then we should do that.
This program is eating up NASA's budget. We saw the same thing with
the space shuttle. Why are we launching satellites on Chinese rockets?
Forget the controversy for the moment of the President and President
Bush and Reagan about the waivers, but why do our industries want to
launch satellites on Chinese rockets? Because they are cheaper, $200
million to launch cheaper. Why?
Why did the United States not develop cheap space rockets, cheap
launching? Because everything in that budget was devoted to the space
shuttle in the 1970s and 1980s, a dead end.
Our space rockets today are still based on the Atlas and Titan ICBMs
in the 1960s. The Titan IV is our biggest launcher based on the ICBM.
The Titan first launched in 1960 or 1961. Why? Because we had no money
to develop cheaper commercially viable space launching vehicles because
all our money was going into the shuttle.
We should be spending money now, more money on the scientific
exploration of space, on more basic research that will have the spin-
offs and the benefits for medical science. We should be spending more
money on programs like the X-33 to reduce the cost per pound of going
into orbit.
Once we have reduced that cost by a factor of 10 or 100, then we can
look again at a Space Station, because then the cost of developing a
Space Station will be much less because it will not cost that much to
get the material into orbit. That ought to be our priority.
This Space Station is too little and too early. It is too little
because why are we spending $100 billion for an eight-person capacity
Space Station when the Mir Space Station held six people. It is too
early because it should be done once we have the capacity because of
the X-33 research, perhaps 10 years from now, to launch the components
into space cheaply.
[[Page H6271]]
If the United States were pursuing a properly targeted space program,
we would now have a crash program to develop cheap launch vehicles so
that the Hugheses and Lorals and General Dynamics of our country would
want to launch their satellites on our rockets because they are cheaper
and more efficient, and we would not have to worry about the security
with the Chinese.
We are paying for the mistakes of the 1970s and 1980s, and now we are
going to repeat that mistake on a larger scale. The space shuttle, as
beautiful as it is, was a blind alley because what did it get us that
we did not have? It did not reduce the cost of poundage into orbit
which was the promise. It diverted us from the proper courses we are to
make.
At this point, we are to be spending some of this money on low-income
housing units, some of this money on school, some of this money on low-
income heating. We ought to be spending more of the money on cheaper,
more efficient rockets, for current satellite launchers. We ought to be
spending more of the money on developing the capability of launching
large payloads into space at a much lower unit cost so that it makes
sense for our commercial private sector to get more heavily involved
with less subsidy.
Finally, let me say this is distorting our relationship with our
foreign friends.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Roemer-Camp amendment
to end this black hole of fiscal irresponsibility known as the
International Space Station, but I do so very sadly. Mr. Chairman, I do
commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Camp) for the courage that they are showing by offering
this amendment.
{time} 0040
I would venture to guess if this issue was polled in the general and
abstract around the country, there would be overwhelming support for
the continuation of funding for the International Space Station. But I
would also venture to guess if the American people knew the facts as
far as the funding and cost overruns, a program that started off at $8
billion now estimated by the GAO this year to be around $100 billion, a
1,200 percent increase, people across the county would be saying,
``let's pull back and take another look at this and see if this is the
right direction we need to go in.''
As a representative of western Wisconsin, Mr. Chairman, who produced
some outstanding astronauts for our national space program, Deke
Slayton, one of the original Mercury astronauts hails from a small town
in western Wisconsin, and current astronaut Mark Lee, a space shuttle
astronaut who will be going up into space early next year, I am a
strong supporter of space exploration and our national space program, a
strong supporter of the NASA budget, and in fact, of the next fiscal
year.
Of the $15 billion in that budget, $13.5 billion is fine. It is the
$1.5 billion that adds to the continuation of the International Space
Station that I have a problem with. Because the space program is really
what America is all about. It brings about the best in America and what
we are.
Who will forget, those of you living, the moment when Yuri Gugarin of
Russia was the first person to be launched into space, and the shock
waves that reverberated around the country that, my goodness, we are
falling behind the Soviet Union in space exploration? But, 20 days
later, Alan Shepard, sitting on that Mercury Redstone rocket with
courage that only he could know whether or not it was going to blow up
underneath him, was the first American that was sent into outer space.
And then 20 days after that, where a young president by the name of
John F. Kennedy challenged our Nation to send a man to the moon and
safely return him to earth.
It has brought out the best in America and what we stand for, and the
hopes and dreams of not only adults, but of children, realizing the
importance of science and math. Alan Shepard was a childhood hero of
mine. I had Freedom VII on my dresser growing up as a kid in the
1960's. Our heartfelt condolences go out to his family tonight. He was
a great American hero.
Perhaps this country would be better served if more pictures of
astronauts were to grace the magazine covers today, rather than the
Hollywood stars and sports heroes that seem to dominate popular culture
today. Who would forget Apollo XIII and those dreaded bone chilling
words, ``Houston, we have a problem,'' and the fact that after the
explosion and the machine that filtered the carbon dioxide from the
capsule went under, the Director of Space Operations got all the
scientists and engineers together and gave them the material that the
capsule had and said, You have one hour to come up with a device that
will filter the carbon dioxide out of the capsule so the astronauts can
breath and we can get them home safely. As he concluded and was walking
out, then he turned and said, ``Failure is not an option.'' It was not.
They came up with a device and were able to save the astronauts and
return them safely.
It was one of my great honors just a few weeks ago to be able to
present Commander Jim Lovell in western Wisconsin at a space show the
Outstanding Wisconsin Aviator because he came from Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.
The space program is a wonderful program, Mr. Chairman, there is no
question about it. But what has to be questioned is the tremendous cost
overrun that the American taxpayers are facing today in order to
perpetuate a space program that, by and large throughout the scientific
community, has limited value.
