[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 104 (Wednesday, July 29, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H6535-H6577]
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. 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} 1320
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, with Mr. Combest in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday July
23, 1998, the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) had been postponed and the bill
was open from page 72, line 3, through page 72, line 16.
Are there further amendments to this portion of the bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
science, aeronautics and technology
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the
conduct and support of science, aeronautics and technology
research and development activities, including research,
development, operations, and services; maintenance;
construction of facilities including repair, rehabilitation,
and modification of real and personal property, and
acquisition or condemnation of real property, as authorized
by law; space flight, spacecraft control and communications
activities including operations, production, and services;
and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance and operation of
mission and administrative aircraft, $5,541,600,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2000.
mission support
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in
carrying out mission support for human space flight programs
and science, aeronautical, and technology programs, including
research operations and support; space communications
activities including operations, production and services;
maintenance; construction of facilities including repair,
rehabilitation, and modification of facilities, minor
construction of new facilities and additions to existing
facilities, facility planning and design, environmental
compliance and restoration, and acquisition or condemnation
of real property, as authorized by law; program management;
personnel and related costs, including uniforms or allowances
therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; travel
expenses; purchase, lease, charter, maintenance, and
operation of mission and administrative aircraft; not to
exceed $35,000 for official reception and representation
expenses; and purchase (not to exceed 33 for replacement
only) and hire of passenger motor vehicles; $2,458,600,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2000.
office of inspector general
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, $19,000,000.
administrative provisions
Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds
appropriated for ``Human space flight'', ``Science,
aeronautics and technology'', or ``Mission support'' by this
appropriations Act, when any activity has been initiated by
the incurrence of obligations for construction of facilities
as authorized by law, such amount available for such activity
shall remain available until expended. This provision does
not apply to the amounts appropriated in ``Mission support''
pursuant to the authorization for repair, rehabilitation and
modification of facilities, minor construction of new
facilities and additions to existing facilities, and facility
planning and design.
Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds
appropriated for ``Human space flight'', ``Science,
aeronautics and technology'', or ``Mission support'' by this
appropriations Act, the amounts appropriated for construction
of facilities shall remain available until September 30,
2001.
Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds
appropriated for ``Mission support'' and ``Office of
Inspector General'', amounts made available by this Act for
personnel and related costs and travel expenses of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall remain
available until September 30, 1999 and may be used to enter
into contracts for training, investigations, costs associated
with personnel relocation, and for other services, to be
provided during the next fiscal year.
NASA shall develop a revised appropriation structure for
submission in the Fiscal Year 2000 budget request consisting
of two basic appropriations (the Human Space Flight
Appropriation and the Science, Aeronautics and Technology
Appropriation) with a separate (third) appropriation for the
Office of Inspector General. The appropriations shall each
include the planned full costs (direct and indirect costs) of
NASA's related activities and allow NASA to shift civil
service salaries, benefits and support between and/or among
appropriations or accounts, as required, for the safe,
timely, and successful accomplishment of NASA missions.
None of the funds made available by this Act may be used
for feasibility studies for, or construction or procurement
of satellite hardware for, a mission to a region of space
identified as an Earth LaGrange point, other than for the
Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), Advanced
Composition Explorer (ACE), or Genesis mission. Such funds
shall also not be used for the addition of an Earth-observing
payload to any of the missions named in the preceding
sentence.
National Credit Union Administration
central liquidity facility
During fiscal year 1999, gross obligations of the Central
Liquidity Facility for the principal amount of new direct
loans to member credit unions, as authorized by the National
Credit Union Central Liquidity Facility Act
[[Page H6536]]
(12 U.S.C. 1795), shall not exceed $600,000,000: Provided,
That administrative expenses of the Central Liquidity
Facility in fiscal year 1999 shall not exceed $176,000:
Provided further, That $2,000,000, together with amounts of
principal and interest on loans repaid, to be available until
expended, is available for loans to community development
credit unions.
National Science Foundation
Research and Related Activities
For necessary expenses in carrying out the National Science
Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875), and
the Act to establish a National Medal of Science (42 U.S.C.
1880-1881); services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109;
maintenance and operation of aircraft and purchase of flight
services for research support; acquisition of aircraft;
$2,745,000,000, of which not to exceed $244,960,000, shall
remain available until expended for Polar research and
operations support, and for reimbursement to other Federal
agencies for operational and science support and logistical
and other related activities for the United States Antarctic
program; the balance to remain available until September 30,
2000: Provided, That receipts for scientific support services
and materials furnished by the National Research Centers and
other National Science Foundation supported research
facilities may be credited to this appropriation: Provided
further, That to the extent that the amount appropriated is
less than the total amount authorized to be appropriated for
included program activities, all amounts, including floors
and ceilings, specified in the authorizing Act for those
program activities or their subactivities shall be reduced
proportionally: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available to the National
Science Foundation in this or any prior Act may be obligated
or expended by the National Science Foundation to enter into
or extend a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement for the
support of administering the domain name and numbering system
of the Internet after September 30, 1998.
Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Royce
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 26 offered by Mr. Royce: page 76, line 24
strike ``2,745,000,000'' and insert ``2,545,700,000.''
Page 90, line 18 strike ``, and $70,000,000 is appropriated
to the National Science Foundation, `Research and related
activities'.'' and insert ``.''
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
It will merely freeze grant research funding at the same amount that
was appropriated last year. There is no cut in the amendment. Our
concern is with some of the grants; do we really think it is a good
idea to take $176,000 from working families so that we can figure out
the different meaning of smiles, and that was one of the grants.
Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility to the American people to see
that their tax money is being spent wisely. Asking them to dip just a
little further into their pockets to pay $178,000 for a study on
maintaining self-esteem does not fulfill that responsibility.
During debate on this bill last year, an amendment was adopted that
struck $174,000 from the National Science Foundation because of
previous inappropriate grant making. As I understand it, this was meant
as a demonstration to NSF that they should take greater care of
taxpayer money. Given some of the recent grants that it has doled out
since that time, it seems that they have not taken heed of that action.
Another recent grant for $220,000 was handed over to a researcher for
a study entitled ``Status Dominance and Motivational Effects on
Nonverbal Sensitivity and Smiling.'' I will submit my finding for free.
Spending that much hard-earned money on sensitivity and smiling will
wipe the smiles off the taxpayers' faces and make them pretty darn
insensitive.
Another researcher was given over $476,000 for his study. For this
amount he would perform a manufacturing analysis of coffee makers
related to the grammar rules and the grammar itself which will be
implemented.
Now, as we go down these grants, one enterprising researcher has
received over $29 million since 1992 in nine different grants. From all
indications, the bureaucrats have been busy shoveling out the door in
the name of science to make sure we do not slide back into the dark
ages. For example, research into the sex selection and evolution of
horns in the dung beetle, $331,000 for the study of nitrogen excretion
in fish, $113,000 for research into the agenda effects on group
decisions.
I could go on, but our current agenda calls for a group decision. Two
hundred twenty-eight years ago, when the Founding Fathers gathered in
Philadelphia, they did not declare our independence so that the new
government could tax American citizens and hand out $25,000 to study
microwave methods for lower fat patties in meatballs.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the poet Alexander Pope remarked centuries ago that a
little learning is a dangerous thing. This amendment is a good example
of that principle.
First of all, the Dear Colleague letters about this amendment have
cited several NSF project titles that have been grossly misinterpreted.
For example, grants researching asynchronous transfer mode, which is a
computer technology known as ATM, were misconstrued as research on
automated teller machines. Grants concerning billiards were thought to
be about the game of pool when actually they concern abstruse matters
in high-energy physics. The only trouble we have right here in River
City is with this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a product of faulty research.
Now I would never claim that the National Science Foundation has
never given out a misguided grant or that their grants should not be
opened to congressional scrutiny, but as the ranking Republican on the
House Committee on Science I am quite familiar with NSF operations, and
I have helped oversee them for 15 years. And I can attest that the
National Science Foundation is a model agency that provides grants
through a peer review process that is the envy of other institutions
and other nations. As a result, the research it funds is of high
quality and has provided enormous insights that have improved our
understanding and our lives.
A little learning is a dangerous thing for a Nation as well as an
individual, and NSF's work ensures that our Nation is never hobbled by
inadequate learning.
Mr. Chairman, let us not make the mistake of judging a grant by its
title. We should resoundingly vote down this amendment and demonstrate
our continued support for the outstanding work performed by the
National Science Foundation.
{time} 1330
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment
because it is a very simple amendment. This amendment simply freezes
the research and related categories funding area of NSF at about $2.5
billion. It freezes at this year's level of spending.
The reason that this amendment is offered by Mr. Royce and myself and
the reason supported by the National Taxpayers Union, the reason
supporting it by Citizens against Government Waste is because it makes
common sense.
It, in the whole, boils down to one very simple thought, and that is
the issue of priorities. When I stand in front of a grocery store back
home in my district and talk to folks, they talk about how they have to
set priorities within their homes.
When they are given the choice between, let us say, the study of
people's reaction to dirty jokes, specifically to sex and fart jokes,
and cancer or diabetes research, they say that a study of sex and fart
jokes is interesting, but not vital, and that they would rather see
those same dollars go into cancer research or diabetes research.
On that same vain, again, this is simply an amendment about
priorities. Again, it leaves in place $2.5 billion for funding for the
National Science Foundation research. It simply says let us put our
house in order.
I mean, the same folks that I talked to back home, they say, if they
had to set no priorities, when they walked into Wal-Mart, they would
essentially walk out of Wal-Mart with everything that is in the store.
But they cannot do that. They have to set a budget. They have to set
numbers. They come up with what they can spend overall.
So this amendment is simply a way of signaling to the National
Science Foundation please look at those things. Because the gentleman
from
[[Page H6537]]
California (Mr. Lewis) himself last year offered an amendment that said
there was a grant that, as I understand it, would have studied, for
about $174,000, why some people choose to run for office or choose not
to run for office. Again, interesting but not vital.
I think that we ought to look more at what is vital when we fund
these grants. I have other examples that have come up in this year's
list. An example is $334,000 to develop methods for routing pickup and
delivery vehicles in realtime. Again, that has something that is
interesting, but not vital. The part that is vital is vital to the
likes of UPS or FedEx. If that is at the case, why can UPS or FedEx not
pay for them?
It has $14,000 to study the long-term profitability of automobile
leasing. Interesting, but not vital. The part that is vital is vital to
Budget or Hertz. Why can they not pay for it?
It has $12,000 to cheap talk. It has $137,000 to study how
legislative leaders help shape their parties issues outside the
legislature particularly in the media. Interesting, but not vital.
I could come up with others, but I think the main point is quite
simple. That is that the National Science Foundation in funding
research needs to look at two things: One, a clear criteria that
answers the question for the taxpayer, is this interesting or is it
vital? And that it answers the question of, is it worth the cost?
Because you can simply turn on the Internet and see that there is all
kinds of information out there. The question before us, though, is not,
is there information, but is it vital information?
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the amendment and the
comments just made. I would remind my colleague, the gentleman from
South Carolina, that when his people come out of the store, my
colleague might ask them what they think of the laser scanner that was
used to get them out of the store more quickly and more efficiently,
because development of the laser was financed in part by the National
Science Foundation.
My colleague might ask, too, whether they enjoy the rapid delivery of
their FedEx packages. Indeed, part of that research has been done by
the National Science Foundation. My colleague suggested that FedEx
should pay for it themselves, but, in fact, Federal Express developed
into what it is today, because of the techniques resulting from such
research, and the taxes that FedEx pays today far more than cover the
cost of any research that was done which may have helped to develop the
system.
My point is that the United States has a vibrant and booming economy
today, especially compared to that of other nations, because we also
have a booming and vital research enterprise in this Nation. There is a
direct correlation between economic growth and the amount of money
spent on research, and all of us should recognize that.
Let me also comment on a few other specifics because, as the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) said earlier, much of this
debate arises out of a misunderstanding of the scientific terms used.
Some terms used in science which are similar to everyday language
have totally different meanings when used scientifically. As an
example, consider ``billiards'', which was referred to in one of the
``Dear Colleagues'' sent out by the sponsors of the amendment.
Billiards we all understand is a game. But, in science, the word is
used to describe a theory which originally was developed to explain the
collisions and interaction between rigid objects, but today is used to
describe collisions and trajectories of small objects, such as atoms,
molecules and nuclei, within confined areas.
This is crucial to the study of air flow and turbulence around
aircraft. In fact, a recent development was the discovery that ripples
in the surface of an aircraft wing reduce turbulence substantially,
resulting in fuel savings and cost savings.
It is interesting that you can now buy swimsuits that incorporate the
same effect and will now allow for faster swimming in competition. That
was not the intent of the research, but this is a by-product that is
beneficial.
ATMs were criticized in one of the ``Dear Colleagues.'' As used in
science, that does not refer to ``automated teller machines,'' where
you withdraw money, but rather refers to ``asynchronous transfer
modes,'' which is today the most modern and most rapid method of
transmitting information over the Internet or between computers in
general. This is very beneficial to society, and allows sending more
information for less money.
That brings us into the next item of criticism: that NSF spent
$12,887 to study cheap talk. That is not referring to what you might in
common parlance think of as ``cheap talk,'' but rather refers to the
cost of information transmitted over the Internet or used in commerce.
All of these are very beneficial grants. They have helped us. They
have helped our economy and made us one of the strongest nations on
this earth. It is hard to find a Federal agency that gives us as much
for our money as the National Science Foundation, and it certainly does
help our economy to a great extent. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I strongly
urge the defeat of this amendment.
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 know that it is not
necessary to extend this discussion and that the comments made by our
distinguished colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) as
well as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), probably adequately
deal with this subject. But having risen to debate it many times over
the last 20 years, I would feel remiss if I did not stand up and say a
few words.
Let me identify myself with the remarks already made by my two
distinguished colleagues. Let me point out that this simple innocuous
amendment is approximately a 10 percent cut in the amount of money that
would otherwise go to this fine agency and is much more important than
might be thought.
Let me say that I appreciate the close scrutiny being given to the
research done at the National Science Foundation. That close scrutiny
is healthy. I would not want to have it discouraged. For one thing, it
gives those of us in close touch with N.S.F. research an opportunity to
praise the work being done. It encourages others to take a closer look
at the work of the National Science Foundation and to see if they
cannot come to appreciate the value of that work.
I remember when we first started debating this subject of research
grant titles one popular target was a grant titled ``The sex life of
the Screw worm'' a subject of great importance in Texas. Everybody
thought they knew what sex life was about, and they could not
understand why we needed to spend money researching it.
But, actually, as we pointed out many times, this innocuous piece of
research has saved the cattle industry of Texas hundreds of times over
what the cost of the actual research project was, because it involves
the mode of reproduction of one of the pests that is of greatest
importance to the Texas cattle industry, as I am sure the chairman of
the committee well knows.
But this is merely one more example, to go along with the others that
have already been mentioned, showing why one needs to look beyond the
titles themselves to the content of the research in order to have some
understanding of what its importance is.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of the Members to follow the example of the
author of this amendment and scrutinize these research projects very
carefully. I think they will be highly enlightened if they do so, and
will strongly oppose amendments such as the one before us.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, let me just for a moment correct the record
about the impression being left about the amendment of the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford). It was just described as a 10
percent cut.
It always amazes me in this city of Washington, freezing expenditures
at
[[Page H6538]]
the current year's level is described as a cut. It was just mentioned
we would see a 10 percent reduction in the amount of money spent on
research. Correct the report. If the amendment of the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) is adopted, the committee and the National
Science Foundation will be able to spend exactly what they spend this
year.
Most families in America have not been able to allocate a 10 percent
additional expenditure for next year's vacation or for the next year's
food supply or for school uniforms, simply because they cannot project
those types of dollars forward because they have to live in reality,
they have to live with today's dollars.
I agree with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) that there are
a number of important research projects that are done by the National
Science Foundation, and I agree with him. I think we have developed
some wonderful technology in this government through their efforts, and
I generally support most of them.
What I am concerned about is its refusal to heed Congress' call to
use better judgment in awarding grants even though we are proposing to
increase its budget this year by $200 million.
One of my constituents, Bill Donnelly, recently contacted my office
to complain that the National Science Foundation awarded a $107,000
grant to study dirty jokes. Although skeptical, I contacted the
National Science Foundation for an explanation. To my dismay, not only
did the National Science Foundation spend more than $100,000 to fund
such a study but it attempted to justify the grant by saying that there
is no accurate study as to why people laugh at certain offensive jokes.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, let me make clear tht I did
not say that the gentleman's amendment was a 10 percent cut in the NSF
Budget. I said that his amendment was a 10% cut in the amount of money
that would otherwise go to this fine agency. His amendment is $270
million below what the committee recommends, or $305 million below what
the administration requested. It is actually a reduction in the amount
of growth that has been projected, as we both understand.
Mr. FOLEY. I thank the gentleman for the clarification.
Mr. Chairman, obviously, the National Science Foundation does not get
it. The U.S. taxpayer should not be funding research that has dubious
scientific merit, at best. This is why we should support the Sanford
amendment. We need to send a strong message not only to the National
Science Foundation, folks, this is not just about one agency. This is
about every agency that determines how to use its Federal dollars.
