[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.

                          ____________________