You are hard pressed to find any scientist in the entire country who
will come out in support of the space program who is not already on the
NASA budget. I think that sends a very strong message about the lunacy
of continuing to throw good money after bad in this venture.
I think it is time that we step back, we take a deep breath, and
realize what is happening with a program that is 1,200 percent over
budget. And where is the end, and what is going to be the scientific
value? What cannot be accomplished scientifically on the space shuttle
today that can be on the space station? These are the things that we
have to question. That is why we are having the debate at a quarter to
one here in Washington, D.C. tonight.
In an era when we are trying to tighten our belts, to bring fiscal
responsibility to this place and hopefully reduce the $5.5 trillion
national debt, a 1,200 percent over-budget program is wrong. I ask my
colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, why on Earth do we spend money in space?
Mr. Chairman, when a young President, John Kennedy, described his
vision in 1961 of landing a man on the moon, he encountered also many
skeptics. Some said it could not be done. Some said it would cost too
much money. But when I watched Neil Armstrong take his first step on to
the moon eight years later, I knew the naysayers were wrong, and so did
my high school students, who huddled around the television set with me
that unforgettable day. I saw the gleam in their eyes that inspired
them to become our future engineers and future scientists.
So why on earth do we spend money in space? So our kids will have a
dream to dream. Space exploration has evolved over the last 30 years to
more than just romantic notions of collecting moon rocks and taking
pictures of other planets in our solar system. Scientific studies
conducted in space have led to thousands, if not hundreds of thousands
of practical applications here on earth, as this graph here
illustrates.
In fact, financing research projects in space is one of the best
investments our Nation can make. For each tax dollar we spend in space,
we get a $9 return here on earth in new products, in new technologies,
in new improvements for millions of people around the world.
It would take too long to recount the many advances in agriculture,
business and medicine that are a direct result of manned space
exploration. Instead, let me tell you about some real people who have
already benefitted from the discoveries made in space for the last
three decades.
Let me start with someone in the district of the gentleman from
Indiana
[[Page H6272]]
(Mr. Roemer). Weather satellite storm prediction systems and long-range
weather forecasts developed during space missions helped Brent
Graybill, the director of the Elkhart County, Indiana, Office of
Emergency Management, to warn residents of hazardous flash floods and
dangerous tornados before they destroy people's homes and take their
lives, a direct result of manned space exploration.
And in the hometown of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp),
Midland, Michigan, the fire chief there, Dan Hargarten, he uses
protective clothing made possible due to space research to help protect
his crew from harm as they battle destructive fires, and technological
advances in breathing apparatus are studied in space and will allow 68
brave Michigan fire fighters, all volunteers, to battle Florida's fire
storms without losing their lives, another direct result of manned
space exploration.
And in the district of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the
``After Breast Cancer'' support group meets every Monday evening to
share their experiences fighting breast cancer. Well, many cancer
survivors are living longer, fuller lives, thanks to early detection of
cancer cells made possible by CAT scan technology. You guessed it, a
direct result of manned space exploration.
So why on earth should we spend money in space? Because we owe it to
the millions of Americans who could benefit from future medical
advances to continue funding, rather than gutting the International
Space Station.
NASA researchers are making great strides in, for example,
neurobiology, that could help my sister, Mary Jo, and countless others
who are confined to wheel chairs regain their mobility.
Mr. Chairman, there are those who feel that we do not need men and
women, as you have heard, in space, and that they could be replaced by
robots. Of course, there are also those who say the same thing about
Congress. So why on earth do we spend money in space? For the sake of
my sister, and your children's children; because every dollar we spend
on a space program yields $9 in returns here on earth; and because that
young President said, when he stood in Houston, Texas, on September 12,
1962, This country of the United States was not built by those who
waited and rested and wished to look behind them. This country was
conquered by those who moved forward, and so will space.
I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the Roemer amendment.
{time} 0050
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, earlier this evening in this debate, one of the
proponents of the Space Station described the benefits of the Space
Station as indescribable. I could not agree more. And the reason they
are indescribable is because they do not exist.
We have listened now for 14 years about the benefits of the Space
Station, about the potential, and that same speaker made reference to
the potential of the Space Station several times during his speech.
But the time comes, Mr. Chairman, when we have to move from the
potential to the reality. We have heard so much about waiting for the
Space Station, waiting for the Space Station, and all the benefits that
are going to come from it. It reminds me of the play ``Waiting for
Godot,'' where we keep waiting and waiting and waiting and it never
comes.
The Space Station never comes and the benefits never come. We have
heard time and time again how the Space Station is going to help our
international relationship with Russia. That this is going to improve
our relations with Russia. Of course, it started out a decade and a
half ago we were going to build the Space Station to ward off Russia.
Things have changed, and now we are going to cement our relationship
with Russia.
Have we seen that happen? No, we have seen more problems with Russia
and their inability to finance their share and that has basically set
back our relationship more than improved it.
We have been told that there is going to be tremendous job growth,
and I agree. Frankly, if I were a representative from one of the
districts, as we have seen tonight, that benefit economically from the
Space Station, my colleagues can bet I would get up here and talk about
the benefits. Because if we are spending $98 billion and even 10
percent of that were coming to my district, if I had $10 billion, I do
not care what it would be. I would be talking about the economic
benefits of the Space Station.
But if the Space Station is merely a jobs program, then we should
call it a jobs program and we should spread the benefits throughout
this country.
But the fact of the matter is 85 percent of the jobs are located in
three States. So we have a tremendous influx of great economic
resources into those three states, but does it benefit the country? I
do not think it does.
But the one that kills me, the argument that kills me, and I have
heard it time and time again, is how the Space Station is literally the
greatest thing since sliced bread. In the 6 years I have been here, the
Space Station was going to cure cancer, was going to cure Parkinson's
disease, was going to cure Alzheimer's disease. Tonight we hear it is
going to improve air conditioning.