Now, I got a very nice letter back from the Office of the Assistant
Director for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences trying to justify
that this was a very important study. I still would ask my colleagues
to ask every American taxpayer at home, do they think we should spend
$107,000 to find out why people laugh at dirty jokes? I would say no.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, both the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) and I have
prepared a very extensive response to this amendment but, frankly,
because of the pressures of time and otherwise, let me suggest simply
that the National Science Foundation is among the committee's and the
Congress' very high priorities. We believe that the American government
has played a very significant role in productive research efforts.
It is rather standard for critics of NSF often to pick a handful of
examples of that which they would call excess, and usually those
examples, while they have a title that can be used conveniently, do not
reflect at all the specific project in terms of its detail.
These items funded by NSF come under very serious review. NSF relies
on the judgment of over 60,000 independent reviewers, each of whom has
expertise in his or her field. Depending on whether by mail or by panel
reviews being used, each proposal is reviewed by an average of 4 to 11
experts and ranked on its scientific merit. As of this moment,
approximately 1 in 3 proposals are eventually funded even though well
over half are considered to have enough merit to deserve funding.
It is important for the Members to know that we support strongly this
bill in its present form. It is very important that the Members oppose
this amendment.
{time} 1345
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise in support of this amendment. I came here 4 years ago. We were
$5\1/2\ trillion in debt, $20,000 for every man, woman and child in the
United States of America. When we got here, the deficit was over $200
billion a year.
We have come a long ways in this 3 years. We have gotten to a point
where we are actually running surpluses for the first time since 1969.
We saw a tax cut package passed last year for the first time in 16
years.
Then we get into the discussion about have we really done our job or
do we have a long ways yet to go, and we start looking at lists of
projects like some of these that are mentioned here and talking about
10 percent increases, and one almost gets this feeling, this tugging
out here that, since now we are in surplus, we can start spending more
of the taxpayers' money, and we had 10 percent increases in some areas.
The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), my good friend, has
proposed an amendment that does not decrease funding for this very
important area but rather freezes it at last year's level. It simply
brings it back into line.
Let us talk about some of the things that we have been funding and
why it is that we would not want to see this kind of dramatic increase,
much more of an increase than most of the households in my district are
getting: Studying things like video on demand for popular videos; I am
not sure that the people of Wisconsin would want to spend money on that
study. Or why women smile more than men; I am not sure they would want
to see money spent on that.
I am a former math teacher, and I taught everywhere from 7th grade on
up through college courses. I find the study on the geometric
applications to billiards to be of particular interest to me
personally, because I was very interested in those sorts of things. And
back in my math courses we did things like look at money growth and how
it related to Social Security and how the interest rates impacted that.
We did a lot of practical applications in our math courses, and this
seems to be an area that a math professor from some place in the United
States of America, or maybe a fine high school math teacher, or even a
junior high math teacher might want to go out and start doing some of
the studies that are involved with this.
But do I think I want to go into the households in Wisconsin's first
district in Janesville, Wisconsin, or Kenosha or Racine and say to
those families that we are going to take your tax dollars and use those
tax dollars for purposes of doing a study on billiards? I do not so. I
do not think that they would think that is a good use of tax dollars
out here.
I think when we go through some of the rest of these we can see
additional areas: Study cheap talk, $12,000 to study cheap talk. Long-
term profitability of automobile leasing. This brings us to another
area, long-term profitability of automobile leasing.
We are talking about corporations here, fine corporations that
provide many jobs in the United States of America. The question that
needs to be asked is, do we need the taxpayers' money to fund studies
that are going to benefit these corporations?
I guess I keep coming back to the all-important question, and that
question is, if I go to a family of five in my district that gets up
every morning and goes to work and works hard and I ask them, do you
want me to spend money on behalf of these automobile leasing
organizations to find better ways and more efficient ways to lease
cars, or do you think that that is a study that they should themselves
initiate? Is it all right to take money out of your paycheck to pay for
these sorts of things?
[[Page H6539]]
I keep coming back to the answer is no. The answer is just plain,
flat-out no. We should not be spending money on some of these sorts of
programs. And as important as research is in this country, we need to
direct our research dollars to those areas that are going to benefit
the Nation as a whole.
For that reason, I strongly support the Sanford amendment; and I
would hope that my colleagues see the wisdom of going along with this
sort of an amendment to this bill.
I would just like to commend the chairman on his hard work and the
staff on their hard work on this bill because I think they have done a
very, very fine job. There are some areas that perhaps some of our
colleagues would disagree with, and this just happens to be one of
them.
So I rise in strong support of the Sanford amendment.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Ms. STABENOW asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman and
the ranking member of the subcommittee for their strong commitment to
science, research and development in this country.
I rise today as someone representing middle Michigan where those
middle-class families that have been discussed today are rising every
day to go to work in jobs that have more and more technology involved
in their employment. They rise to go to work in areas where they are
dependent upon new research and developing technologies so that the
jobs that they are working in are the best-paying jobs possible.
They care about the air and the water, and they want to make sure
that we are doing everything we can to research ways to be able to
clean up the air and the water and protect the environment through
research areas that do not involve job loss but new technologies. They
care very much about health research and the future for their children.
They want us to be at the front end of the technology revolution that
is happening all across the world.
In my opinion, there are two efforts critically important that we are
engaged in nationally on behalf of Americans, and that is education and
a focus on research and technology development for future jobs and
future quality-of-life opportunities for our citizens.
The National Science Foundation is a small investment in a major
effort to increase the quality of life for our citizens, and I would
strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, Representative
Sanford has offered an amendment to freeze NSF's appropriations for
research awards, giving as the reason NSF's support for questionable
grant awards. He has referred to several grants which he claims
supports his action.
Examination of the grants listed by Mr. Sanford indicate his
assessment of the contents is based on title alone:
ATM Research--This is not research on automated teller machines.
Actually, it is research on Asynchronous Transfer Mode, a promising new
network transmission protocol to enable the creation of very high speed
computer networks.
Social Poker--This refers not to a poker game but to the development
of a theory of how individuals determine which of their resources they
are willing to put at risk in order to gain the benefits of joining a
group. This is basic research that may help explain what it would take
to get a country to sign on to a treaty, or when it is a rational
decision for companies to merge.
Routing Trucks--This is an extension of what is known to
mathematicians as the ``traveling salesman problem.'' This problem asks
how to find the shortest possible route to a given number of cities
without visiting one twice. The study in question develops and tests
powerful new mathematical optimization algorithms.
This subject has considerable practical value. Transportation costs
account for 15% of the U.s. Gross Domestic Product, and a major element
of transportation involves the routing and scheduling of fleets of
trucks.
Cheap Talk--Cheap talk refers to the cost of information in an
economic model. Generally speaking, we must pay for information--in
terms of procuring expert advice, the cost of publications or the time
to gather data. The research explores the implications for economic and
decision models when information is relatively inexpensive, such as
that made available on the Internet.
Video on Demand--The underlying research issues are related to using
network protocols to transmit real time video, which has enormous data
transmission requirements. These fundamental questions require high-
risk research that HBO or Blockbuster are not likely to support. But if
the basic research is successful, service providers and consumers
(including those who may use real-time video for distance learning or
telemedicine) stand to reap huge returns from the investment.
Billiards--This research applies, not to pool playing, but to a
complex mathematical theory of interest in geometry and physics. The
scientific use of the term ``billiards'' originated over 100 years ago
as a way of conceptualizing how atomic particles carom off each other.
Mathematicians later on began to develop complex math theory, known as
Ergodtic Theory, that attempts to predict the trajectory of idealized
particles in confined spaces. This research is important for
understanding many different types of non-linear or chaotic systems,
such as airflow around an airplane, leading to an improved
understanding of turbulence in fluids.
Study of Jokes--This research at its core is not about humor. Rather,
it is involved with the reasons for the perpetuation of inaccurate
stereotypes and the promulgation of racism, sexism, and prejudice
against people with disabilities and other distinguishing
characteristics. Humor is used in the study as a research tool to
investigate the cognitive processes that accompany and determine the
interpretation of information conveyed in a social context.
The proponent of the amendment has picked a handful of grants from
the 10,000 or so that are funded each year by NSF and, on the basis of
a title which is obscure or seems frivolous, proposes that the House
freeze the research activities of the Foundation at last year's level.
This proposed amendment represents an effective cut of $270 million
to the nation's basic research enterprise, which is largely carried out
at colleges and universities throughout the country. It will result in
760 fewer research awards. It will mean NSF supports 5,000 fewer
scientists and students.
The proposals funded by NSF have been subjected to a rigorous
evaluation. They are chosen on the basis of merit through a competitive
process: In a given year, NSF relies on the judgment of over 60,000
reviewers, each an expert in the field of a particular proposal. Each
proposal is reviewed by between 4 and 11 experts, depending on whether
a mail or panel review is used. The proposals are ranked on the basis
of scientific merit, as well as on the broader impacts of the proposed
activity. Only one in three proposals is funded, although more than
half are rated as sufficiently meritorious to deserve to be funded.
The proposal selection process is rigorous, but not perfect. Efforts
are made continually to improve the range of representation of
reviewers and to sharpen the review criteria. But the system is widely
respected by the scientific community, and constitutes the most
effective method yet discovered to identify meritorious research
proposals and to prioritize among worthy proposals.
The merit selection and prioritization process used by NSF has
produced an academic research enterprise that is the envy of the world.
The proposed amendment to freeze funding for NSF's research activities
will result in harm to the nation's technological strength.
Investment in R&D is the single most important determinant of long-
term economic growth. According to economists, about one half to two
thirds of economic growth can be attributed to technological advances.
Although difficult to measure, there is consensus that the economic
payoff from basic research investments is substantial. The importance
of basic research can be appreciated by considering the technological
advancements that have grown out of past NSF-sponsored work:
Internet--Over the past decade, NSF has transformed the Internet from
a tool used by a handful of researchers at DOD to the backbone of this
Nation's university research infrastructure. Today the Internet is on
the verge of becoming the Nation's commercial marketplace.
Nanotechnology and ``Thin Film''--50 years ago scientists developed
the transistor and ushered in the information revolution. Today 3
million transistors can fit on a chip no larger than the fingernail-
sized individual transistor. NSF's investment in nanotechnology &
``thin films'' are expected to generate a further 1,000 fold reduction
in size for semiconductor devices with eventual cost-savings of a
similar magnitude.
Genetics--What is often overlooked is the critical role played by NSF
in supporting the basic research that leads to the breakthroughs of
mapping the human genome for which NIH justly receives credit. Research
supported by NSF was key to the development of the polymerase chain
reaction and a great deal of the technology used for sequencing.
[[Page H6540]]
Magnetic Resonance Imaging--The development of this technology was
made possible by combining information gained through the study of the
spin characteristics of basic matter, research in mathematics, and high
flux magnets. The Next Generation Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imager,
currently under construction, will allow for the identification of the
3-dimensional structures of the 100,000 proteins whose genes are being
sequenced by the Human Genome Project.
Buckeyballs--The discovery of buckeyballs, a new form of carbon won
for the researchers a Nobel prize. Its discovery was the result of work
by astronomers. This in turn led to the discovery of the carbon
nanotube, which has been found to be 100 times stronger than steel and
a fraction of the weight. Nanotubes may produce cars weighing no more
than 100 pounds.
Plant Genome--Research into the genome of a flower plant with no
previous commercial value (Arabidopsis thaliana) led to the discovery
of ways to increase crop yields, production of plants with seeds having
lower polyunsaturated fats and to the development of crops that produce
a biodegradable plastic.
Artificial Retina--Researchers at NC State have designed a computer
chip that may pave the way for creation of an artificial retina.
Problems with bio-compatibility have been solved by researchers at
Stanford who developed a synthetic cell membrane that adheres to both
living cells and silicon chips.
CD Players--CD players rely on data compression algorithms that were
developed using a NSF grant. These algorithms were first used in the
transmission of satellite data and now provide the foundation for new
developments in data storage.
Jet Printers--The mathematical equations that describe the behavior
of fluid under pressure provided the foundation for developing the ink
jet printer.
Camcorders--Virtually all camcorders and electronic devices using
electronic imaging sensors are based on charge-coupled devices. These
devices, sensitive to a single photon of light, were developed and
transformed by astronomers interested in maximizing their capacity for
light gathering.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman. I rise to speak against the
Sanford amendment to reduce the National Science Foundation by $269
million.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) provides this Nation with the
tools to remain a superpower in a world where technology remains
supreme. It helps develop new technologies, not only on its own, but
also through its partnerships with other government agencies, like
NASA, and with private institutions.
The NSF is largely responsible for many of the scientific
breakthroughs that we currently enjoy in this country. In fact, many of
our more important scientific achievements started either with an
experiment in a NSF lab, or with a NSF grant to a university or private
corporation.
We cannot expect our chldren to be prepared for the next millennium
if they do not have the right equipment to learn on. Ladies and
gentlemen, trying to teach children computer science without the
benefit of a computer is like trying to teach English to children
without books--utterly impossible.
We must do our part to ensure that our children have the opportunity
to learn, especially in the areas of math in science. This year in the
House Science Committee, we have heard a myriad of testimony during
hearings regarding the under-education of our youth in the hard
sciences. It has gotten to the point that the media fails to report
scientific breakthroughs, not because of lack of public interest, but
often because they do not feel that the general public will understand
the scientific achievement and what it means to them. That is shameful.
If this Nation intends to remain a world leader, we must do our part to
educate our children in the ways of the future.
Here in Congress, we have worked long and hard to rectify this
problem. We have sought to increase funding for education. We have
tried to provide targeted discounts to schools and libraries so that
they can get on the Internet. Those initiatives are controversial, but
this provision is not. Its costs are low, and its benefits high.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
The amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this portion of the
bill?
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
major research equipment
For necessary expenses of major construction projects
pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as
amended, $90,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I do so for the purposes of having a brief colloquy
with the chairman of the subcommittee with regard to an item of funding
in the National Science Foundation. I understand that the chairman is
aware of the important work done by the RAND Corporation's Radius
program, which was established at the direction of the White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy. This program provides a unique
asset for tracking all Federal spending on R&D and should prove a very
useful tool to those of us in Congress who are looking for ways to do
more with the limited dollars we have.
In past years, the Federal share of funding for Radius has come from
the National Science Foundation. It is my understanding that the Chair
would support NSF's providing $1.5 million in funding for Radius
services during fiscal year 1999. Is that correct?
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. Yes, Mr. Chairman, my colleague is correct.
I am familiar with the Radius program, and I am very impressed by this
unique tool. I believe it is in the best interest of the Federal
Government to continue to support the further development of Radius and
would look favorably upon NSF providing $1.5 million in fiscal year
1999 towards that end. I will work in the conference to include the
language that makes this clear.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, as usual, I want to thank my
friend for his kind words and his support for this program.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Education and Human Resources
For necessary expenses in carrying out science and
engineering education and human resources programs and
activities pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act of
1950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875), including services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and rental of conference rooms in
the District of Columbia, $642,500,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2000: Provided, That to the extent that
the amount of this appropriation is less than the total
amount authorized to be appropriated for included program
activities, all amounts, including floors and ceilings,
specified in the authorizing Act for those program activities
or their subactivities shall be reduced proportionally.
Salaries and Expenses
For salaries and expenses necessary in carrying out the
National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42
U.S.C. 1861-1875); services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire
of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed $9,000 for
official reception and representation expenses; uniforms or
allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902;
rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia;
reimbursement of the General Services Administration for
security guard services; $144,000,000: Provided, That
contracts may be entered into under ``Salaries and expenses''
in fiscal year 1999 for maintenance and operation of
facilities, and for other services, to be provided during the
next fiscal year.
Office of Inspector General
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
as authorized by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, $5,200,000, to remain available until September 30,
2000.
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
Payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
For payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
for use in neighborhood reinvestment activities, as
authorized by the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act
(42 U.S.C. 8101-8107), $90,000,000, of which $25,000,000
shall be for a pilot homeownership initiative, including an
evaluation by an independent third party to determine its
effectiveness.
Selective Service System
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Selective Service System,
including expenses of attendance at meetings and of training
for uniformed personnel assigned to the Selective Service
System, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 4101-4118 for civilian
employees; and not to exceed $1,000 for official reception
and representation expenses; $24,176,000: Provided, That
during the current fiscal year, the President may exempt this
appropriation from the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 1341, whenever
he deems such action to be necessary in the interest of
national defense: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated by this Act may be expended for or in connection
with the induction of any person into the Armed Forces of the
United States.
TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 401. Where appropriations in titles I, II, and III of
this Act are expendable for travel expenses and no specific
limitation has been placed thereon, the expenditures for such
travel expenses may not exceed the amounts set forth
therefore in the budget estimates submitted for the
appropriations:
[[Page H6541]]
Provided, That this provision does not apply to accounts that
do not contain an object classification for travel: Provided
further, That this section shall not apply to travel
performed by uncompensated officials of local boards and
appeal boards of the Selective Service System; to travel
performed directly in connection with care and treatment of
medical beneficiaries of the Department of Veterans Affairs;
to travel performed in connection with major disasters or
emergencies declared or determined by the President under the
provisions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act; to travel performed by the Offices
of Inspector General in connection with audits and
investigations; or to payments to interagency motor pools
where separately set forth in the budget schedules: Provided
further, That if appropriations in titles I, II, and III
exceed the amounts set forth in budget estimates initially
submitted for such appropriations, the expenditures for
travel may correspondingly exceed the amounts therefore set
forth in the estimates in the same proportion.