Mr. Chairman, I hear these over and over again, and as I am listening
to the debate the thought came back to me, the same thought I had last
year, and it reminds me of the story of the emperor with no clothes,
because we parade this huge monstrosity, this huge economic black hole
in front of Congress and we dress it up and say it is going to cure
cancer. And then we dress it up and say it is going to cure Parkinson's
disease. And then it is going to cure AIDS. At some point somebody has
got to get up and say the emperor has no clothes. It does not solve
these problems.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard people who are proponents of the Space
Station say that those of us who are opposed to it are opposed to a
manned space program. That is the furthest thing from the truth. Every
single speaker has talked about the joy that we have experienced
because of the great steps forward as a result of the NASA manned space
program. But to say that one is opposed to the Space Station means that
they are opposed to sending money into space needlessly and that is a
key distinction.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I think that that is an important point to
clarify, because personally I am for NASA and I am for the other $11
billion that we spend every year.
I would recommend to the viewers out there at 1 o'clock in the
morning who are tuned into this TV station to pick up the August issue
of the National Geographic and to see the wonderful pictures of what
Pathfinder did for $267 million. Did it on budget, on time, with a
third of the bureaucracy that NASA has done with other projects at the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. Did a wonderful job and
excited the Nation.
We had children all across the Nation glued to the TV, as I was glued
to the TV in 1968 to watch Neal Armstrong take a step on the moon.
These programs can work and we should support them. And I agree with
the gentleman from Wisconsin, there are very good programs going on in
NASA, but not the Space Station.
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, finally I
want to compliment the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) because they have been leaders in
the wilderness on this issue. It is not easy to get before this
Congress when there are vast resources put into promoting this program.
But it takes people I think to have the determination, like the
gentleman from Indiana and the gentleman from Michigan, to continue
this fight. And we may not win tonight, but sooner or later the
American people are going to see that this is money that is being
shipped into outer space.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
(Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, let me add my compliments for
[[Page H6273]]
the role that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) has played over
the years in voicing his objections to the Space Station. He showed
great understanding and knowledge of the space program, great tenacity.
Mr. Chairman, the system is such that he may well end up being
chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics in the fairly
near future, and he may have an opportunity to directly exercise the
kind of control over the Space Station that he is trying to do with
this amendment.
I do not agree with his position, and so I rise in opposition to his
amendment. I would like to point out that the space program has never
been judged in terms of its immediate, measurable benefits. Several
mentions have been made of Alan Shepard's flight back in 1962, and of
President Kennedy's announcement of the Apollo program shortly after
that.
There is no way on earth we can justify the Apollo program on
economic grounds. It was a one-time effort. It was a crash effort. It
was done out of fear that the Russians, who had already excelled in
several things, they had launched the first satellite, they had
launched the first man, and it was the fear in America that we had
irreparably lost our technological leadership of the world. That led
the President to announce that we would send a man to the moon.
We created the Apollo program. The huge Saturn rockets, we have never
used them again. We have lost the plans to them. We would not know how
to build another one of them. What remains is in some museum somewhere.
And after we had successfully completed the program, then we sat back
and said what will we do next?
It took us a little while to decide maybe we should go for a space
transportation system instead of a grandiose plan like that. The budget
of NASA at that time during the 1960s was three times what it is today.
It has gone down steadily since that period of time, and I regret that.
I frequently mention that NASA is going downhill more than I would
like.
There was no economic benefit from that. It was merely a
psychological benefit restoring the confidence of America in their
ability to cope with Russia and the rest of the world.
Now, that is not quite the situation with the Space Station.
Incidentally, the Space Station did not develop as a program to beat
the Russians, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) mentioned
earlier. The Russians already had a Space Station when we decided that
we were going to build a Space Station.
We recognized that if we had any intention of human role in space,
that it had to be based upon the ability to create structures in space
and to live in those structures and to make use of those structures in
zero or relatively zero gravity for the purpose of determining the
sustainability of life in space and conducting research that would be
beneficial in space.
We did not even bring back a bag of rocks from the moon that we could
look to and say this is the economic benefit we have reached. The
Russians sent an unmanned probe to the moon, picked up a bag of rocks,
and brought them back. We subsequently gathered a few, but they were
not nearly as many as the Russians and so they outdid us on the one
economic benefit, collecting rocks. And there was no gold or diamonds
in the rocks anyway.
But what we have been almost unconsciously doing is voicing the
aspiration of the human race to move beyond the bounds of earth into a
new environment that is universal. This is something that attracts a
huge amount of people. We cannot quantify it. We cannot measure the
economic benefit. It is a matter of satisfying the demands of the human
spirit; the same thing in a different sense that drove us to send the
Apollo program and land the first humans on the moon.
Incidentally, those who know the Shepard story well recognize that he
had one first. He was not the first man on the moon. He was the first
man to hit a golf ball on the moon.
{time} 1300
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown)
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Lewis of California, and by unanimous consent, Mr.
Brown of California was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to express my deep
appreciation for not just the gentleman's commentary this evening but
for the long history of his being supportive of these programs and
understanding them perhaps better than anybody else in the House.
The reality is that Space Station is not just a toy out in space. I
have heard several of our colleagues this evening talk about how they
support NASA, they support our probe in space, support our work in
space. And yet the reality is that if man is going to be in space, we
need to learn many of these things that we are learning by this
process.
It is not just a question of health, things that we learn from people
being in zero gravity, et cetera. It is building things in space.
Having men and women work in space. Indeed, if NASA is going to carry
forward that Horizon project that is the dream of our people, that new
horizon, it will not be done without an effective Space Station.
The gentleman's work has been extremely helpful, and I wanted him to
know I appreciate him.