Sec. 402. Appropriations and funds available for the
administrative expenses of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development and the Selective Service System shall be
available in the current fiscal year for purchase of
uniforms, or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
5901-5902; hire of passenger motor vehicles; and services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
Sec. 403. Funds of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development subject to the Government Corporation Control Act
or section 402 of the Housing Act of 1950 shall be available,
without regard to the limitations on administrative expenses,
for legal services on a contract or fee basis, and for
utilizing and making payment for services and facilities of
Federal National Mortgage Association, Government National
Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation,
Federal Financing Bank, Federal Reserve banks or any member
thereof, Federal Home Loan banks, and any insured bank within
the meaning of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Act,
as amended (12 U.S.C. 1811-1831).
Sec. 404. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 405. No funds appropriated by this Act may be
expended--
(1) pursuant to a certification of an officer or employee
of the United States unless--
(A) such certification is accompanied by, or is part of, a
voucher or abstract which describes the payee or payees and
the items or services for which such expenditure is being
made, or
(B) the expenditure of funds pursuant to such
certification, and without such a voucher or abstract, is
specifically authorized by law; and
(2) unless such expenditure is subject to audit by the
General Accounting Office or is specifically exempt by law
from such audit.
Sec. 406. None of the funds provided in this Act to any
department or agency may be expended for the transportation
of any officer or employee of such department or agency
between their domicile and their place of employment, with
the exception of any officer or employee authorized such
transportation under 31 U.S.C. 1344 or 5 U.S.C. 7905.
Sec. 407. None of the funds provided in this Act may be
used for payment, through grants or contracts, to recipients
that do not share in the cost of conducting research
resulting from proposals not specifically solicited by the
Government: Provided, That the extent of cost sharing by the
recipient shall reflect the mutuality of interest of the
grantee or contractor and the Government in the research.
Sec. 408. None of the funds in this Act may be used,
directly or through grants, to pay or to provide
reimbursement for payment of the salary of a consultant
(whether retained by the Federal Government or a grantee) at
more than the daily equivalent of the rate paid for level IV
of the Executive Schedule, unless specifically authorized by
law.
Sec. 409. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be
used to pay the expenses of, or otherwise compensate, non-
Federal parties intervening in regulatory or adjudicatory
proceedings. Nothing herein affects the authority of the
Consumer Product Safety Commission pursuant to section 7 of
the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056 et seq.).
Sec. 410. Except as otherwise provided under existing law,
or under an existing Executive Order issued pursuant to an
existing law, the obligation or expenditure of any
appropriation under this Act for contracts for any consulting
service shall be limited to contracts which are (1) a matter
of public record and available for public inspection, and (2)
thereafter included in a publicly available list of all
contracts entered into within twenty-four months prior to the
date on which the list is made available to the public and of
all contracts on which performance has not been completed by
such date. The list required by the preceding sentence shall
be updated quarterly and shall include a narrative
description of the work to be performed under each such
contract.
Sec. 411. Except as otherwise provided by law, no part of
any appropriation contained in this Act shall be obligated or
expended by any executive agency, as referred to in the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 et
seq.), for a contract for services unless such executive
agency (1) has awarded and entered into such contract in full
compliance with such Act and the regulations promulgated
thereunder, and (2) requires any report prepared pursuant to
such contract, including plans, evaluations, studies,
analyses and manuals, and any report prepared by the agency
which is substantially derived from or substantially includes
any report prepared pursuant to such contract, to contain
information concerning (A) the contract pursuant to which the
report was prepared, and (B) the contractor who prepared the
report pursuant to such contract.
Sec. 412. Except as otherwise provided in section 406, none
of the funds provided in this Act to any department or agency
shall be obligated or expended to provide a personal cook,
chauffeur, or other personal servants to any officer or
employee of such department or agency.
Sec. 413. None of the funds provided in this Act to any
department or agency shall be obligated or expended to
procure passenger automobiles as defined in 15 U.S.C. 2001
with an EPA estimated miles per gallon average of less than
22 miles per gallon.
Sec. 414. None of the funds appropriated in title I of this
Act shall be used to enter into any new lease of real
property if the estimated annual rental is more than $300,000
unless the Secretary submits, in writing, a report to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Congress and a period of
30 days has expired following the date on which the report is
received by the Committees on Appropriations.
Sec. 415. (a) It is the sense of the Congress that, to the
greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products
purchased with funds made available in this Act should be
American-made.
(b) In providing financial assistance to, or entering into
any contract with, any entity using funds made available in
this Act, the head of each Federal agency, to the greatest
extent practicable, shall provide to such entity a notice
describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the
Congress.
Sec. 416. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
used to implement any cap on reimbursements to grantees for
indirect costs, except as published in Office of Management
and Budget Circular A-21.
Sec. 417. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year
1999 pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be
absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
Sec. 418. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for any program, project, or activity, when it is
made known to the Federal entity or official to which the
funds are made available that the program, project, or
activity is not in compliance with any Federal law relating
to risk assessment, the protection of private property
rights, or unfunded mandates.
Sec. 419. Corporations and agencies of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development which are subject to the
Government Corporation Control Act, as amended, are hereby
authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of
funds and borrowing authority available to each such
corporation or agency and in accord with law, and to make
such contracts and commitments without regard to fiscal year
limitations as provided by section 104 of the Act as may be
necessary in carrying out the programs set forth in the
budget for 1999 for such corporation or agency except as
hereinafter provided: Provided, That collections of these
corporations and agencies may be used for new loan or
mortgage purchase commitments only to the extent expressly
provided for in this Act (unless such loans are in support of
other forms of assistance provided for in this or prior
appropriations Acts), except that this proviso shall not
apply to the mortgage insurance or guaranty operations of
these corporations, or where loans or mortgage purchases are
necessary to protect the financial interest of the United
States Government.
Sec. 420. Notwithstanding section 320(g) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1330(g)), funds made
available pursuant to authorization under such section for
fiscal year 1999 and prior fiscal years may be used for
implementing comprehensive conservation and management plans.
Sec. 421. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
term ``qualified student loan'' with respect to national
service education awards shall mean any loan made directly to
a student by the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary
Education, in addition to other meanings under section
148(b)(7) of the National and Community Service Act.
Sec. 422. Notwithstanding any other law, funds made
available by this or any other Act to the Environmental
Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, or the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration for the United
States/Mexico Foundation for Science may be used for the
endowment of such Foundation.
Mr. LEWIS of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that title IV, sections 401 through 422 on page 88,
line 15, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to
amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
Mr. COBURN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will read.
[[Page H6542]]
The Clerk continued to read.
Mr. LEWIS of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that title IV, sections 401 through 422 on page 88,
line 15, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to
amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to that portion of the bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 423. (a) Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Consumer Product Safety Commission
shall propose for comment and, not later than 270 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, issue a final rule
amending its Flammable Fabrics Act standards to revoke the
amendments to the standards for the flammability of
children's sleepwear sizes 0 through 6X (contained in
regulations published at 16 CFR part 1615) and 7 through 14
(contained in regulations published at 16 CFR part 1616)
issued by the Commission on September 9, 1996 (61 FR 47634).
(b) None of the following shall apply with respect to the
promulgation of the amendment prescribed by subsection (a):
(1) The Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051 et
seq.).
(2) The Flammable Fabrics Act (15 U.S.C. 1191 et seq.).
(3) Chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code.
(4) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
(5) The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
of 1996 (Public Law 104-121).
(6) Any other statute or Executive order.
(c) Sleepwear manufactured or imported before the effective
date (as established by the Commission) of the Consumer
Product Safety Commission's revocation required by subsection
(a) shall not be considered in violation of the Flammable
Fabrics Act if it complied with the Commission rules in
effect at the time it was manufactured or imported.
Point of Order
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the
provisions of section 423 constitute legislation in an appropriation
bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI
provides that no amendment to a general appropriations bill shall be in
order if changing existing law. The provision contained in section 423
is clearly a change in existing law and is, therefore, in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there Members wishing to be heard on the point of
order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that section 423 of the bill imparts direction to the
Consumer Product Safety Commission and expressly supersedes the
applicability of a range of existing laws.
The Chair therefore holds that section 423 constitutes legislation in
violation of clause 2(b) of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and section 423 is stricken from the
bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 424. (a) Subparagraph (A) of section 203(b)(2) of the
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(b)(2)(A)) is amended by
striking clause (ii) and all that follows through the end of
the subparagraph and inserting the following:
``(ii) 87 percent of the dollar amount limitation
determined under section 305(a)(2) of the Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation Act for a residence of the applicable
size; except that the dollar amount limitation in effect for
any area under this subparagraph may not be less than 48
percent of the dollar limitation determined under section
305(a)(2) of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act
for a residence of the applicable size; and'',
and, in addition to the amounts appropriated in other parts
of this Act, $10,000,000 is appropriated to the Department of
Veterans Affairs, ``Medical and prosthetic research'', and
$70,000,000 is appropriated to the National Science
Foundation, ``Research and related activities''.
(b) The first sentence in the matter following section
203(b)(2)(B)(iii) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.
1709(b)(2)(B)(iii) is amended to read as follows: ``For
purposes of the preceding sentence, the term `area' means a
metropolitan statistical area as established by the Office of
Management and Budget; and the median 1-family house price
for an area shall be equal to the median 1-family house price
of the county within the area that has the highest such
median price.''.
Sec. 425. (a) The Consumer Product Safety Commission shall
contract with the National Institute on Environmental Health
Sciences (NIEHS) to conduct a thorough study of the toxicity
of all the flame retardant chemicals identified by the
Commission as likely candidates for addition to residential
upholstered furniture for the purpose of meeting regulations
proposed by the Commission for flame-resistance of
residential upholstered furniture. Where NIEHS has existing
adequate information regarding the chemicals identified by
the Commission, such information can be transmitted to the
Commission in lieu of an additional study on those chemicals.
(b) The Commission shall establish a Chronic Hazard
Advisory Panel, according to the provisions of section 28 of
the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2077), convened
for the purpose of advising the Commission on the potential
health effects and hazards, including carcinogenicity,
neurotoxicity, mutagenicity, and other chronic and acute
effects on consumers exposed to fabrics intended to be used
in residential upholstered furniture which would be
chemically treated to meet the Commission's proposed flame-
resistant standards. In lieu of the requirements of section
31(b)(2)(B) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 2080(b)(2)(B)), the Panel
may meet for up to one year.
(c) The Chronic Hazard Panel convened by the Commission
under subsection (b) for purposes of advising the Commission
concerning the chronic hazards of flame-retardant chemicals
in residential upholstered furniture shall complete its work
and furnish its report to the Commission not later than one
year after the date of the establishment of the Panel, except
that if the Panel finds that it is unable to complete its
work adequately within the one year after this establishment,
it shall--
(1) advise the Commission that it will be unable to
complete its work within one year;
(2) furnish the Commission with an interim report at the
expiration of such year discussing its findings to date; and
(3) provide the Commission with an estimated date on
which it will complete its work and submit a final report to
the Commission.
(d) The Commission shall furnish the interim report, and
the estimated date on which the Panel will complete its final
report, to the House Committee on Commerce, the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the House
Committee on Appropriations and Senate Committee on
Appropriations. The Commission shall furnish the final report
to the House Committee on Commerce, the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the House Committee on
Appropriations and Senate Committee on Appropriations.
(e) No additional funds shall be expended by the
Commission on developing flammability standards for
residential upholstered furniture until 3 months after the
Commission has furnished either the interim report or the
final report of the Panel to the House Committee on Commerce,
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, the House Committee on Appropriations and
Senate Committee on Appropriations.
(f) The Commission, before promulgating any final rule
setting flammability standards for residential upholstered
furniture shall report to the House Committee on Commerce,
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, the House Committee on Appropriations and
Senate Committee on Appropriations on the report of the
Panel, and the anticipated costs of the flammability
standards regulation, including costs resulting from--
(1) public exposure to flame-retardant chemicals in
residential upholstered furniture;
(2) exposure of workers to flame-retardant chemicals in
the manufacture, distribution and sale of textiles and
residential upholstered furniture;
(3) the generating, tracking, and disposing of flame-
retardant chemicals and hazardous wastes generated from the
handling of flame-retardant chemicals used on textiles and
residential upholstered furniture; and
(4) limited availability in particular geographic regions
of competing flame-resistant chemicals approved for use for
residential upholstered furniture.
(g) In addition to amounts appropriated elsewhere in this
Act, there is appropriated to the Consumer Product Safety
Commission $5,000,000 to carry out this section.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:
Sec. . The amount otherwise provided by this Act for the
Department of Veterans Affairs--Veterans Health
Administration, Medical care, equipment and land and
structures object classifications, is hereby reduced by
$69,000,000.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain this amendment,
because it is not apparent on its face what it does.
Without reading the rest of the bill, although it appears to be
reducing funds for veterans' medical care, it, in reality, does just
the opposite. Reducing the amount available for equipment and land and
structures by $69 million in budget authority provides, in reality, $53
million more for actual spending in outlays for veterans' health care,
and I would like to explain to the House why.
For the past few years, the administration and the Congress have been
engaged in a budgetary slight of hand to
[[Page H6543]]
try to make dwindling resources stretch further. The device is called
the delayed equipment obligation. The gimmick is to provide several
hundred million dollars for the equipment needs of the VA health care
system and then to prohibit the VA from actually using those funds
until very late in the fiscal year, thus temporarily saving outlays.
Last year, $570 million was provided for equipment with the
obligations delayed until August. This year's budget level requires
even grander thinking. The administration proposed to delay the
obligation of $635 million for equipment, land and structures; and
faced with an extremely tight budget allocation, the Committee on
Appropriations recommended that $846 million for equipment be delayed
for obligation until next August.
{time} 1400
The impact of increasing the amount of delayed equipment obligation
by more than $200 million above the request is to actually reduce the
basic medical care amount to a level $276 million below the 1998
program.
This is simply unacceptable, in the view of many veterans'
organizations. To the extent possible, while remaining within budget
totals, my amendment seeks to adjust that imbalance. It reduces the
delayed equipment obligation by $69 million in Budget Authority and
increases the basic medical care activity by a similar amount.
The effect is to make funds available at the start of the fiscal year
for hands-on health care delivered to veterans. To do this results in
$53 million more in that spending during the year, according to the
CBO. That is the amount of outlays that currently are available and
unused, left on the table, as it were, in this bill.
For those concerned about the size of the VA's medical equipment
backlog, Mr. Chairman, let me say that my amendment still provides $775
million for such requirements. That is $205 million above the 1998
level, $140 million above the Administration's 1999 request, and $88
million above the Senate's recommendation.
Because it results in more hands-on veterans medical care, earlier
this year veterans groups supported my amendment. Here I have a letter
from the Paralyzed Veterans Association, another from the Blinded
Veterans Association, and another from the Disabled American Veterans,
all indicating support for this amendment, and other letters will be
forthcoming.
To summarize, this is a simple amendment. It does not hurt any
program. It takes the outlays that are left on the table. There is no
offset required to accelerate spending for veterans' health. Reduced
equipment obligations by $69 million actually increases hands-on
medical care by the same amount. That is what the veterans want. That
is what the veterans organization groups feel they need. That is what
this House ought to do.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. We have had a chance to review the the
gentleman's amendment. We appreciate the the gentleman's assistance to
the committee, and we accept the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and ranking member.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The amendment was agreed to.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), chairman of the
Subcommittee for the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies of the Committee
on Appropriations.
I want to thank the chairman for providing an increase in funding for
NASA's academic programs. Inspiring our youth, our youth's teachers,
and the general public is absolutely essential to sustaining our
Nation's edge in research and development in space exploration.
I applaud the subcommittee's funding equipment. However, I am
concerned about the House mark that does not provide an increase in
funding for an academic program that literally has touched millions of
people's lives. As Members know, one of the most effective academic
programs launched by NASA is the National Space Grant College and
Fellowship program, with over 586 member universities and institutions
in every State.
I would ask that the Chair adopt the Senate budget mark of $23.5
million for the National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program
when the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies appropriations goes to
conference.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. STABENOW. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from
Michigan for bringing this issue to our attention. As a distinguished
member of the Committee on Science, I appreciate the gentlewoman's
commitment to research and development, as well as to education.
I agree with the gentlewoman that the National Space Grant College
and Fellowship Program is a worthwhile program that deserves additional
funding, and I want to assure the gentlewoman that I will take the
advice of the gentlewoman and give serious consideration to it during
the conference negotiations.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from
California for all of his hard work on this appropriations bill. I am
encouraged by his words to look closely at the Senate mark of $23.5
million for the National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program.
Let me also say that I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work
with me and all of the other Members of Congress who feel strongly
about this program, and I look forward to a positive outcome.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentlewoman
from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) for her kinds words. I look forward to
resolving the issue as we go forward to the conference.
Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order has been reserved.