Mr. BROWN of California. And I want the gentleman to know I
appreciate his continued support and that of his colleagues on the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Here are some facts on the Space Station. Significant development
progress has been made on the International Space Station. Seventy-five
percent of the development milestones have been completed. The first
two elements of the Space Station are ready and being prepared for
launch. Over 400,000 pounds of flight hardware have been built. By the
end of 1998, NASA and its international partners will have built over a
half million pounds of flight hardware. And the first two elements of
the Space Station will be in orbit.
The return of U.S. astronaut Andy Thomas marks the successful
conclusion of the Shuttle-Mir program. Ten rendezvous and nine docking
missions, and over 950 days of U.S. astronaut experience aboard the Mir
has given the United States invaluable experience in long-term space
operations which has prepared NASA to more effectively conduct
permanent operations aboard the International Space Station.
Space shuttle crews assigned to the first three assembly flights of
the International Space Station have already been selected and begun
training. The Space Station assembly crews have already been selected.
The first four crews to live and work aboard the Space Station have
been selected and are actively training in Russia, the United States,
Europe, and Canada.
The International Space Station Research Plan has been adopted and
published and selection is underway for what will eventually be 900
principal investigators conducting research aboard the Space Station.
NASA remains fully committed to meet Space Station research
requirements, and has included full funding for enhanced research
capabilities in the budget of the program.
The Research Plan outlines the use of the world class International
Space Station laboratories. Space Station capacity for data transfer
has been significantly updated from the original plan.
November 20th, 1998 is the revised launch date for the U.S.-owned
Russian-built control module. It will followed on December 3, 1998 by
the launch of Unity, the U.S. node. Launch of the Russian Service
Module is scheduled for April 1999. Assembly will be complete in
January 2004.
The Russian-built service module is 95 percent complete and has been
shipped for final outfitting and testing. As a hedge against Russian
Service Module delays, NASA has modified the Russian-built control
module and is developing a U.S. Interim control module in the event
additional Service Module delays are encountered.
Although the recently issued report of the Cost Assessment and
Validation Task Force, headed by Jay Chabrow,
[[Page H6274]]
has concluded that technical and schedule risk could force total
International Space Station costs to reach $24.7 billion, NASA has not
revised its existing estimate of $21.3 billion.
NASA continues to evaluate other contingency plans to address
possible further Russian funding delays and is refining those plans for
implementation, if needed.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the Space Station, despite its difficulties is the
greatest peaceful international scientific endeavor in the history of
the world. The Space Station is a platform for international peace. It
is a platform for international science. It is a platform for national
and international economic growth. It is a platform for future
generations.
Children sense it. In my own district I saw John Glenn speak to a
school full of elementary children, and they stood transfixed as he
talked about his flight, as he talked about outerspace, as he talked
about where America was going for the future, because they saw it as
their future as well.
The Space Station is a platform for future human achievement. It will
help us grow the economy of the future, to improve the quality of life
for all people. Twenty-nine years ago the United States became the
first Nation to land an astronaut on the moon. Now, what if Congress
had told John Kennedy, when he set out to make a lunar landing a
national goal, what if Congress had said, ``No, you can't. It is
impractical. It is wasteful.'' Twenty-nine years ago the people of the
United States stood transfixed as we saw Neil Armstrong take one small
step for man, one giant step for mankind.
One mission after another, the space program has kept advancing
America's frontiers. Advancing our dreams. Now, the poet Browning once
wrote, ``But a man's reach should exceed his grasp or what is a heaven
for.'' The Alan Shepards, the Gus Grissoms, the John Glenns, the Buzz
Aldrins, the Christa McAuliffes all represent the courage, the vision
of this great country.
America is a practical Nation. We understand cost benefits, and there
have been practical benefits, as has been pointed out, $9 returned for
every $1 spent in the space program. But America, too, is a Nation
about a ceaseless quest for achievement.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Kucinich was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, the stars which emblazon our flag, which
ring this chamber and which surround that eagle that looks down on us
every day, those stars could also represent the stars that we reach
for.
Our future as a Nation is certainly about what we do on this earth,
but it is also about the sky above. It is also about the human heart
exploring the unknown. Americans know this. That is why they support
the space program, and that is why they are hoping this Congress is
going to support the International Space Station.
Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I will not take my whole 5 minutes, but I want to thank
my colleague from Ohio and all the speakers this evening, because I
think what they are talking about is what really America is about. And
I want to thank my colleague from Wisconsin, who is here and said if he
had part of this in his district, that he would be for it.
Well, I do represent the Houston area, but I do not represent part of
the NASA area. In fact, my joke is when somebody in my district gets a
job at the Space Station, or NASA, in Clear Lake, they actually move to
the district of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) or the district
of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). They are not in my district,
because they move closer to their jobs.
I rise in opposition to the Roemer amendment because it strikes the
funding for the International Space Station. The International Space
Station represents the future of space exploration for our country. It
represents a high-tech lab whose innovations will have countless
applications in the daily lives of Americans. Whether we live in one of
those districts that have the module being built or not, it represents
an era of international cooperation that everyone will benefit from.
We heard tonight the talk about how the Russians may not be able to
do their part. It is not just the Russians, it is lots of other
countries, our neighbors in Canada and Japan and in Europe.
To date, the International Space Station has been a model of
international cooperation and responsible management. If Congress does
undermine the funding for the Space Station with an unexpected
reduction, it will represent a major reversal in the commitment made to
the program's stability over the past few years and it will be a
betrayal of our entire international partners.
The International Space Station is well on its way to assembly, with
the first of the hardware elements already in the final stages of
preparation for launch in November of this year, just 5 months away.
{time} 0110
Critics have said the cost for the life cycle of the space station
has dramatically risen, when in fact the cost for the life cycle of the
space station has actually gone up only by 2 percent in the past 3
years.