The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. DeLauro:
At the end of the bill add the following new section:
None of the funds made available under this Act may be used
to develop and enforce the standard for the flammability of
children's sleepware sizes 0 through 6X (contained in
regulations published at 16 CFR part 1615) and sizes 7
through 14 (contained in regulations published at 16 CFR part
1616) as the standard was amended effective January 1, 1997.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment which will protect
America's children from burn injuries and from death. I feel confident
that every Member of this body will support it.
This amendment would prohibit the Consumer Product Safety Commission
from using any of its resources to promulgate or implement weakened
fire and safety standards for children's sleepwear.
For more than two decades children's sleepwear was held to a more
stringent standard of fire safety than any other type of clothing.
Kids' pajamas needed to self-extinguish after exposure to a small open
flame. Manufacturers were required to test every part of the garment's
fabrics, seams, and the trim, to ensure that it met this high standard
of safety. Why this strict standard of safety? Because Americans
understood the importance of protecting their children from the
horrific burns that can come from a fire accident.
I saw a demonstration of in my home State of Connecticut of just how
fast a pair of pajamas that are not treated to reduce flammability can
go up in flames. It was horrifying and it was frightening. The strict
standard of fire safety worked. Fire burns and deaths relating to
children's sleepwear went down to nearly zero. In fact, the National
Fire Protection Agency estimates that without this safety standard,
there would have been ten times as
[[Page H6544]]
many deaths associated with children's sleepwear. The standard also
brought about a substantial decrease in the number of burn injuries.
That is why I was shocked to learn that the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, an agency for which I have the utmost respect, had voted to
turn its back on that successful record and to weaken the fire safety
standards for children's sleepwear.
The current standards allow all sleepwear for infants nine months or
younger and tightfitting sleepwear in children's sizes up to 14 to be
exempt from flammability standards so that they can be made from
untreated cotton and cotton blends. These types of clothes can easily
ignite from a stove or other types of flames.
Tight-fitting clothes made with flame resistent material are the
safest choice for children. Nonflame-resistent materials like untreated
cotton and cotton blends ignite at a lower temperature than fabrics
such as polyester. The flames spread rapidly, and they tend to spread
up towards the child's face.
The reasoning behind the new rules is that if a garment is tight, it
is more difficult for flames to spread. Parents do not buy clothes that
are tight. We have all bought clothes for new babies. We buy them for
our kids and we buy them for our friend's kids, and they look
beautiful. They are very, very pretty. We think how cute it is, and we
buy clothes that are big so a child grows into them.
But the combination of nonflame resistance and large sizes is lethal
to our kids. It is important to note that the chair of the Consumer
Product Safety Commission voted against changing the standards, and she
said, ``Available injury and death data demonstrates to me that the
sleepwear standards are working. I am unable to agree to an exemption
that could leave these infants more vulnerable to injury or to death.''
I have been working with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rob
Andrews) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Curt Weldon), two of
this body's most eminent experts on fire safety, to reinstate the
original fair safety standards to protect our children from burns and
from death. We are backed by a large coalition of fire safety
organizations, medical organizations, public health groups, who are
dedicated to protecting our children and reinstating this standard.
Let me just quote from one member of that coalition, Andrew McGuire,
executive director of the Trauma Foundation at San Francisco General
Hospital, who was burned when his pajamas caught fire in 1952, on his
7th birthday. He was instrumental in lobbying for the passage of the
original standard.
This is what he says, that the children's sleepwear fire safety
standard has been ``a truly successful 'vaccine' that has protected
thousands of children from serious burns over the past 25 years. No one
in America would consider reducing the use of the vaccine for polio.
Why would the CPSC relax such a life-saving vaccine for burns?''
Andrew McGuire is right, we do not want to wait for the number of
fire burns and deaths to rise before we take action to protect our
children. One death is too many. One child living with a disfigurement
left from a burn is too many. This is a life or death issue for our
children.
This is a bipartisan effort. We have the responsibility to protect
our children's health and safety. It does not belong to one party or
another. We all hold that responsibility. I urge my colleagues to stand
behind our Nation's children and support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) continue
to reserve the point of order?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, Yes, I do.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I just came down to talk on another amendment, which I
believe will follow this amendment.
I just want to say to my colleagues that I rise in strong support of
the amendment of the gentlewoman from Connecticut. As a mother, as as a
grandmother, it is shocking to me that these laws that were put in
place to protect our youth, our infants, would be weakened.
I just appeal to the House to support my colleague from Connecticut,
because when we have a chance to save lives, it seems to me we should
do everything we can to do so. So I strongly support the gentlewoman
from Connecticut's amendment. I thank her for introducing it.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment. The
amendment proposed by my friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro), and the coauthor of legislation, along with the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and myself, would have restored the
sleepwear safety standard that worked so very well for 24 years.
I want to take a moment and talk about why this is important, and how
we got to this point. It is important, Mr. Chairman, for a very simple
reason. When people go into the store and they look to buy sleepwear
for their children, there are basically two kinds of sleepwear. There
is sleepwear that will catch on fire and burn in an instant, that is
not treated for flammability, and then there is sleepwear that will not
catch on fire and it will burn much more slowly, because it is treated
for flammability.
For 24 years, the law of this country recognized that distinction. If
we went in and bought sleepwear for our children that was treated for
flammability, we knew it, because there was a label there. If it were
not treated for flammability, we knew that, because there was no label.
Parents and others buying for their children could be intelligent
consumers and safeguard their children.
If we listened to the testimony of emergency room nurses, emergency
room doctors, firefighters, burn center personnel, lots of nonpolitical
people who deal with burned children, they would have told us that this
law made sense. If it is not broke, do not fix it.
In 1996, for reasons that are inexplicable, the Consumer Product
Safety Commission decided to change this law and take the warning
labels off flammable sleepwear. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and I
introduced a bill to say let us go back to a standard that worked for
24 years, and let us get it done through this legislation.
Through the cooperation and farsightedness of the chairman of the
subcommittee of this bill today, we were given that opportunity. We
appreciate it very much, and thank him for his cooperation.
When this bill was brought to the floor, the rule was written in such
a way that any one Member, one Member, could stand up and have this
provision stripped from the bill without a vote. That just happened a
few minutes ago.
The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) has now done the next
best thing. She has said, if we cannot get the old standard back, let
us enjoin the use of the new one, which emergency room doctors,
emergency room nurses, and other personnel in the fire service around
this country say do not work.
What we really should be doing here, Mr. Chairman, is having a fair
debate and an up-or-down vote on the real, underlying bill, which says
let us put the standard that worked for 24 years back in. We were not
getting that. But this is the next best thing.
On behalf of children across this country, consumers across this
country, emergency room nurses, burn center personnel, and on behalf of
Republicans and Democrats in this institution, I would implore and urge
my colleagues to vote yes on the DeLauro amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, while we are not the
authorizing committee, I no longer reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that, to those of who have
raised questions about such an effort through this amendment, and I
have a 9-year-old boy and a 13-year-old girl, and I know my colleague,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), has young children as well,
this is not a question of being concerned about children. It is about
doing the right thing and using the right vehicle to accomplish it.
[[Page H6545]]
{time} 1415
There is not a person in here who is going to stand up and ever
object to us doing everything we possibly can to protect our children
from any kind of injury or any kind of accident. But the initial effort
to try to write law in this bill was deemed inappropriate earlier
through a parliamentary ruling because we really had not had a chance
to talk about this and figure out what the facts are.
I have a letter in my possession dated July 8 of this year from the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission that clearly States an
opposition by commissioner Ann Brown who clearly states that the
current rules, as they have been changed, should remain and we should
not do anything to go back to the way they were before.
There have been no burn injuries associated with any snug-fitting
garments that we are aware of. Certainly, accidents occur out there and
we are not sure of what the causes are in each particular case. But I
think that in light of the fact that we have not had hearings on this.
I might support this if we had the appropriate hearings and used the
appropriate vehicle.
But it is like trying to use one of those new Volkswagen beetles to
haul a giant cabinet down the highway. It is just the wrong vehicle to
use to accomplish a goal.
So I would strongly urge my colleagues to let us go through the
process and not rush an amendment that Members have not even had a
chance to look at. It was presented within the last 15 to 20 minutes
and we have just barely gotten around to figuring out what it says
exactly. It is the wrong way to write Federal law.
We always know that when the Federal Government tries to legislate
quickly without really thinking things through, we wind up messing the
problem up worse than it was when we started out. That is my concern.
Mr. Chairman, I emphasize that none of us in this body with young
children, as I have and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) has,
would do anything to risk the safety of a child in this country. Our
only concern is that we want to do the right thing for the kids and for
everyone involved in this issue.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I want to support what my colleague is
saying with two additional concerns. Number one is the effect of this
provision overrides the judgment of the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, not something necessarily that we should do lightly. And I
do not think anyone should accuse them of wanting to lower safety
standards for children.
Secondly, it is a far more complicated question than a simple speech
on the floor can indicate. For example, those of us with small children
know that when it comes to bedtime, normally what a lot of children
sleep in are big, bulky cotton T-shirts. They like the feel of cotton,
but that big bulk presents some dangers to them.
That was one of the concerns that has motivated the Consumer Product
Safety Commission to take another look at these standards. If people
are going to want to put cotton on their children to have a tighter
fitting garment, which is part of where this arises.
So I want to share the concern of the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bonilla). This is not as simple as some would have us believe. And I
hope as this thing moves forward through the legislative process, we
can take a more careful look at it to truly make children safer because
that has got to be the goal for all of us.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
comments of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry). I would also
concur; my kids sleep in those baggy T-shirts as well.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in favor of this amendment.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Hinchey) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is interesting to note that we just passed a
major health reform bill in this body, managed care reform. The single
biggest issue on the minds of the American people in this country and
we did it without a hearing. Without one single hearing. The majority
party would not allow any hearings on a major health care reform bill
in this body.
This is an issue that has nothing to do with the issue of whether or
not we have hearings. I will tell my colleagues what it has to do with,
and I will quote, not my comments, but I will quote from Molly Ivins on
June 27. This is a quote about the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla):
``Bonilla will move to strike DeLauro's amendment today. He told The
Washington Post last week, 'I don't have a huge cotton constituency in
my district, but my State does,' and added that the Texas drought has
already taken a toll on cotton farmers. `They came to me and explained
this would place severe restrictions on what they could produce.'
``Excuse me--did I just hear someone say that we could bail out the
cotton farmers by letting more little kids get burned to death every
year?''
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I want to set the record straight on the
position of Ann Brown, who was the chairperson of the Consumer Product
Safety Commission at the time the rule change was done.
I have in my possession, and I will submit it at the appropriate time
for the Record a letter from Ann Brown to my the gentlewoman from
Connecticut, April 10, 1998, in which she says the following. It is
addressed to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro):
``As you know, I share your views.'' The letter goes on to say, ``in
these circumstances, it appears the only remedy is legislative action
to restore the previous rule.'' The previous rule, referring to the one
that was in effect for 24 years. So, Ms. Brown's position is in support
of our effort.
The second thing I would like to say is it is extraordinary, this
commitment to regular order and procedure. This is the same bill that
is rewriting the entire public housing policy of the United States of
America through legislating on an appropriations bill. I would invite
my colleagues who are so enraged by this departure from regular order
to join those of us who are concerned about that.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, let me make another point about the issue
of hearings. The fact of the matter is when we hold hearings, we bring
in new information, new ideas, in a process that goes before the
committee to listen to.
This is a set of regulations that has been on the books for the last
25 years. It has worked. These standards have worked. Not according to
Democrats or Republicans or the political people, but in fact according
to the medical community, to fire marshals, to fire chiefs, people who
work in burn units all over this country have banned together to say it
is wrong to eliminate these standards. Why are we not listening?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would speak to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) by way of the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Hinchey). If we could, to kind of help work with the time
of the day which is running, and as I think the points have been made
very effectively, I think the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) and I
would be willing to accept the amendment.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, on this side, we would accept the
amendment.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlemen.
[[Page H6546]]
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Coburn
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 33 offered by Mr. Coburn: At the end of the
bill, insert after the last section preceding the short
title) the following new sections:
Sec. . The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by reducing the amount made available under the
heading ``DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT--
Federal Housing Administration--fha--mutual mortgage
insurance program account'' for non-overhead administrative
expenses necessary to carry out the Mutual Mortgage Insurance
guarantee and direct loan program, and increasing the amount
made available for ``DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS--Veterans
Health Administration--medical care'', by $199,999,999.
Sec. . The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by reducing the amount made available under the
heading ``DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT--
Federal Housing Administration--FHA--General and special risk
program account'' for non-overhead administrative expenses
necessary to carry out the guaranteed and direct loan
programs, and increasing the amount made available for
``DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS--Veterans Health
Administration--medical care'', by $103,999,999.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment about fulfilling our
obligations. This is an amendment about the government being truthful
with our veterans. This is an amendment about supplying health care to
veterans that is equal to what one can get in the private sector.
We are going to hear a whole lot of things as we discuss this
amendment about where we are getting the money, how it is going to be
affected. This past Saturday night, I had the pleasure and also the
terrible, gut-wrenching remorse to see a very new movie called ``Saving
Private Ryan,'' and I want to tell my colleagues that for the first
time in my life, I truly now am understanding what some of the veterans
have been telling me for the last 4 years.
When we see the price paid by our veterans, the price that they have
paid with loss of limb, with loss of health, with loss of life, we can
do nothing less than to fulfill our obligation to those men and women
of the commitment that we made for them.
This is a very simple amendment. It is not complicated. It takes
money that was used for a mandatory program last year, and the last 7
years, and moves that money, which has now been moved from a mandatory
spending account, to veterans health care. It still will not get us to
the point that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs authorizes and states
we should be spending on veterans health care.
When our veterans are not given what they have been promised in terms
of health care, we will never in the future be able to recruit the men
and women that we need to defend our country because we will not have a
track record of fulfilling our commitments.
There is going to be 9.3 million veterans in the year 2000. That
veteran population is aging severely. We will see a large number of the
World War II veterans require hospitalization, both now and in
increasing amounts over the next few years. There is going to be almost
3.5 million World War II veterans at that time. The Veterans Advisory
Committee recommends that we increase spending minimally $250 million
just to catch up to the point where we can meet minimum needs.
I want to tell my colleagues, the people that are on Federal Health
Care Employment Benefit policies in this body do not have near the
worry that our veterans have. We have written for ourselves, and all
the rest of the Federal employees, a health care plan that is
comparable to none. It is better than. But we have not given that same
thing to our veterans.
To not supply the minimal needs as required and recognized by the
authorizing committee is inappropriate and it is also unpatriotic and
it fails to recognize the tremendous sacrifices that have been paid.
Under law, veterans centers are mandated, prosthetic spinal cord
clinics, chronic care clinics, blind rehabilitation, which we are not
funding adequately that which has been mandated. We are cutting
services at every hospital. We are decreasing the quality of care by
increasing the quantity of patients seen, and giving tertiary providers
and secondary providers their care. Not that it is substandard in the
regular community, but it is less than what they were promised.
Just to keep up with fiscal year 1998 level services, spending needs
to be increased by $681 million over last year just to account for
health care cost inflation and increases.
What this bill does is move $304 million. It moves it from the
administration, a nonoverhead administrative account, into veterans
health care.
As Members are asked to vote for this amendment, the real question
that they are going to have to ask themselves is do they think we ought
to be absorbing the administrative overhead of HUD programs in the
mandatory accounts or can we and dare we continue to do and manage HUD
the way we have in the past, and in fact do what we are obligated to do
for our veterans?
Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back, noting that I would like to
hear from the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) on this
amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise very reluctantly in
opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is very, very important for the House to
know and to revisit the reality that veterans programs, especially
veterans' medical care programs, have very broadly-based, bipartisan,
almost nonpartisan support within the House. Of all the accounts in
this very complex bill where we have consistently appropriated dollars
above and beyond the President's request, it is the veterans' accounts.
Of all the accounts, we have not reduced veterans programs. This
account has received that support.
We worked, and I would appreciate the gentleman listening to this, we
worked very closely with the veterans service organizations regarding
the medical care accounts. But let me say to my colleague, I personally
have a very strong disagreement with many of those organizations.
{time} 1430
While I usually join hands with them in supporting additional funding
for veterans programs, all too often I cannot get them to join me to go
out to the hospitals where veterans are treated and make certain those
monies are being spent in a fashion that assures that our veterans are
treated as human beings, not as people with a number on their forehead.
So the VA has a lot of work to do there. I hope that my colleague
would assist me with communicating that to our VSOs and make sure the
dollars we are spending are being used in a maximum way for the
positive benefit of all veterans being served.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I could not agree with the gentleman. As a
matter of fact, in my district we have gone through a transition in a
veterans hospital, Muskogee Veterans Hospital, in which we have seen a
redirection in the change. But that does not negate the fact that there
is not enough dollars to meet the obligations. Yes, we have increased
it, but we have not increased it to what we need to meet the
obligations for our veterans. I would love to give the gentleman some
examples.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me go
back to my point. The gentleman, I know, has many points that he will
make. But indeed, within this bill there is a great variety and mix of
accounts that we have tried to balance.