Mr. Chairman, this debate is more about not necessarily the space
station. I watched one of our astronauts, Dr. Ellen Ochoa, visit middle
schools in my district. It is an inner-city district in Houston,
predominantly minority children in those districts. I watched Dr. Ochoa
captivate those students with her talk of being in space and what she
is planning to do.
That is what we are talking about, the future of our country, the
future of those middle school children. Whether they are white, black,
Hispanic, or whatever their nationality, space is their goal, and that
is why I think it is so important and that is why I think tomorrow
hopefully, when the House votes, we will vote again resoundingly to
defeat the Roemer amendment.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
(Mr. ROHRABACHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I have in my hands a 5-minute speech
praising the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) who has done a
terrific job this year in cooperating with the authorizers. We have had
such a good relationship that I wanted to praise him in this speech. I
also in this 5-minute speech talk about the NASA budget, but instead I
will include this in the Record.
Mr. Chairman, today the Appropriations Committee has brought before
the House a bill which, a bill which, among other things, funds our
nation's civilian space agency, NASA, for fiscal year 1999.
As chairman of the authorizing subcommittee for NASA, I think it's
fair to say that there has not always been perfect agreement between
the authorizers and appropriators on the priorities for NASA's budget.
But this year I cannot say enough to praise the FY99 NASA
appropriation in H.R. 4194 that my good friend from California Mr.
Lewis and my friend from Ohio, Mr. Stokes, have brought to the floor
today.
Many of the top priorities of the Science Committee, as expressed in
H.R. 1275, the bipartisan Civilian Space Authorization Act which this
House passed last year, have been honored and emphasized in H.R. 4194.
Let me just mention a few:
First, the Committee has sent a clear message to NASA that there is a
limit to how much money we can spend on the International Space
Station. I think the cut of $170 million from the ISS budget in this
bill, made possible due to predicted carryover funding of $400-500
million from FY98, is the best argument against the proposed amendment
by my colleague Mr. Roemer of Indiana. The Appropriations Committee's
report language on the ISS program shows that they have now joined with
Chairman Sensenbrenner, Mr. Brown, and the rest of the authorizers in
imposing standards on this Administration's performance on the Space
Station. Together we are saying that the White House must fix the
broken policy of its partnership with Russia, and that NASA must fix
its financial and technical management of the program.
Second, the report on H.R. 4194 endorses the idea that greater
commercial participation in the Station and Space Shuttle programs can
both reduce and help defray many of the cost overruns in the Space
Station program, and for this I am personally grateful to Chairman
Lewis.
Third, the report specifically tracks with H.R. 1275 in directing
that NASA's Life and Microgravity Science office manage Space Station
[[Page H6275]]
research, instead of the Station program office. The scientists who
will use our national laboratory in space should manage their research
funding, not the engineers that are building the lab.
Next, the report provides additional funding for two important
science and technology projects in NASA. H.R. 4194 increases by $20
million NASA's planned $5 million funding level for Space Solar Power
research, and provides an additional $1.6 million for the Near Earth
Asteroid Tracking program.
Finally, the Committee's report provides an increase of $30 million
for the program that NASA Administrator Dan Goldin declared was his top
priority for additional funding above the President's request. This
money is for Future-X, a program of additional experimental launch
vehicles to carry on the progress we are making with the X-33 and X-34
projects. Mr. Chairman, reducing the high cost of space transportation
has been my top space priority since I joined the Congress and the
Space subcommittee in 1989. By providing full funding for the X-33 and
X-34 programs, and this funding increase for the Future-X program, we
are taking steps to ensuring that there will be a continuing stream of
improved technologies to both our commercial space industry and to our
military. I am particularly gratified that the Committee directs that
half of the Future-X budget is to be spent in cooperation with the Air
Force's military spaceplane program. This honors the President's Space
Transportation Policy and Administrator Goldin's testimony to my
subcommittee that NASA would develop new space transportation
technologies for and in cooperation with the Air Force.
I must admit that there is one small item in the Committee report
which gives me some pause, and that is the $10 million for Liquid
Flyback Booster studies. Over the past year or so I have found that the
Liquid Flyback Booster concept is not so much an upgrade of the Space
Shuttle as it is a stalking horse for a mission to send astronauts to
Mars. Well, this Congress has no intention of approving the hundreds of
billions it could cost to send astronauts to Mars. Nor, would we want
to spend taxpayer dollars to prolong a NASA-owned and-operated Space
Shuttle if there are lower cost commercial alternatives, including a
privatized Shuttle system. Finally, I would point out that the Launch
Services Purchase Act of 1990 proscribes NASA from building and owning
any additional launch systems, and this report language on Liquid
Flyback Boosters would seem to go in that direction. I would hope that
in conference the Chairman of the Subcommittee might work to specify
that any funding for studies of Liquid Flyback Boosters could come from
the $20 million NASA has requested for Space Transportation
Architecture Studies, and not from critical technology efforts like X-
33 and Future-X.
But let me once again state my strong support for the rest of the
NASA appropriation. In summary, H.R. 4194 sends the Senate and the
Administration a unified, two-part message from the House Authorizers
and Appropriators. We both support Mr. Goldin's emphasis on scientific
research, his interest in space commercialization, and his leadership
on space transportation technology. But we are also united in saying
that the Space Station program must be fixed, and fixed now.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Roemer-
Camp amendment to eliminate funding for NASA's International Space
Station.
Some have argued that it would be fiscally prudent to eliminate the
space station. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it
would be terribly imprudent to kill the program. We have already
invested more than $20 billion in the space station. Our 12
international partners have spent more than $5 billion. Two hundred
tons of hardware has been built and first element launch is less than
six months away. To eliminate the program now, after so much has been
invested and so much work has been done, would be the height of
irresponsibility by allowing our investment to be wasted.