I think most of our colleagues understand that one of the issues that
has floated around here all year long and has raised a lot of
controversy involves FHA loan limitations. It happens that the
gentleman has decided to take funding that HUD uses to administer those
programs.
Literally the progress we made earlier in the year on that FHA issue
would be undermined, dramatically undermined by the gentleman's
amendment. Whether we like it or not, those funds have to be
administered in the
[[Page H6547]]
fashion that is outlined in this bill or the programs will not be
administered. Indeed, it has been suggested that this funding is not
included on the Senate side and thereby is not needed. The reality that
funds are not on the Senate side is exactly why they are needed at this
point within this bill.
So while I understand and appreciate the gentleman's circumstance,
there is many an account in this bill that I would love to zero to put
more money in veterans programs. In the past, I have had some
difficulty zeroing programs where I have proposed that we do exactly
what the gentleman is talking about.
This is a fairly balanced bill. So reluctantly, as I have suggested,
I would resist the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Coburn amendment. It would
cut administrative funds available to the FHA by more than one-third,
thereby crippling its operations.
I am in favor of providing additional funds for veterans health care,
if a way can be found to do this. However, I cannot support increasing
funds for the Department of Veterans Affairs at the price of virtually
shutting down the Federal Housing Administration. The FHA and its
programs are well known to most of the Members. The largest FHA program
is single family mortgage insurance, what most of us simply know as FHA
mortgages.
This program has made homeownership affordable for literally millions
of American families, especially first-time home buyers, families with
modest incomes, minorities, women and residents of inner cities. Other
major FHA programs provide major insurance or other forms of credit for
multifamily apartment construction, home repair, hospitals, nursing
homes and many other purposes.
While there might be disagreements about the details of some of the
FHA's programs, few of us, if any, advocate shutting down or crippling
the FHA. Yet that is exactly what the Coburn amendment threatens to do.
In our bill we provide four line item appropriations for the
administrative costs of the FHA. The Coburn amendment essentially
eliminates the appropriations for two of these line items, leaving just
one dollar in each of the accounts. That is a cut of $306 million, a
reduction of 36 percent in the FHA administrative funds provided by the
bill.
The two particular line items that the Coburn amendment virtually
eliminates provide funds for contracting. This includes the contracts
to operate and maintain all of the FHA's basic computer and data
processing systems, including systems for accounting, processing
claims, collecting premiums, managing assets and the like. Other
contracts funded through these appropriations cover things like
auditing, property appraisals, loan management. These are not just
incidentals of some kind of bureaucratic overhead. Rather, they are all
core functions for a credit program like the FHA.
Even if funds could be shifted from the FHA's two other line items to
cover these costs, then things covered by other appropriations would be
left unfunded.
However we slice it, I do not see how the FHA can function with a 36
percent cut in its budget for operations and administration.
I would hope that we would defeat the Coburn amendment.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Let me say, first of all, I want to state that I do appreciate what
the chairman of this committee has done over the years. I want to also
thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for what he has done for
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and for all the men and women on the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs and also on the Subcommittee on VA, HUD
and Independent Agencies, because we can trace over the past 3 or 4
years the budgets that have come out of this House and also the budgets
that have come out of the administration and see that their efforts
have been truly heroic.
Regrettably, in my opinion, this administration has continued to
slash veterans funding too much. All we have to look at for evidence of
that is the balanced budget deal that was passed back in 1997. The only
two areas where real spending cuts took place, I am talking real cuts,
not freezes, not increases that people in Washington called spending
cuts, the only two areas where there were real cuts were in defense
dollars that affected military retirees' medical accounts and also in
the veterans area where there was a $3 billion cut. Talk about
shameful, that is shameful. And certainly I do not stand here in the
well of this House and say that has any reflection on either the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) or the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Stump) or the members on those respective committees. In fact, I
want to thank them on behalf of all of the veterans in my district for
the great fight that they have put forward.
However, I do support this amendment, the Coburn amendment. I do that
because I have more military retirees, which this does not affect, and
veterans in my area, and I have seen from the past 3 or 4 years the
declining medical state of those people in my district. I have no other
choice but to be here.
I have a brief question to ask the gentleman from Oklahoma regarding
a statement that was said over here. We heard from the ranking member
that somehow the FHA would be crippled if the gentleman's amendment
passed. That is something I do not want to do. I would like some
clarification. It is my understanding that this bill actually increases
FHA funding by 50 percent. Could the gentleman enlighten me on that
matter?
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, this bill, under current FHA operation,
increases FHA administration by 50 percent over what it was last year
in terms of the dollars.
Number two, this is into an account called nonoverhead administrative
expenses. It is a new provision. It was not in there last year. Neither
the committee report nor the actual text of the bill provides any
explanation as to what this money will be used for or why FHA needs
more than a 50 percent increase in funds for administrative and
overhead expenses. While the President requested this money, there is
no explanation other than to say that the result of FHA correcting the
allocation of administrative expenses among its budgetary accounts.
Finally the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, which has
jurisdiction over FHA, made no mention of these nonadministrative
overhead expenses in their review and their view on the fiscal year
1999 budget request. HUD claims they need this money to keep the
Federal Credit Reform Act. For the past 7 years, FHA has used mandatory
spending to meet these costs. Now OMB tells them they need
discretionary funds to meet these costs or they need statutory language
so that they can continue to use mandatory money.
This amendment will allow the conference to add the language, as the
Senate seems to intend on doing, by not appropriating money for this
account.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman and will
be supporting his amendment. Again, I want to say I understand the
extremely difficult balancing act the chairman of this committee
undertakes and I certainly, despite supporting this amendment, I want
to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and I also want to
thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for all the work they have
done on behalf of the veterans in my district.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I would like to ask the gentleman from California a number of
questions, if he would not mind responding.
I wonder if the gentleman would be willing to answer a number of
questions about how the FHA fund works. It has just been alleged that
the FHA funding level for administrative purposes is 50 percent above
last year's level. Is it not true that in the past, FHA funded these
operations simply by taking their own funds and using them without a
congressional appropriation? And is it not true that OMB said that they
could no longer do that, that they
[[Page H6548]]
could only perform those functions if they actually got an
appropriation from Congress? And is it not, therefore, a fact that
there is no real increase whatsoever in the dollar level that is
available to FHA for these purposes?
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, the gentleman is correct.
Indeed, this is the first year that we will have had this kind of
account within our bill to my knowledge.
Mr. OBEY. So there is no increase in the amount of money available to
the FHA for these administrative purposes?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask the
question, where these numbers came from. Frankly, I did not want to
embarrass anybody.
Mr. OBEY. Let me also then ask the gentleman, is it not true that the
effect of this amendment goes to the services which are contracted for
by FHA?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
Mr. OBEY. And is it not true that those services are, for instance,
appraisals that FHA is required to obtain and computer services,
without which FHA could not function and could not cut checks that they
are supposed to cut?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. As I
said in my opening remarks regarding this amendment, it concerns me
that this cut could undermine all the work we have been doing all year
long on FHA accounts.
Mr. OBEY. So that is why the gentleman from California said, in
essence, that if this amendment is passed, it would shut down the
ability of the FHA to function without these services to American
homeowners.
Mr. LEWIS of California. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. RYUN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to thank the gentleman from
Oklahoma for offering this amendment. I want to stand and speak in
strong support of it.
I think it is very important at this point that we restore confidence
in this country's commitment to our veterans. Currently our military is
in its 14th year of declining budgets. That means benefits are being
cut for our current active duty men and women who serve this country.
This discourages our young men and women who are involved in the
service.
I think it is very important that we send a very positive message to
them, to our current active military as well as our veterans, that we
will make good on our commitment to them. And this is an opportunity to
ensure that those benefits will be there and that we will continue to
work to fulfill those commitments.
I recognize that this is difficult and the gentleman from California
(Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) have worked very
hard, but I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for offering this
amendment.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RYUN. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a couple of
points.
Number one, I do appreciate the chairman's work for veterans. This
amendment is not intended to imply in any way that his concern and care
for veterans and that his responsibility for increasing veteran
spending in the last 4 years is anything less than stellar.
I think the assumption made by the gentleman from Wisconsin that if
this money is not in there that everything is going to shut down is not
an accurate assumption.
{time} 1445
As a matter of fact, that assumption would mean to say that the
Senate intends to shut down HUD and FHA loans because they have put no
money in for this amendment.
The other thing that I would want to make sure that the Members are
aware of, that the American Legion, the Order of Purple Heart and the
Veterans of Foreign Wars adamantly and fully support this amendment. It
will in fact move us in a direction of meeting the obligations that we
are obligated and morally bound to fulfill.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RYUN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I know the gentleman did not mean to even
suggest that the Senate would know more about the process than we
might, but this is the first time this year that we have had this kind
of responsibility in our bill. I must say that the other body seemed to
be unaware of this need. Indeed, it would have a significant impact
upon this administration. It is a new ball game, so I can understand
misunderstanding, even on the part of the Senate. And possibly there is
some misunderstanding here within the House as well.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I too would like to join the others in this Chamber
complimenting both the majority and the minority in drafting this bill,
but I rise in very strong support of the gentleman's amendment.
Let me try to clarify the issue with regard to HUD funding. It is
true that these HUD funds have in the past come from a different
account. Indeed, for the past 7 years, FHA has used mandatory spending
to meet these costs. But the OMB put out a report saying that in the
future, one of two things would have to happen: Either, the OMB said,
you must find discretionary funds to meet these costs, or you need a
statutory change in language to continue to use the mandatory funding.
The point being that while the gentleman argues there is no funding
increase, in point of fact there has been no funding cut anywhere else;
and if we appropriate this 50 percent increase in discretionary
funding, we will in fact be spending more money. It does not have to
happen. We can in fact fix the statutory language, avoid a 50 percent
increase in HUD funding simply by changing the statute, and fund a
cause that is extremely important.
So having talked about the fact that we do not need to increase
spending by 50 percent, we do not need to spend an additional $304
million on non-overhead expenditures, administrative expenditures at
FHA, we can continue the practice in the past with a mere statutory
change in the language, I want to talk about why using this fund for VA
health care is important.
I recently visited the VA hospital in Phoenix, Arizona. I was
embarrassed to walk through that facility. In the southwestern United
States, we face a difficult problem. Many of our Nation's veterans are
retiring to the Sunbelt, to the South and the Southwest where it is
warmer and they want to spend their final years. That has put an
incredible burden on our veterans hospitals. As my colleague has
pointed out, we are underfunding our commitment to our veterans. This
bill is a painless way to add $304 million critically needed to those
VA health services. It is important that we step up to the plate.
All my life I have been kind of a fan and an aficionado of D-Day and
the sacrifices that were made there. We all know that in this Capitol
just a few days ago, a sacrifice was made to protect the people in this
building. Our veterans have all made a sacrifice in their lives. With
all due respect to the chairman of the committee and the ranking
member, the gentleman's amendment will enable us to honor our
commitment to provide health care to our veterans without increasing
the spending at FHA simply by fixing the problem at FHA that OMB
identified in a very simple administrative way. It does appear to be
the same method that the Senate plans to use. If I can, I urge my
colleagues, in the strongest possible terms, to join me and to join the
gentleman in supporting this amendment and in honoring our commitment
to America's veterans and to the health care needs that they have.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to follow up on that. Our VA
hospitals are important. In spite of a few of them maybe being bad, I
believe that they are doing better, doing a better job and being more
responsible. I can cite the Dallas VA as an example of that. So I
[[Page H6549]]
do not think that we need to wait to increase funding for our veterans.
Our veterans are probably our most important product here in this
country, and it is time we supported them fully.
I think it is important that not only all the veterans organizations
support this amendment but our Conservative Action Team also on this
side supports it. I think $304 million that we have been discussing
back and forth here is kind of one of those nebulous things that nobody
has really put their finger on to say it is really needed. If it was
not there last year, why do we need it this year, and they can waive
the rules so that it can operate under mandatory funding. Apparently
that is what our Senate did.
I would encourage us to help our veterans. It is an aging population,
as has been stated before. Our age is going to peak in the year 2000.
We need to have more money in that system. The Committee on Veterans'
Affairs recommended about $452 million above the House level. This $300
million will start to make our veterans well. I encourage all Members
to vote for the Coburn amendment.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes).
Mr. STOKES. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I would ask the maker of the amendment, the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Coburns), the gentleman sent out a Dear Colleague letter. In his
letter, he makes reference to the fact that they need statutory
language so that they can continue to use mandatory money.
Does the gentleman agree with me that under his language, that is, if
we use mandatory language, that that in effect is also spending for
which the committee would be charged and that if we are charged with
it, we will go over the 302(b) allocation?
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. That is right. What we are saying is if we write that
statutory language, we will continue to take administrative expenses
from the mandatory side rather than from the discretionary side. That
is how you have been doing it the last 7 years.
Mr. STOKES. If I can bring this to the attention of the gentleman,
``Substantive changes to or restrictions on entitlement law or other
mandatory spending law in appropriations laws will be scored against
the Appropriations Committee's section 302(b) allocations in the House
and the Senate.''
Is the gentleman aware of that provision of the law?
Mr. COBURN. Yes, I am, and I still would tell him that I will vote
for a priority for our veterans over the administrative overhead of HUD
every day.
Mr. STOKES. Then the gentleman does agree that we would exceed our
302(b) allocation by using the mandatory language.
Mr. COBURN. Mandatory spending does not count on 302(b) allocations.
Mr. STOKES. I just read the gentleman the law.
Mr. COBURN. I understand. But mandatory spending is not appointed
against 302(b) allocations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. I would like to simply point out that there is no statutory
authority for the agency to continue to do this through mandatory
spending. If there were, then they would simply be spending the same
amount of dollars in mandatory spending as they are spending through
appropriated accounts.
Mr. COBURN. Absolutely.
Mr. OBEY. And so you would not be saving one dime. You would simply
be adding in the real world as opposed to the green eyeshade accounting
world, you would simply be adding more money to the budget. What you
are suggesting is that there is a way that we can sneak around the
budget limits without getting caught, and I thought that the CATs were
opposed to stuff like that.
Mr. COBURN. First of all, I am not stating that a legislative waiver
is necessarily the best answer. I know that may be the temptation of us
as a body, and in fact we may need to do that. What I am saying is that
there is a lack of available discretionary funds made between the two
bodies. What the explanation for that is, I do not know. But the
question that I would have is why does the CBO score a legislative
waiver as a cost? CBO scores it as a cost because it is an actual
change in the law. It is not, however, a change in practice.
Mr. OBEY. The fact is I cannot get into the head of OMB or anybody
else around here. All I know is that we have a choice. The choice is
whether or not we are going to tell Members that things are so that are
not so. The fact is, Members are being told by your side that this will
not shut down FHA. The fact is absent new statutory authority, it most
certainly will. And your amendment will in fact cripple the ability of
FHA to deliver housing to people in this country. Now, that is a fact,
whether you admit it or not.
Mr. COBURN. If the gentleman will yield further, I would not have
that interpretation of the facts, especially not in that absolute
manner. I would also say, and I would reemphasize again, if this causes
heartburn: ``So be it''. Our veterans are underfunded.
Mr. OBEY. I would suggest what you are saying is if this causes
heartburn to all of the people who we supposedly helped in the Neumann
amendment last week on FHA housing, you are saying: ``So be it.'' I do
not think you ought to treat homeowners that way, either; certainly not
struggling working people who need FHA to get access to the housing
market.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for the body to know that while
there may be some confusion about the impact of this amendment, and it
is understandable because it is a new responsibility in terms of
language that we have in this bill, it nonetheless would have a huge
impact upon the administration of FHA programs and would thereby
undermine that work that we are all involved in. I think there are some
250 Members who coauthored that effort we made a couple of weeks ago,
and this would undermine much of what we did there. So it is important
that we not, because we have a wish list, to take money from so-called
easy housing programs and move it somewhere else. This is a very
delicately balanced bill. I would urge the Members not to undo that FHA
program they worked so hard for with this amendment but find some other
way to do this.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann).
Mr. NEUMANN. I would just like to clarify the funding and what
exactly happens with this funding, to the best of my understanding.
This is currently an appropriated amount of money, which means it is
under the 302(b) allocation. If we were to move it back into mandatory
and we were to authorize the spending under the mandatory portion of
the budget, we would have a pay-go problem. Because pay-go says if you
are going to start a new mandatory spending program, you either have to
raise taxes or decrease a mandatory spending program elsewhere.
My only intent here is to make sure that we understand what the
funding implications are. Certainly if they had been spending this
money in the mandatory portion of this program, the program should have
been authorized and they had no business spending it before.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. First of all, they are already spending this money, so it
is offset. It is already being spent.
Mr. NEUMANN. In the 302(b).
Mr. COBURN. Yes. Under mandatory spending. It is already being spent.
The money is being spent. Otherwise, we would not have had the
administration in the last year.
I would just ask to make one additional point. Given all that
technically, we have not met our commitments to our veterans. There is
no need for a 50 percent increase in the funding
[[Page H6550]]
on this bill, and we need to move it to the veterans. If there is a
problem with that, then we need to prioritize somewhere else so that we
meet what we need to do for our veterans.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his
explanation.
My concern is, is just keeping promises. The fact is, we have over $4
billion in new spending on HUD and EPA and CEQ, but we are not
expending one new, thin dime in veterans' health care. The fact is that
there will be about 3,413,000 new veteran claimants this year. The fact
is that World War II veterans are now old, they are aged, they are
infirm, they are frightened, they feel alone, and now we are not
keeping our promise because we have only set aside about $5,000 per
year for each one of those veterans. That is not enough. They were
willing to give their last full measure on the battlefield for us, and
they won for us. We made a deal with them, and I think we better keep
it.
Theodore Roosevelt, our President, said that a man who is good enough
to shed his blood for his country is good enough to expect a square
deal will be given to him when he gets home.
{time} 1500
Mr. Chairman, I feel very strongly about that, and I believe that
every veteran in this great Nation recognizes the need that he must
fulfill in fighting for his country, and now we need to recognize the
need of our veterans.
My parents, I lost both of them recently, and even with old age
people do feel alone and frightened, and can we do that to our veterans
now, those men who fought with able, fit, young bodies and went
overseas and fought the good fight for us so that we would be able to
stand here and be able to speak freely?
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Coburn) for his efforts to encourage others to vote with him. The
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. Lewis) are probably right when they say the way he goes about it
is flawed. Guess what? We do lots of flawed things around here. We
start off every day by waiving the rules that govern this body, every
single day, Mr. Chairman, and say we got these rules, but they do not
count; let us throw them out. The question is if we are going to do
that for everything else, how about just once doing it for the folks
who deserve it the most?
There is really only one group of Americans who were promised health
care, and that is our veterans. Medicare and Medicaid did not come
along until the glory years of America in the 1960s when we had more
money than sense. We now spend about $260 billion a year on Medicare
and Medicaid. We spend about 40 on veterans. Those folks got it just
because they exist. Now, veterans earned it.
So even if what the gentleman is doing is flawed, that is why we have
a conference committee to make it fit within the rules.
As my colleagues know, we are talking, some people here in this body,
not me, are talking about giving back a hundred billion dollars in tax
breaks. But doggone, if we can find the money to give their wealthy
contributors a tax break, how about us finding the money to help those
people who are now too old to help themselves, who go to the veterans
hospital because they are short on cash, who go there because it gives
them the chance to relive the greatest days of their lives, the most
horrible and the greatest days of their lives all at once?
And if my colleagues ever want a reason to do this, I would encourage
them to read a one-page article in Newsweek 2 weeks ago, written by
Stephen Ambrose, called ``The Kids Who Saved the World.'' They did not
question; they did it for 50 bucks a month. It was not for the
benefits, it was not for free health care. They did it because it was
the right thing to do.
We have a chance to do the right thing. We can find a million
technical reasons why we should not help our veterans. But, my
colleagues, know what? People in this country were not promised cheap
home loans. People in this country were not promised free medical care
if they served their country. Let us keep the promise that we made and
then worry about those other things that are nice if we can afford
them.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I was not going to speak on this until I heard the
debate, and I have the greatest respect for the ranking minority
member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes), and my colleague from
California (Mr. Lewis). But I tell my colleagues this is about
priorities and it is about promises.
The priority: If I was going to vote for health care for veterans or
housing, I have no question where my priority lies. It is health care
for our veterans.
Our Capitol Police, in the news right now; if I was going to support
either their health care or the housing, I would choose their health
care for themselves and their families.
I was the original offeror of subvention, not myself, but the
veterans in San Diego, California, and it is a Band-Aid. TriCare is a
Band-Aid for the promises that we made. The original bill of the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) and myself gave full funding to
FEHBP. One can take a trash collector at a military base for the
Pentagon, or a secretary, and they get the benefits of FEHBP. But
someone who has gone over and fought our wars or their families, they
do not get it. And that is the real answer that we need to do and take
a look for our veterans, and take a look at it, and this is a very
divisive issue, and it should not be.
But I read the article by Mr. Ambrose, ``Kids Who Saved the World.''
I would recommend it. It is one of the best articles that one could
read. And I would say to my friends that our active duty forces today,
we are only retaining 24 percent of them because our operation tempo is
300 percent above what it was during the Cold War or Vietnam.
We are killing our military. It is in the worst shape I have ever
seen it. These people are going to become veterans, and we are going to
deny them health care? I do not think so.
I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment, and I ask for
its passage.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. With all due
respect to my colleagues, this is not necessarily about the choice
between housing for the American people and veterans, and if we were
going to use that as a yardstick, we could go back to when we passed
the highway bill, and I did not hear a lot of my colleagues or did not
see a lot of my colleagues voting against the highway bill.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BENTSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, the author of this amendment was in vocal
opposition to the highway bill.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that, but nonetheless we have
heard a number of colleagues say we have to deal with priorities here.
Well, we seem to lose those priorities when it came down to concrete
and cement and all that we were going to do.
Now there are issues related to the highway bill, budget and things
like that. But here is the problem as I see it with this particular
amendment: I appreciate what the gentleman from Oklahoma is trying to
achieve with respect to veterans health care. However I am afraid that
his amendment unintentionally, I believe, would tamper with what is
otherwise a very successful Federal housing program and put the
government at greater risk and, thus, the taxpayers at greater risk of
default.
Now it is my understanding that the reason why the discretionary
appropriation is in here is part of FHA's responsibility to meet the
Fair Credit Reform Act of, I think, 1990 which requires all government
credit-type agencies, including FHA where we guarantee mortgage loans
that are outstanding, that we have adequate reserves and adequate
servicing and management of those portfolios. To not allow the FHA by
taking away their funds to adequately manage the single
[[Page H6551]]
family mortgage portfolio that they have would ultimately put at risk
the triple-A-triple-A credit standard of that portfolio. So in the long
run, it would affect the borrowing cost of the American people who are
eligible for the FHA loans, and I am not sure that any Member wants to
be involved with raising the borrowing cost in that regard.
Second of all, it very well could affect the portfolio quality if we
do not give the FHA the ability to move, foreclose, and liquidate real
estate owned. We do not want to have the government owning a lot of
property that is not bringing an income and putting at risk the credit
portfolio, and that also would affect the credit quality but ultimately
could affect the taxpayers where we might have to put out more money to
address shortfalls in the portfolio.
So while I applaud the gentleman for trying to reach out to the
veterans and give them more funding, this amendment is the wrong way to
go because we are going to potentially mess up what is otherwise a
well-run program that meets its obligations and thus has achieved the
credit rating that lowers the interest cost to the people who can
benefit in it.
So I would urge my colleagues, as one who came to this House from
working in the mortgage industry, and I have looked at a lot of FHA
credits over time, I do not think we want to tamper with a good thing,
and this amendment tampers with a good thing, and I would urge my
colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
strike the requisite number of words.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the 5 minutes.
I have had discussions with my colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Stokes) and others on the other side, and with a voice vote it is our
intention to accept that amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Berman
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Berman:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. 425. None of the funds made available in this Act
(including amounts made available for salaries and expenses)
may be used by the Director of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency to take any action--
(1) to permit Kaiser Permanente to transfer any of the
funds made available to the Kaiser Permanente hospital in
Panorama City, California, under the Seismic Hazard
Mitigation Program for Hospitals (including funds made
available before October 1, 1998) to any other facility; or
(2) to permit Kaiser Permanente to use any of the funds
described in paragraph (1) to relocate the hospital to a site
that is located more than 3 miles from the current site of
the hospital.
If, before October 1, 1998, the Director takes an action
described in paragraph (1) or (2), the Director shall rescind
the action.
Mr. BERMAN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent 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. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, which I am showing both to
the chair and ranking members of this subcommittee, would simply ensure
that certain FEMA disaster funds related to the 1994 Northridge
earthquake are used in a fair and appropriate manner. After the quake
and at the behest of a great deal of effort by the gentleman from
California, the chairman of the subcommittee, FEMA created the Seismic
Hazard Mitigation Program for hospitals, a program which was intended
to rebuild and improve seismic performance of damaged hospitals. FEMA
allocated 68 million under this program to the Kaiser Permanente
Hospital in Panorama City which provides emergency room services and
inpatient care for thousands of families.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. My colleagues and I discussed this in some
depth, and I think the House, when they read it, will understand it.
I am ready to accept the amendment if my colleague from Cleveland is
so inclined.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STOKES. We also are agreeable to accepting the amendment.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen, and, reclaiming my
time, I am ready to accept their acceptance and to stop my talking.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Neumann
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Neumann:
At the end of Title IV, insert the following:
Sec. . None of the funds made in this Act may be used for
researching methods to reduce methane emissions from cows,
sheep or any other ruminant livestock.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, about a month, month-and-a-half ago, I
brought some information to this body regarding an audit of the Federal
Government, and we started going through some of the things that were
in that audit, and it got to the point where people were laughing about
the things, and they would have been funny had they not been true; when
we found things like the Navy could not find 21 out of 79 ships they
went looking for.
The amendment I bring here today falls into that category.
I would like to see some of our colleagues explain to their
constituents back home exactly why it is that we are spending hundreds
of thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money every year to study cow
belching and cow gas and those other words for this that would make it
even more humorous.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NEUMANN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am having a bit of
difficulty swallowing all of this, and, as a result of that, I read the
amendment carefully and I believe my colleague and I are ready to
accept the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NEUMANN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I am having difficulty swallowing it, too,
but I also agree to accept it.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1515
Amendment No. 22 Offered By Mr. Hinchey.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Hinchey:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. 425. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Department of Veterans Affairs to implement or
administer the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, the Veterans' Equitable Resource
Allocation system, known as VERA, may have started out with good
intentions. The purpose was to shift funds in accord with shifts in
veterans' populations, and more specifically, with veterans' needs.
If there are more veterans needing health care services in Florida
today than there were 20 years ago, and we know that that is true, then
Florida should be getting a larger share of the VA health budget than
it received previously. That is common sense, and I have no argument
with that principle.
But I do have an argument with the actual plan for reallocation, the
VERA plan, and with its consequences. Many of us were very disturbed in
January of 1997 when the VA first gave us figures about how much would
be cut from its health care spending in our regions to fit the VERA
plan.
[[Page H6552]]
We had been hearing from our veterans that the quality of care was
not what it ought to be in many places, and we were concerned that
these new cuts would hurt our veterans even more.
The VA assured us that quality of care would not decline. Most of the
reductions had already taken place, we were told. Any further reduction
would be covered by improvements and efficiency.
Every time we raised a question about the VERA model, for example,
did it take into account higher costs in our region, did it take into
account the fact that our facilities are old and in need of repair or
replacement, each time we were assured that it did and the model was
perfect. It was not.
The decline in patient care at one of the hospitals that serves
veterans in my area was swift and dramatic. Myself and my colleagues in
the area asked for a review by the Inspector General at the Veterans
Administration, and the report was horrifying. It documented sharp
increases in deficient care, understaffing, and important professional
categories, poor maintenance of facilities.
It found, in fact, that there was a 50 percent increase in the rate
of patients who died, who had received poor or marginal care in the 6
months after VERA formally took effect, a 50 percent increase in
mortality rates. Some veterans told me they wept when they read the
report.
It was undeniable that these problems were attributable to the VERA
cuts. To mention just one example, professional staff were offered
buyouts to get the budget into line with the VERA requirements. But no
one had planned how to replace them or to reassign those who stayed.
In February, we were given more bad news. What we were told about the
VERA cuts had not been accurate. We were going to have to absorb
another $120 million in cuts over the next 2 years. How are we going to
do that, we asked, when we have just documented the problems in our
region? We have not received an answer to how that is going to be done.
I have just learned that the Veterans Administration is planning
another round of cuts under VERA that will affect 11 regions. The
regions facing cuts are these, Boston headquarters serving Maine, New
Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. They will receive
$38.8 million in cuts. The Albany area, serving upstate New York cut
$12 million. The New York City metropolitan area, serving lower New
York and Newark, New Jersey cut $48 million. Pittsburgh, serving
Pennsylvania, Delaware, part of West Virginia cut $3 million. Durham,
serving North Carolina, part of West Virginia and Virginia cut $1
million. Nashville, serving Tennessee, part of West Virginia and
Kentucky cut $12 million. Chicago, serving part of Illinois, Michigan,
and Wisconsin cut $28 million. Kansas City, serving Kansas, Missouri,
part of Illinois cut $20 million. Dallas, serving Texas, except for
Houston, cut $10.5 million. Denver, serving Colorado, Wyoming, Utah,
and Montana cut $13 million. And Long Beach, serving California and
Nevada cut $23 million.
The message of my amendment is simple. VERA is not equitable. It has
failed. It may not have failed veterans all over the country yet, but
it has clearly failed veterans in many regions and will be failing more
instantly.
My amendment would cut off funding for implementation of VERA. It
would force the VA to go back to the drawing boards and develop a
system that really would treat all veterans equitably.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hinchey was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, right now our veterans are being damaged
by a faulty computer model. We would like to free them from the
computer model and see a system based on the realities.
There will be some people who may come to the floor opposing this
amendment. They may say that the system is working. They may say that
it is helping veterans in some parts of the country. That may be true,
but, increasingly, it is hurting more and more veterans, not just in
metropolitan areas but all across the country. From coast to coast,
veterans are being affected negatively by these cuts.
I ask my colleagues to join me in adopting this amendment so that we
can get a sensible approach to the need to finance the health care
needs for veterans all across the country.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition of the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, as I said, I do rise in strong opposition to the
amendment which would prohibit the use of VA funds to further implement
the Veterans' Equitable, and I emphasize that word equitable, Resource
Allocation system.
VERA, as it is called, corrects historic geographic imbalances in
funding for VA health care services and ensures equitable access to
care for all veterans. Long ago, our Nation made a commitment to care
for the brave men and women who fought the battles to keep America
free. These are our Nation's veterans. Please take note when I say
``our Nation's veterans.'' They are not Florida's veterans or Arizona's
veterans or New York's veterans. They are our veterans, and we, as a
Nation, have a collective responsibility to honor the commitment that
we made to them.
When they volunteered to fight for America's freedom, no one asked
these veterans what part of the country they came from. It simply did
not matter. Unfortunately, when they came home, veterans found out that
where they live matters a great deal. Until the passage of VERA, a
veteran's ability to access the VA health care system literally
depended upon where he or she happened to live.
Since coming to Congress, I have heard from many, many veterans who
were denied care at Florida VA medical facilities. In many instances,
these veterans have been receiving care at their local VA medical
center. However, once they moved to Florida, the VA was forced to turn
them away because the facilities in our State simply did not have the
resources to meet the high demand for care.
This lack of adequate resources, Mr. Chairman, is further compounded
in the winter months when Florida veterans are literally crowded out of
the system by individuals who travel south to enjoy our warm water.
It is hard for my veterans to understand how they can lose their VA
health care simply by moving to another part of the country or because
a veteran from a different state is using our VA facilities.
Congress enacted VERA for a very simple reason: equity. No matter
where they live or what circumstances they face, all veterans deserve
to have equal access to quality health care.
Since VERA's implementation, the Florida Veterans' Integrated
Services Network, VISN, which includes Puerto Rico, I might add, has
treated approximately 35,000 more Category A veterans. These are
service-connected and low-income veterans who would not have had access
to VA medical care without VERA.
The Florida and Puerto Rico network estimates it will treat a total
of 280,000 veterans by the end fiscal year of 1998. The Florida network
has also opened nine new community based outpatient clinics in the past
2 years. It plans to open three more clinics by the end of the fiscal
year. None of this could have happened without VERA.
The failure to move forward with an improved and fair funding
allocation system would mean that the VA would miss a unique
opportunity to revitalize its way of doing business. The negative
impact would be felt most by veterans who would not be treated in areas
that are currently underfunded.
Failing to implement VERA will waste taxpayers' dollars because a
return to the funding practices of the past will mean that some VA
facilities will receive more money per veteran than others to provide
essentially the same care.
The author of this amendment argues that veterans of New York are not
being treated equitably. The VERA system already takes regional
differences into account by making adjustments for labor costs,
differences in patient mix, and differing levels of support for
research and education.
Under VERA, the VA facilities in the metropolitan New York area are
receiving an average of $5,659 per veteran patient. This means that
these facilities receive an average payment for
[[Page H6553]]
each patient that is 27 percent higher than the national average.
I ask, how is this inequitable? If the Hinchey amendment passes,
continued funding imbalances will result in unequal access to VA health
care for veterans in different parts of the country.
VERA ensures that veterans across the country have equal access to VA
health care and that tax dollars are wisely spent. I urge my colleagues
to vote against the Hinchey amendment.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hinchey amendment to
prohibit funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs misguided VERA
plan.
The VERA plan will take scarce resources away from the veterans in my
district and other areas of the northeast based on flawed data about
veteran populations around the country. The veterans who use the VA
health care system in New York deserve better than the VERA plan gives
them.
Each year, about 150,000 veterans use the eight VA facilities in the
New York metropolitan region. These veterans have come to rely on the
excellent services provided by these facilities but the cuts in these
services called for in the VERA plan will be disastrous.
Since the implementation of VERA began, I have received reports from
many veterans in my district of diminished quality of care at the VA
medical centers. In fact, the VA's Office of the Medical Inspector
investigated the Hudson Valley VA hospitals and found more than 150
violations of health and safety rules at those hospitals alone. It is
not a coincidence that these violations came at a time when these
hospitals were trying to cut costs to comply with VERA, and the
situation is about to get worse.