The International Space Station is a worthwhile investment in
exploration and science, an investment in jobs and economic growth, and
most of all, an investment in improving life for all of us here on
earth. The space program and experiments conducted on the space shuttle
have made remarkable contributions to medical research and the study of
life on earth. The space station is the next logical step: a permanent
orbiting laboratory. Let me highlight some of the station's potential
for contributing to medical advancements, for example:
Space station researchers will use the low-gravity environment of the
space station to expand our understanding of cell culture, which could
revolutionize treatment for joint diseases and injuries;
The space station will provide a unique environment for research on
the growth of protein crystals, which aids in determining the structure
and function of proteins. Crystals grown in space are far superior than
those on earth. Such information will greatly enhance drug design and
research into cancer, diabetes, emphysema, parasitic infections, and
immune systems disorders;
The almost complete absence of gravity on the space station will
allow new insights into human health and disease prevention and
treatment--including heart, lung, and kidney function, cardiovascular
disease, bone calcium loss, and immune system function;
I share my good friend from Indiana's concern that continued Russian
participation in this project needs to be carefully examined. The
economic difficulties Russia is currently experiencing have caused
several unfortunate delays in their delivery of certain space station
components and this needs to be scrutinized. We need a backup plan to
move forward without the Russians if necessary. But this partnership
deserves every chance to succeed because of the experience and
expertise the Russians bring to the table and the foreign policy
benefits of continuing this partnership.
Mr. Speaker, the International Space Station is vital to continued
human manned presence in space and I would urge the defeat of this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Combest). The question is on the amendment offered
of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 501, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer)
will be postponed.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer my support for the
FY99 VA-HUD Appropriations bill.
A project in the VA-HUD bill, called TARP, is very important to not
only the people of the 11th congressional district of Illinois, but the
entire Chicago Metropolitan Area. This bill contains $6.5 million for
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in fiscal year 1999 to go
toward construction of the Calumet System of TARP--the segment that
directly affects my constituents.
During the summer of 1996, floods plagued the South Suburbs of
Chicago. Frequent flooding in the Chicago area causes disruptions in
major expressways; and rainwater and raw sewage back up into the
basements of over 500,000 homes and contaminate local drinking water
supplies.
As you know, TARP is an intricate system of underground tunnels,
pumping stations and storage reservoirs used to control flooding and
combined sewage pollution in the Chicago Metropolitan Area. It is
important to note that TARP will remove four times the amount of
pollution as the City of Boston's projected removal--for approximately
the same cost. To date, 93 miles of control tunnels have been
completed, or are under construction, and 16 miles of tunnels have yet
to be completed. To the projects' merit, the completed segments of TARP
have helped to eliminate 86 percent of the combined sewage pollution in
a 325 square mile area.
While we tend to think of this project as a critical flood protection
measure, the truth is that the water protection is just as important.
Since TARP has come on-line, we have seen a striking improvement in the
quality of our waterways, bringing fish--and commerce-- back to our
rivers. Probably the biggest protections TARP brings is the return of
our drinking water supply, Lake Michigan, to good health. By protecting
Lake Michigan from raw sewage, TARP provides assurance that our water
supply and that our children will be protected.
I believe that Chicago and the South Suburbs cannot afford any more
delays in completing this project. In fact, the flooding that occurred
this winter filled the TARP system to capacity and forced the release
of 4.2 billion gallons of combined rainwater and sewage into Lake
Michigan. This must be prevented.
Home and business owners are suffering, our drinking water supply is
at risk, flood insurance premiums are increasing while property values
are decreasing. The annual damages sustained by the flooding exceed
$150 million. If this project were finished these damages could be
eliminated, not to mention the disaster relief funds that will be
saved. Let me point out that TARP was judged by the EPA twice as the
most cost-effective plan to meet the enforceable provisions of the
Clean Water Act. The South Suburbs have built a strong base of local
support for this vital project. That is why it is essential that we
receive the fiscal year 1999 funding to continue construction of TARP.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R. 4194
and would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from California and
Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent
Agencies [Mr. Jerry Lewis] and the distinguished gentleman from Ohio
and Ranking
[[Page H6276]]
Member of the Subcommittee [Mr. Louis Stokes] for their hard work on
this bill.
Once again, Appropriations Committee has completed the tough task of
allocating limited resources for many deserving programs. As a Member
of the House Banking Committee, the committee with jurisdiction over
Federal housing programs, this Member is very interested in how funds
are appropriated in this area.
Although there are numerous deserving programs included in this
funding bill, this Member would like to mention four specific items.
First, this Member would like to commend the Appropriations Committee
for increasing the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage limits
under the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Prior to
this appropriation bill, the floor limit for an FHA mortgage was 38
percent of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act also knows as
Freddie Mac which was $86,317. H.R. 4194 raises the FHA limit to 48
percent of the Freddie Mac conforming home loan limit which is
$109,032.
This Member had an amendment drafted which he will not now offer
which would have increased the FHA mortgage limit floor. This Member
believes that due to increasing new home construction costs especially
in rural areas, it has become very difficult to build a new home for
$86,317. For this reason, this Member commends and supports the
increase to $109,032.
Second, this Member would also like to applaud the Appropriations
Committee on adopting the Obey amendment to the FHA mortgage limits.
This Member would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] on successfully introducing an amendment which
would redefine the word ``area'' for the purposes of the metropolitan
statistical area. This amendment would in effect allow the median
single family house price for an area to be equal to the median single
family house price of the county within the area that has the highest
such median price. This provision is a step in the right direction in
consideration of new home construction costs and in its effect on FHA
mortgage limits.