When I joined some of my colleagues in a meeting with VA officials
about VERA implementation several months ago, the reports from the VA
were alarming. Under Secretary for Health Kenneth Kizer told us that
under the current budget the VA will hit a brick wall in its ability to
provide services to the veterans community in my region, and James
Farsetta, the director of Network 3, which serves my constituents, said
his network would, quote, be in trouble soon under the current VERA
plan.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the need to provide services to growing
veterans populations in other regions of the country but that must not
be done on the backs of New York's veterans.
A recent assessment of the VERA plan by Price Waterhouse highlighted
a major flaw in the fundamental assumptions of the plan. The report
stated that, quote, basing resource allocation on patient volume is
only an interim solution because patient volume indicates which
veterans the VHA, Veterans Health Administration, is serving; not which
veterans have the highest health care needs. This is especially
relevant to the New York region, which has the highest proportion of
specialty care veterans in the country.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot turn our backs on New York's proud veterans,
but that is exactly what will happen if we allow the VERA plan to go
forward. I urge my colleagues to protect our veterans by supporting the
Hinchey amendment.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite of
number words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise very strongly in opposition to this amendment,
and I think that my colleagues need to understand really what it does
and what this amendment seeks to do as it relates to veterans health
care.
The VERA system was mandated by legislation passed into law in the
104th Congress. It is strongly supported by the Veterans
Administration. In the second half of fiscal year 1997, the VA began
implementing the VERA system, the Veteran Equitable Resource Allocation
system.
This allocates health care resources according to the numbers of
veterans served in each veteran's integrated service network, VISN, in
the country. Historically, funding for the VA flowed into hospitals in
the east where veterans were originally concentrated. Each year, this
funding was increased, even as veterans began to migrate away from
these regions. Over time, a serious mismatch developed between numbers
of veterans needing care and the number that the system was capable of
serving.
{time} 1530
VERA corrects this divergence of linking funding within each visit to
the actual population served.
What is happening now, Mr. Chairman, is that veterans are moving
south and they are moving west, but yet those who support this
amendment want to keep the money that supports those veterans in the
areas from which veterans are leaving and not give the resources to the
areas to which the veteran population is going.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), in support of his
argument, has argued that the current allocation is not equitable for
the Northeast; but, simply stated, this VERA formula is
straightforward. It does not allow the inequities that existed in the
old system. It is an equitable system. The system matches workloads
with annual allocations. It takes into account numbers of basic and
special care veterans, national price and wage differences in education
and equipment differences.
Now, it may well be that VISN number 3 is having difficulty adopting
to the VERA system, but that is because the most inefficient network is
VISN 3, it is most inefficient in the country. So the VERA system does
not reward inefficiency, it forces networks to develop a resource plan
that makes the most of limited funds.
If we look at the historic resource consumption per patient, a
standard industry measure of efficiency, it reveals that while my VISN
in Portland, Oregon, which serves the West, was more than 20 percent
more efficient than the system as a whole, Chicago and the Bronx were
20 percent more inefficient than the system as a whole.
The VA has, I would tell my friend, $50 million in reserve that it
sets aside to address the quality of care issues associated with VERA
implementation. If, in fact, the Secretary feels that the quality is
being impacted, he can use this $50 million reserve to assist VISN 3
without eliminating the entire VERA system.
The VA does not know what would happen to veterans' funding if the
Hinchey amendment was adopted. There is no fall-back option if the VERA
system is eliminated, and that should be very much of concern to all of
us who have veterans in our district, and especially those districts
that are increasing in their veteran population.
The most likely option we would have would be to revert to the
formula that created this massive funding shortfall in VISNs across
most of the country and return then more money to the Northeast. That
is not equitable to veterans. It is not equitable to veterans of the
West and the South, where all the veterans seem to be moving.
If we reverted to fiscal year 1996 allocations, my VISN in Portland,
Oregon, would lose $80 million. Dallas, Texas, would lose the same
amount. Jackson, Georgia, would lose $120 million. Bay Pines, Florida,
would lose $110 million. San Francisco, California, would lose about
$50 million. And Long Beach, California, would lose some $40 million.
How about those veterans? They have needs and priorities as well, and
they would be then underserved.
On the local level, what would these massive cuts mean for rural VA
hospitals in the West and the South? It would mean that the uniform
benefits that the VA is striving to provide would be unavailable. My
local hospital in Spokane, Washington, has told me that they would have
to eliminate all of the subspecialty care that they have recently
subcontracted for with the new VERA dollars. So they would lose
specialists in the fields of cardiology, enterology, neurology and
ophthalmology.
The bottom line is VERA is equitable. Until last year, small VA
hospitals across most of the country did not have the funds available
to provide this care on site. The Hinchey amendment would end this
specialty care. I urge that we vote against the Hinchey amendment.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the gentleman of New York's
amendment to suspend the Department of Veterans Affairs Equitable
Resources Allocation program, or VERA. As the gentleman may know, the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly)
[[Page H6554]]
and I tried to do the same thing last year. Unfortunately, our efforts
were thwarted by the Senate. We settled instead for a General
Accounting Office study on the effects of VERA implementation on VISN
3, which covers parts of New York and New Jersey. This report is still
not completed.
Simply put, it is my feeling that VERA is bad public policy. The
program shifts money away from areas with existing elderly veteran
populations and into areas with developing veteran populations. In the
end, this program has done nothing more than pit veterans in one region
of the country against veterans in other regions.
Let me tell my colleagues what VERA has meant for the veterans in my
district in New Jersey. VERA has meant that security stations in the
psychiatric ward at Lyons VA Medical Center are often empty or
unmanned. VERA has meant less doctors and less nurses working more
overtime to care for patients at Lyons and East Orange Medical Centers.
Furthermore, I understand that the FBI and the VA's Inspector General
are currently investigating alleged rapes and other alleged
mistreatments or abuses of patients.
And the worst example of VERA's impact on my district happened last
month. A Korean War veteran at Lyons VA Medical Center left his room,
unobserved by staff because they are understaffed, and his body was
found not until 2 days later, just yards away from the very building
where he lived. Why did it take so long? From what I have been told,
there was no money to pay the Medical Center's police overtime to
search for him. Local authorities evidently were not contacted.
Unfortunately, my district is not alone. The gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Kelly), who also represents VA medical centers, and others
in this room as well have had similar experiences. At Castle Point
Medical Center, a pressure ulcer patient in the long-term care unit had
maggots living in his wound. A VA Inspector General's report found a
large number of flies in his care unit.
The VERA program was implemented by the VA with minimal guidance by
Congress. The proposal of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) to
suspend the implementation is on target, because it will give Congress
time to evaluate the program's consequences on the quality of health
care for all within the system. It is our duty and our responsibility
to fully explore the impact of VERA on veterans medical care.
Congress needs to exercise more oversight over the VA and VERA to
prevent other egregious actions. For example, the leadership in VISN 3
in our area which covers my district returned $20 million to
Washington, to the VA last year. Yet patient needs continue to be unmet
and patient care suffers.
VERA is not the answer to the VA's funding problems. All VERA has
done since it was implemented was to create regional battles for
diminishing funds. When our Nation was at war, our veterans answered
the call and placed their lives on the line to defend ours. They
deserve better than a managed care system which often elevates cost
savings over quality care.
Mr. Chairman, I support the Hinchey amendment and urge my colleagues
to do the same.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I stand to strongly oppose the Hinchey amendment. First
of all, it would bar the VA from funding a system which they already
have to distribute medical care equitably. The word equity is important
in VERA. It is not so much where one lives demographically but this
equitable distribution.
So then I want to ask the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and
some of the people from the other areas, this has happened for the past
two sessions that I have been here. The gentleman is saying that there
is no equity in VERA, but what he does not tell us is that VA
facilities in the metropolitan New York area, that is VISN 3, they
receive an average payment for each VA patient which is 27 percent
higher, 27 percent higher, than the national average. Other New York
facilities and VISN 2 receive an average payment for each VA patient
which is 7 percent higher than the national average.
Mr. Chairman, 90 percent of Mr. Hinchey's district is in VISN 2, so
we can see that there is some discrepancy there in terms of the
equitable treatment of veterans in these areas.
The VERA system, Mr. Chairman, does make regional differences. It
takes them into account by making adjustments for labor calls,
differences in patient mix, and different levels of support for
research and education. And VISN 3 that is in the Bronx, VA medical
facilities receives an average of $5,659 per veteran patient. The
national average is just $4,465 per patient. VISN 8 that is in Florida,
VA facilities receive $4,076.
Now, let us face it, Congress. The veterans want to move south, the
veterans want to move out west, and they bring their illnesses and
their disabilities to these areas. Does that mean that we go out and
recruit them like we recruit football players? No, we do not do that.
They come to these areas.
And we keep saying that the medical inspector of the VA conducted a
6-month study. Well, he did, or they did, but it refuted much of the
information we hear here today. Much of the Hinchey amendment's
rationale is flawed when we look at the statistics that are here.
If members of the VA believe that VA medical funding in their
hospitals is inadequate, the solution is to increase the funding into
the medical account, not to throw out the system for the distribution
of these funds. No matter what we say, there is always going to be some
disagreement when there is a formula. There is always going to be one
side saying that the formula is skewed one way and the other one says
the other. But this has been studied, and we have some empirical data
which shows that the veterans, the money, I repeat, the money should
follow the veterans, not the veterans follow the money.
Now, the people in the Northeast area used to get all of the money;
and in the South, we were left out. But now we see that this mix has
changed. So now they want us to come back and change the system, and we
just changed it I think in 1997. So why go back again?
Since VERA was implemented, VISN 8 has treated 35,000 more category A
veterans. Do we know what the category A veterans are? Service-
connected, low-income veterans. The Florida network has opened nine new
community-based outpatient clinics in the past 2 years. Do my
colleagues know why? The people are moving from the North into Florida,
and we must deal with it.
VERA has supported increased expenses through the VISN, $3.5 million
for prosthetic expenses. Total veterans treated in VISN 8 should reach
28,000 by the end of fiscal year 1998. Florida's veterans population is
approximately 1.7 million.
Mr. Chairman, we all realize the VERA issue is a very difficult one.
Our veterans population is on the move. They are moving to the southern
and western States and away from the States in the Northeast and the
Midwest.
This is not something that is new. These demographic changes have
been going on for over a decade.
In Florida it has meant overcrowded VA facilities, lots of inadequate
equipment, and long waits, because we did not have the personnel we
needed to serve the large number of veterans moving to our States. In
other parts of the country, it has meant empty beds, unused beds,
unneeded beds. So they have had too much bedding in some of these other
areas.
To hear proponents of the Hinchey amendment speak, one would think
VERA is stealing health care dollars from veterans in other States.
That is not right, Congress. The fact of the matter, vets are moving
away, as I said. The large budgets in the VA health care facilities are
no longer justified. Vote against the Hinchey amendment for fairness.
The VERA issue is a difficult one. Our veterans population is on the
move; they are moving to the Southern and Western states and away from
the States in the Northeast and the Midwest.
This is not something that is new; these demographic changes have
been going on for over a decade. In Florida, it has meant overcrowded
VA facilities; lack of adequate equipment; and long waits because we
didn't have
[[Page H6555]]
the personnel we needed to serve the large number of veterans moving to
our state. In other parts of the country, it has means empty beds,
unused and unneeded capacity in VA facilities, and more personnel than
warranted by the number of vets or their specific treatment needs.
To hear proponents of this amendment speak, you'd think VERA is
stealing health care dollars from vets in their states; the fact of the
matter is, vets are moving away from their states; the large budgets of
their VA health care facilities are no longer justified; and they are
complaining because cutbacks are always painful.
While I sympathize with their concerns, we must make sure that VA
health care dollars follow the veterans--not the bureaucrats. The fact
of the matter is that VERA provides an equitable distribution of VA
health care funds, and we should all support it because it is fair--not
painless, especially for those who are closing facilities, but fair.
Veterans health care is particularly important to the millions of
vets in Florida--not just because we have so many veterans, but because
we have so many veterans who are elderly and/or disabled.
From 1980 to 1990 Census Data, 47% of all vets to relocated to
another state during the decade moved to Florida
The net gain of vets to Florida in the last decade alone (349,000)
was greater than the overall veteran populations of 22 states
Florida also is home to the nation's second largest population of
veterans--second only to my Chairman's state, California
Florida is home to the second largest population of veterans with a
service-connected disability
Florida has the largest population of veterans with 100% service-
connected disabilities, as well as veterans who have 60-90% service-
connected disabilities.
I know that the VA has implemented the VERA system (veterans
equitable resource allocation) to insure that VA health care resources
are directed to where there are the most veterans who need these
services.
I urge the members to support VERA by rejecting this most unwise
amendment.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support for the Hinchey
amendment. Under the Veterans' Equitable Resource Allocation plan, I
have witnessed the effects of a $226 million cut to the lower New York
area veterans network.
After a careful study of VERA, I have come to the conclusion that it
is flawed. These flaws permeate VERA's methodology, its implementation,
and especially the VA's oversight of this new spending plan. It is
unfortunate that the VERA plan imposed upon our VA facilities, it is
not one to provide proper funding to the VA facilities but one to steal
from Peter to pay Paul or to take from some VA facilities to give to
others.
A little over 6 months ago the VA released a report of its own Office
of the Medical Inspector investigating reports into the reduced quality
of care at Castle Point and Montrose Veterans Hospitals in my district
in the New York Hudson Valley. The findings of the Office of Medical
Inspector are startling and uncover a problem that we were only partly
aware of.
The Medical Inspector found 158 violations of health and safety and
VA codes. The most startling finding was that there was a 25 percent
increase in poor to marginal care that was given at the VA hospitals in
1997 in my district.
{time} 1545
Let me point out that the report made continuing references to
findings such as, and I quote, ``pieces of antiquated medical
equipment, including those used by or on patients who were identified
in the ICU.''
The report also stated that its ``Team members had observed dust,
fecal stains, and urine stains on patient care unit floors. Team
members noted floors, walls, and ceilings with cobwebs, windowsills
covered with dirt and dust, peeling paint, broken floor tiles,
crumbling cement,'' et cetera.
This prompted one of the most important conclusions of the report,
again, which I quote: ``There is a great need for overall upgrading of
both facilities.''
The VA inspectors also stated that they, and I again quote, ``believe
that (the network) and Castle Point and Montrose leadership and
management may have accelerated the pace of the integration to become
more efficient in anticipation of VERA.'' In short, we were feeling the
negative effects of VERA long before it was ever implemented.
When VERA is supposed to promote more efficient and effective
delivery of care, I am seeing the exact opposite occur at veterans'
hospitals in my area. The staff there is caring and wonderfully
committed, but the VA is not supporting them.
I beseech my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the
Hinchey amendment and to make the necessary investment into veterans'
hospitals for all necessary upgrading needed in order to keep their
promise of care for our veterans. The veterans of this Nation gave
their best for us, and now we must do our best for them.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. KELLY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I simply rise and suggest to
the gentlewoman that I very much appreciate her position. Positions not
entirely the same as hers are going to be expressed across the floor, I
can tell, in proportionate numbers to the Members who serve in various
areas of the country.
May I suggest recognizing the value of revising and extending.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, as a Member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I
know that VERA was developed as a way for the VA to be more efficient
in providing health care for our veterans. VERA is not simply taking
money from one region to another, it is a well-thought-out system,
supported by our own General Accounting Office and the VA Under
Secretary for Health. It recognizes that health care costs vary from
region to region, and it also accounts for veterans who move to warmer
climates and therefore are using Sunbelt facilities more.
In my State of Florida, the demand for veterans' health care
continues to rise. Many constituents in the States of my colleagues who
oppose this system have moved to Florida and very much want this system
to stay in place. I support VERA, veterans' service organizations
support VERA, the GAO supports VERA, the VA supports VERA. I urge my
colleagues to support VERA. If there is a problem with one hospital, if
there is a problem with the system, it is better to address them, than
to eliminate a program that will affect veterans across the entire
country.
I urge my colleagues to support our veterans and not vote for any
amendment to strike VERA.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in strong support of
the amendment being offered by my colleague, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hinchey), to the VA, HUD appropriation act for fiscal year
1999. I join him in expressing strong concern for the future of VA
health care, and I agree that VERA is not the proper model to use in
determining future funding allocations.
While VERA was a noble effort, it has been unfairly biased against
older veterans in major metropolitan areas. These older veterans are
those most in need of inpatient comprehensive health care, and they
have been the ones most adversely affected and impacted by VERA.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, widespread evidence of deteriorating quality
of care in New York veterans' hospitals last year is proof enough that
VERA has hurt too many of our veterans. The primary reasons for this is
that VERA advocates a zero sum game. For veterans in the South and West
who gain health care funds, veterans in another region have to lose
some funding. This is being done in an environment where veterans'
funding is theoretically frozen for the next 5 years.
Even with the modest increases suggested by the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, those VISNs in the Northeast will still lose a great
deal of money to both VERA and annual medical inflation costs. Thus,
health care for our veterans in the Northeast are going to take a
double hit every year.