Third, this bill provides $6.0 million, a $1 million increase from
the FY 1998 budget, for the Section 184 Indian Housing Loan Guarantee
Program which is administered by HUD. According to the Committee
Report, this appropriation will be leveraged into at least $36.9
million in loan guarantees. The Section 184 Indian Housing Loan
Guarantee program authored by this Member, has already proven to be an
excellent program that now is providing privately financed homes
through a guarantee program for Indian families who were otherwise
unable to secure conventional financing because of the trust status of
Indian reservation land.
Fourth, appropriators should be applauded for including $4.7 billion
for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). This Member would
also like to commend enthusiastically the appropriators for decreasing
the amount of set-asides within the CDBG from $479 million in FY 1998
to $167 million in FY 1999 for the use of some such funds were not
devoted to the most appropriate areas. This Member has testified at the
subcommittee level that the expenditure of the maximum amount of CDBG
funds should be left to the allocation of the state and eligible local
governments as compared to selected set-aside programs.
Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R. 4194 and urges his
colleagues to support this measure.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the final passage of H.R.
4194, the Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal
Year 1999. I object because this bill fails to include any funding for
the Americorps or other initiatives administered by the Corporation for
National Service which are funded annually in this legislation. When
coupled with the reduction of more than $5 million in funding for the
Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) program and the freeze in
spending for the National Senior Volunteer Corps recommended in the
Appropriations Committee's Report on the Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
for Fiscal Year 1999, the attack on the highly successful programs
administered by the Corporation for National Service included in this
bill will decimate opportunities to improve the lives of every American
through strong community service initiatives.
Over the years I have met countless activists as well as ordinary
American citizens in the Second Congressional District who take heroic
steps on a daily basis towards improving their community and their own
lives. As a result, the Second Congressional District and my home state
of Mississippi have made substantial progress in improving the standard
of living for many of their residents. However, both the Second
Congressional District and Mississippi still contain some of the
poorest areas in the nation.
We must recognize that Mississippi's economic status can never be
permanently improved by either ignoring the current state of affairs or
by simply writing a check. For too long policy makers here in
Washington and elsewhere have followed one of these two courses of
action. There have been rare exceptions--initiatives to provide not
just economic assistance, but also the inspiration for people to join
with their neighbors in the effort to improve their community. As every
hard-working American knows, no one labors so well as when he feels
that others are willing to stand there beside him and suffer through
the task at hand. The Americorps, which is administered by the
Corporation for National Service and normally funded in this bill, is
perhaps the best example of a program which provides a tangible,
uplifting presence in the numerous communities where it is active.
There are more than five hundred Americorps volunteers in Mississippi
today who have partnered with community leaders to provide hands-on
assistance in improving access to everything from child care to
literacy instruction. Most importantly, the Americorps volunteers'
stirring example has inspired thousands of Mississippians to enter
community service as well. Today there are more than 29,000 people of
all ages and backgrounds who are helping to solve problems and build
stronger communities in the 48 projects across Mississippi which are
sponsored by the Americorps and other Corporation for National Services
initiatives.
Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--including some
of my friends from Mississippi--will say the Corporation for National
Service and the Americorps program are wasteful or too bureaucratic.
Yet I do not think any of us could find another initiative funded by
the federal or state governments today which encourages 29,000 people
to serve their nation and their community for a total cost of less than
$7 million.
Nonetheless, many former critics have finally started to see the
positive benefits of the Corporation for National Service's work.
Governor Kirk Fordice of Mississippi, widely regarded as one of the
most conservative governors in the nation, made the following statement
in support of the Corporation for National Service's efforts while
visiting with Learn and Serve America students at the regional service-
learning conference in Biloxi, Mississippi:
As you know from your first hand volunteerism, service-
learning offers the opportunity for today's young people and
tomorrow's leaders to learn, while addressing local needs.
Your hands-on experiences reinforce what you are learning in
the classroom, promoting civic responsibility and showing
that citizens working together are a powerful force.
After the Americorps was created in 1993, it quickly adopted
the straightforward motto of ``Getting Things Done.'' In the opinion of
both myself and thousands of residents of the Second Congressional
District who have benefited from this program, the Americorps truly has
been ``Getting Things Done For Mississippi.'' For those who might doubt
the effectiveness or importance of the Corporation for National Service
and its Americorps program, the following is a complete list of all the
active projects supported by the Corporation for National Service in
Mississippi. Instead of making speeches in the marble halls of
Washington about bureaucracy, inefficiency, disorganization or a host
of other mistaken descriptions of the Americorps and the activities of
the Corporation for National Service, I encourage any of my skeptical
colleagues to visit these communities and talk with the beneficiaries
of its work.
80 AmeriCorps Volunteers participate in the Delta Service Corps
University Center for Community in Cleveland;
40 AmeriCorps Volunteers participate in the Delta Reads Partnerships
at Delta State University in Cleveland;
6 AmeriCorps Volunteers participate in the Mid-South Delta LISC
AmeriCorps in Greenville;
20 AmeriCorps Volunteers participate in the Mississippi Action for
Community Education in Greenville;
4 AmeriCorps Volunteers participate in the Harrison County Human
Resources Agency in Gulfport;
2 AmeriCorps Volunteers participate in the South Mississippi Family/
Child Center in Gulfport;
3 AmeriCorps Volunteers participate in the Desoto County Literacy
Council Inc. in Hernando;
100 AmeriCorps Volunteers participate in the Volunteer Assistant
Teachers Train to Become Teachers in Jackson;
30 AmeriCorps Volunteers participate in the AmeriCorps Assist Program
in Jackson;
30 AmeriCorps Volunteers participate in the Campus Link in Jackson;
34 AmeriCorps Volunteers participate in the Campus Link in Jackson;
30 AmeriCorps Volunteers participate in the Metro Jackson Service
Coalition in Jackson;
16 AmeriCorps Volunteers participate in the Partners in Readiness in
Jackson;
[[Page H6277]]
2 AmeriCorps Volunteers participate in the Big Brothers/Big Sisters
of the Tri-County Area in Jackson;
6 AmeriCorps Volunteers participate in the Governor's Office of
Literacy in Jackson;
9 AmeriCorps Volunteers participate in the Mississippi Association of
Cooperatives in Jackson;
3 AmeriCorps Volunteers participate in the West Jackson Community
Development Corporation in Jackson;
7 AmeriCorps Volunteers participate in the St. Andrew's Mission, Inc.
in McComb;
39 AmeriCorps Volunteers participate in the Teach for America
Mississippi Delta in Oxford;
24 AmeriCorps Volunteers participate in the InterACT in Oxford;
20 AmeriCorps Volunteers participate in the Literacy for Lee County:
Young Readers Today in Tupelo;
6 AmeriCorps Volunteers participate in the We Care Community
Services, Inc. in Vicksburg;
5 AmeriCorps Volunteers participate in the Yazoo Community Action,
Inc. in Yazoo City;
10 Learn and Service America Volunteers participate in the Biloxi
School District in Biloxi;
250 Learn and Service America Volunteers participate in Rust College
in Holy Springs;
6 Learn and Service America Volunteers participate in the Jackson
School District in Jackson;
700 Learn and Service America Volunteers participate in the
Mississippi Department of Education statewide;
1,500 Learn and Service America Volunteers participate in the
Mississippi Commission for Volunteer Service statewide;
425 National Senior Service Corps Volunteers participate in the
Hancock County RSVP in Bay St. Louis;
364 National Senior Service Corps Volunteers participate in the
Hancock County Volunteer Program in Clarksdale;
315 National Senior Service Corps Volunteers participate in the
Lowndes County RSVP in Columbus;
114 National Senior Service Corps Volunteers participate in the Jones
County FGP in Ellisville;
388 National Senior Service Corps Volunteers participate in the
Harrison County RSVP in Gulfport;
43 National Senior Service Corps Volunteers participate in the SCP of
Harrison County in Gulfport;
72 National Senior Service Corps Volunteers participate in the SCP of
Sunflower and Bolivar Counties in Indianola;
285 National Senior Service Corps Volunteers participate in the
Capital Areas RSVP in Jackson;
212 National Senior Service Corps Volunteers participate in the
Attala County RSVP in Kosciusko;
314 National Senior Service Corps Volunteers participate in the
Laurel-Jones County RSVP in Laurel;
186 National Senior Service Corps Volunteers participate in the
Simpson County RSVP in Mendenhall;
57 National Senior Service Corps Volunteers participate in the FGP
Lauderdale County in Meridan;
519 National Senior Service Corps Volunteers participate in the RSVP
Meridan/Lauderdale County in Meridan;
400 National Senior Service Corps Volunteers participate in the RSVP
Adams County in Natchez;
84 National Senior Service Corps Volunteers participate in the
Lafayette County FGP in Oxford;
280 National Senior Service Corps Volunteers participate in the
Lafayette County RSVP in Oxford;
30 National Senior Service Corps Volunteers participate in the MDHS
Jackson County SCP in Pascagoula;
370 National Senior Service Corps Volunteers participate in the Lee
and Calhoun Counties RSVP in Tupelo;
79 National Senior Service Corps Volunteers participate in the Hinds/
Rankin FGP in Whitified.
Mr. Chairman, the people who participant in the programs I have just
mentioned want to see genuine change in their community and are willing
to take action to bring about results. What better values could any
of--Democrats or Republican--want to sponsor?
I urge Members to oppose this bill; we should not be forced for yet
another year to rely on the Conference Committee to restore funding for
the Americorps and the Corporation for National Service. Let us support
the Americorps and Corporation for National Service's volunteers across
the nation so they can continue ``Getting Things done'' in their
community.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice concern about what I
consider an inappropriate use of Community Development Block Grant
funding.
Late last year, it was revealed that the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony
had decided to use $450,000 of the funding they received from the
Indian Community Development Block Grant program for the explicit
purpose of constructing a ``smoke shop'' in Verdi, Nevada. Regardless
of one's position on tobacco use or taxes, it seems clear to me that at
a time when there is so much debate surrounding the issue of teen
smoking, the tobacco industry, and tobacco vendors, taxpayer dollars
should not be spent on the construction of smoke shops in our
communities.
It is my understanding that the goals of the Community Development
Block Grant Program are to provide financial resources to communities
for public facilities and planning activities which have a direct,
positive impact on the health and safety of that community's residents.
Everyone knows that smoking is hazardous to one's health and can cause
lung cancer. Smoking causes fully one sixth of all deaths in the United
States each year--more than alcohol, all illicit drugs, AIDS, guns,
automobiles, and all forms of air pollution COMBINED. With this in
mind, how can we possibly allow money intended to be used for the
betterment of communities to be used instead for the construction of
smoke shops. I would like an explanation from HUD as to how this fits
into the statute governing the Community Development Block Grant
program.
Native American communities have a right to profit from business
ventures but I don't think the federal government should assume the
role of helping smoke shops compete with independent small business
ventures such as shops and convenience stores which also rely on
tobacco sales.
Mr. Chairman, this grant came to my attention only recently and has
caused concern for private small businesses and citizens in Verdi,
Nevada. It was my desire to introduce an amendment today to recapture
these federal dollars before they are spent, but I understand how
carefully this bill has been crafted and do not wish to threaten the
delicate balance you have achieved.
It is my sincere hope that the Department of Housing and Urban
Development will ensure that taxpayer funds are expended in a manner
consistent with the national concern on youth tobacco use. There are
many ways to ensure that Native Americans are able to develop
profitable businesses capable of providing the resources necessary for
tribal needs without taxpayer-funded tobacco smoke shops.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do
now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Solomon) having assumed the chair, Mr. Combest, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4194)
making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and
Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies,
boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________