[[Page H6556]]
In VISN Network 3, the reported plans for the new VERA cuts in fiscal
year 2000 will result in a $48 million cut in lower New York State. The
problems with VERA are twofold.
First, since the VA means test is a national figure, there will be
more category A veterans in the South and West, which have lower costs
of living, than in the Northeast. This results in an inaccurate measure
of demand for services between VISNs.
Secondly, VERA fails to differentiate between the types of care
delivered at VA facilities. VA hospitals in the Northeast have more
specialized care patients, including spinal cord injuries, mental
health, AIDS, and geriatric care cases. These cases cost more than
their outpatient counterparts, which are more plentiful in the South
and West.
Furthermore, despite the well-publicized concerns of my colleagues,
there exists no crisis for VA health care in the Sunbelt. In response
to an inquiry we made on this subject last year, the GAO informed us
that there was no empirical evidence that any veteran in the South or
West has been denied care due to inadequate funding.
While it is true that many veterans have in the past migrated to the
Sunbelt, let us note that these are predominantly well-off individuals
who use private facilities or Medicare over VA facilities.
The GAO will also soon be releasing a final report on the impact of
VERA on the quality of care being delivered in those VISNs of the
Northeast. From the preliminary evidence I and my Northeast colleagues
were made privy to during the course of my investigations, the results
will not be encouraging for VERA.
Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I urge all of our colleagues to vote for
this amendment to show their commitment to our veterans, regardless of
their geographic residence. The solution for VA health care is to make
the pie larger, not to alter the size of the pieces after they have
been cut.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey amendment, but I must
say that in many ways, this is an embarrassing and unfortunate debate.
We should all be a little bit ashamed of ourselves. Veterans are not
Vermonters, they are not Floridians, they are not New Yorkers, they are
not Californians, they are Americans.
The fact of the matter is that over recent years, this Congress has
cut and cut veterans' programs. I do not have to remind the Members
here that only a few months ago we took $10 billion from veterans'
programs in order to increase funding for the highway program. I think
the highway program is important, and a good idea. I supported it. But
they did not need another $10 billion on top of $200 billion. Yet, we
lost by 5 votes the effort to retrieve that $10 billion.
Last year in the so-called balanced budget agreement we gave huge tax
breaks to some of the wealthiest people in this country, and then we
cut back, not only on Medicare, but on veterans' programs again. So I
happen to agree with those people who say that when men and women put
their lives on the line and sign the contract with the United States
government, we have a moral obligation to fulfill that contract, and we
have not done that. That is the most important issue.
The Northeast should not be fighting with the South. Every veteran in
this country deserves quality health care, but that is what has
happened, because we have cut back when we should not have cut back.
This is a wealthy Nation. This is a Nation that has given huge tax
breaks to those people who do not need it, and then we say, gee, we do
not have enough money for veterans' programs.
In respect to the Hinchey amendment, I strongly support it, having
said that. I think that the formulation in VERA is not fair to various
regions of this country, and that we should support the Hinchey
amendment and make what exists a little bit better. But the bottom line
is we should support all of our veterans. We should increase funding
for veterans' programs, and we have the resources to do that, if we get
our priorities straight.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. EVERETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, as a supporter of fairness for our
Nation's veterans, I rise in strong opposition to the Hinchey
amendment. It is ironic that this legislation, which the sponsors say
will help veterans, will end up destroying many veterans. If the
Hinchey amendment is adopted, veterans across the Nation will lose
newly-won equitable assets to vital medical care funds afforded to them
by law.
In April of 1997, the VA implemented VERA to address medical care
funding inequities in VA facilities nationwide. Since its
implementation, the findings are, contrary to what we have heard on
this floor, for which they say they have documentation, and I would
like to see it, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, because nobody has given it to me, but contrary to that
report, the well-known accounting firm of Price Waterhouse reviewed
VERA and has given it positive marks in its March report. It says that
VERA was a well-designed, conceptually sound system marked by
simplicity, equity, and fairness.
This positive review was conducted on the heels of another favorable
assessment by the General Accounting Office in 1997 which noted that
VERA is making resource allocations more equitable than previous
funding systems.
Despite the evidence that VERA is working just as it was intended,
the sponsor of this amendment, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Hinchey) claims that his veterans in New York are being shortchanged.
Nothing could be further from the truth. VERA is designed to factor in
regional costs, such as labor, differences in patient mix, and varying
levels of support for research and education.
For example, in New York, the gentleman's district, the average
veteran patient receives $5,659. In my district in Alabama, which is
part of VISN 7, the average patient just gets $4,300. In reality, New
York's VA facilities receive an average payment per patient which is 27
percent higher than the national average.
What disturbs me even more are the charges by some in the New York
delegation that somehow VERA's funding allocations have resulted in a
deterioration of health care and untimely deaths in several New York VA
medical facilities. These are serious charges. I would frankly like to
see their proof.
It is my understanding that my colleagues from New York base their
facts on a report by the VA's Inspector General as to the deaths at
Montrose and Castle Point New York VA hospitals. This very report
vindicated VERA in those cases. The VA's IG report even went on to
specifically state there was no impact of VERA at Castle Point and
Montrose concerning mortality rates. VERA was in fact not tied to any
health care quality concerns at these facilities reported by the VA IG.
Further, I understand that the VA's IG report did list over 150 areas
of improvement to address the problems of two New York hospitals, but
none included VERA, despite what you have heard on the floor today.
As chairman of the VA Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, I
rely on facts. I must tell the Members, there are no facts to back up
the claims that VERA has adversely affected any veteran, any of my
veterans or any in New York. Rushing to judgment armed with half facts
serves no one's interests, especially our veterans. America's veterans
deserve the very best medical care, and VERA is helping deliver it. We
need to work that out.
Let me also say, I would suggest that my fellow Members of Congress
visit their VA hospitals and pay particular attention to the way their
money is spent. I have seen $200,000 spent for gold-plated faucets by a
director, of health care money, by a director renovating his house;
$26,000 for a fish tank; $100,000 for another fish tank, and by the
way, in the area that they say is going to be affected, $20,000 just to
keep this fish tank up every year.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest we all take a close look at how VA
spends its money. I am very satisfied with the current help I am
getting from the VA on cracking down on this kind of stuff.
[[Page H6557]]
{time} 1600
Another hospital, 63 percent occupancy. The overtime runs over a
million dollars a year consistently. It is absolutely unacceptable. I
urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hinchey amendment.
Let me start out by voicing my agreement with the comments of the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). To a large extent, this debate is
taking place in a context that it should not be taking place in, the
context of large cuts in veterans services.
This is the richest country in the history of the planet, but we are
wasting too much of those resources, too much of government's resources
which could be spent on helping veterans and on other worthy purposes,
on tax breaks for the richest people in our society.
But within the amount of money we make available for veterans, the
intent of VERA was to distribute the VA's resources equitably to take
into account population shifts and needs in growing States. We know
that and do not object to that. But the actual plan has not worked out
that way.
What do we see? We see professional staff shortages due to staff
buyouts, buyouts apparently pushed in order to meet VERA quotas. We see
a 20 percent cut in the per patient budget. We see an increase from 17
to 25 percent in the number of deceased patients, deceased patients
judged to have received marginal or poor care. Inspectors noted that
this represented a sharp rise, unquote, in poor care in the period
after VERA took effect.
We see decline in maintenance. We see no janitorial services on
nights and weekends and other indices of poor services.
The VA has consistently maintained that allocation should be based on
its computer model that says that some regions have too high a per
patient cost, rather than determining why those costs are higher than
average.
Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues believe in equitable treatment for
veterans and quality care for all veterans, they will join us in
questioning why some regions have suffered so severely since VERA took
effect and in supporting the Hinchey amendment and also in increasing
the overall budget.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that some of the remarks that
were made a moment ago by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett) are
just incorrect. It sounded to me as though they could have been written
by the Veterans Administration itself.
The VA and its apologists for VERA would have us believe that VERA is
an equitable allocation of resources. The fact of the matter is it is
not anything of the kind. And the impact of VERA is not confined to the
Northeast. The impact of VERA is spreading all across the country. We
have been the guinea pig for this program. The New York metropolitan
area, and the Northeast generally, has been the laboratory from whence
this Frankenstein monster has originated.
But, Mr. Chairman, it is now sweeping across the country and it is
going to impinge upon every single veterans hospital, with the
exception of a few in a few States. Florida might not be affected, that
is correct. It may not be that Arizona will be affected. There will be
two or three States, perhaps, that are not affected.
But as I indicated in the my opening remarks, whether veterans are
served out of the Boston headquarters or the Pittsburgh headquarters or
the Durham, North Carolina, headquarters or Nashville or Chicago or
Kansas City or Dallas or Denver or Long Beach or others, they are being
impacted and they will be impacted more severely as time goes on.
There is nothing equitable about this distribution. It is grossly
inequitable. It is horribly unfair. Contrary to what was said a few
moments ago from that podium right there, we have in New York seen a 50
percent increase in mortality rates as a result of VERA.
Do my colleagues want to visit that upon their veterans in their part
of the country? Do they want to see the veterans that are served out of
their VA headquarters suffer the same kind of iniquities and inequities
that we have seen in the Northeast? I do not think so. I do not think
so at all.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is essential. If we do not pass this
amendment today, if it does not become part of this bill this year, I
promise we will be back here again shortly and the number of people
speaking in favor of reforming VERA and against what VERA has done will
have increased by multitudes on the floor of this House.
Please, let us not have any deaths in my colleagues' regions before
that happens. Let us not have veterans in their part of the country
suffering the way my veterans have before that happens.
I ask my colleagues to take a precautionary move here. Mr. Chairman,
I urge my colleagues to do what is right for the veterans in their
areas before this suffering is visited upon them. Support this
amendment.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say a few things to my colleagues.
The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), chairman of the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, is opposed to the Hinchey amendment, as well as
myself, I am chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, and the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Everett), who is chairman of the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations.
The basic reason is this would actually destroy the allocation
system. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) knows that we beat
this same amendment handily before. And to bring it up again and to try
to pit the Northeast against the Southeast is not the way to solve the
problem. Throwing more money at any problem is not going to solve it. I
think the supporters of this amendment would be better suited and wiser
to establish reforms and change and innovations instead of asking to
throw more money at problems.
Every time they want to come back, they should also realize that the
President's budget fell short of the recommendations made by both the
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Senate Committee on
Veterans' Affairs. The figures that the gentleman from New York is
using here in this debate are based upon the President's fiscal year
1999 budget, and those numbers are preliminary. And so the numbers that
the gentleman is using are really not the accurate numbers, and I
submit that to the gentleman in all deference.
Unfortunately, not all the veterans live in the Northeast. I respect
the gentleman's position and the fact that he wants more money. But I
also submit that the States in the Southeast have long been without
money and so now they are asking for their fair share, because the
veterans are moving in. In fact, there is a crisis in the Sunbelt. I
think one of my colleagues on that side said there is not a crisis. We
need more money, too.
In the end, all of us are going to have to come up with innovative
ways to serve veterans and we will have to continue to fund them
adequately. I think this bill does, out of admiration and deference to
the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis). The gentleman has made
a hard effort here. I urge all Members to support the gentleman from
California (Chairman Lewis) and support the gentleman from Arizona
(Chairman Stump) and vote against the Hinchey amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Hinchey amendment. He is
absolutely correct that VERA was designed to ensure that the dollars
follow the veterans.
Perhaps Rep. Hinchey should consider that the President's budget
falls far short of the recommendations made by both the House and
Senate appropriators. The figures used by Mr. Hinchey are based upon
the President's FY 99 budget for VA and those numbers are preliminary.
They are not our numbers--we intend to increase funding for VA and
that, in turn, will ensure that the dollars will be disbursed as VERA
intended--to our nation's veterans.
Last Congress, we passed the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation
or VERA system to fix a gross funding inequity.
Prior to the passage of VERA, Veterans health funds were allocated
based solely on the historical usage of VA facilities, and then were
simply adjusted upward each year for inflation. As a result of this
system, Veterans
[[Page H6558]]
funding was concentrated in the densely populated Northeast.
Unfortunately, not all of our country's Veterans live in the
Northeast. In fact, most now live in the previously grossly underfunded
South and West.
VERA goes a long way toward fixing this inequity. Under the VERA
system, workloads are matched directly with annual allocations.
Furthermore, the number of special care veterans, national price and
wage differences, and education and equipment differences are taken
into account for funding considerations.
In other words, VERA eliminates the arcane political mechanism that
forced funding into the urban Northeast, replacing it with a funding
mechanism that takes reason and common sense into account to determine
adequate funding amounts.
I urge my colleagues to look at the language of this amendment. It
would prohibit the use of VA funding to implement VERA.
My point is, this amendment would change current law. And in doing
so, would undue what VERA guarantees--that all American veterans have
equal access to care regardless of the region of the country in which
they live.
The bottom line is this: VERA became law during the last Congress,
not by mistake, but because the funding mechanism was grossly unfair
and terribly inadequate.
Put simply, attempts to dismantle the VERA funding system could
potentially have an unfair impact on states such as my home state of
Florida. As such, Mr. Chairman, in the quest for equality and for
fairness for our nation's veterans, I urge my colleagues to oppose the
Hinchey amendment.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief today, but this is an important
amendment. I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Hinchey) to prohibit the VA from using the VERA
system for the distribution of funds in the fiscal year 1999.
Veterans in Maine receive their health care from one primary hospital
and that is the Togas VA hospital in Augusta. I have heard statements
on the floor that the VERA system is working. Maybe in some places it
is working, but it is not working in Maine for the veterans of Maine.
In recent years, Togas has experienced an increasing patient load,
not a declining load. And at the same time, it suffered from declining
budgets and reduced staffing. The result has put a severe strain on the
quality and the timeliness of care provided to veterans in Maine.
VISN 1 is the region that includes Togas. VISN 1 has seen its budget
cut by over 5 percent, despite the level funding in VA. That must be
distributed among the hospitals in that region, and the result is Togas
in Maine has an increasing workload but a 3 percent cut in funding from
over last year.
Increasing workloads with reduced budgets means longer wait times for
health care, increased numbers of veterans sent out of the region to
receive care, and a general reduction in staffing and health care
quality.
Let me just say a word about what we hear. The gentleman from Maine
(Mr. Baldacci) and I and the two Senators from Maine spend more time on
Togas than on any other single issue that we deal with. And it is not
because the care is so great that no one is complaining.
Mr. Chairman, we have 100 percent disabled veterans who wait a year
and a half for any attention to their dental work. We have veterans who
are having a variety of different problems that take too long to
provide attention. The staff is upset because they cannot provide the
quality of care that they used to provide in the past.
This is having a significant serious adverse impact on veterans in
Maine. We need to take a closer look at VERA. The GAO is already
reviewing the VA's implementation of VERA and its impact on VA
hospitals and veterans. And while we await the GAO report and examine
the impact of VERA in more detail, we should delay its implementation.
One final word. Those on the other side who voted for the Republican
budget resolution should think about that resolution. It includes flat
funding for veterans' health care. If that is the policy of this
Congress, we will be back here year after year after year arguing about
this allocation among States. It is a mistake. Not only was that a
mistake to cut Head Start and to cut Title I, it was a mistake to flat
fund veteran's health care. We cannot keep going this way. We have a
surplus. We ought to make things right for the veterans in this
country.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I will keep my remarks brief, but I rise in strong
support of the Hinchey amendment. The purpose of the VERA methodology,
as I have understood it, is to transform VHA into a fully integrated
system of health care delivery that ensures that funding follows
veterans. I agree with that overarching goal.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the VA must take into account population
shifts and an increase in the veterans population in certain States.
But from my perspective in VISN 4 in Pennsylvania, we cannot force
these changes so quickly. We need to take into account the fact that
the care that veterans receive at their VA hospital cannot be
jeopardized in this process.
The shifting of funds has already caused many veterans hospitals to
reevaluate every dollar spent, and this has resulted in staff buyouts
and budgetary shortfalls.
With regard to the comments of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Everett), whom I regard highly, I visit my two veterans hospitals on a
regular basis and I have put a human face on this issue. As we debate
this issue, I think it is important to remember that these veterans
rely on the veterans health care system and they deserve the best
quality of care possible.
Mr. Chairman, I can tell my colleagues that in Pennsylvania the
reform that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) advocates are
being implemented in our hospitals. But we have a rural veterans
population. We need to give the hospitals time to bring the veterans
into the system so they can justify their dollars. We need to improve
utilization, and we need time to allow the veterans hospitals to do
that.
To give them that time, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this
amendment to prohibit the use of VA funds to implement VERA at this
time. The fact is, it is not working, and veterans' health care is at
risk.
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Hinchey amendment. This
is an issue that is vital to the health and welfare of veterans in my
district and throughout Maine and the Nation.
My concerns, of course, lie with the VERA program, as it is known,
the Veterans' Equitable Resource Allocation System, and its effect on
the availability, accessibility, and quality of health care offered to
veterans.
These concerns should come as no surprise to any Member of this
Chamber. Last year's report from the House Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and
Independent Agencies appropriations expressed concern about the way the
VERA system distributes resources. In particular, the committee
recognized that VERA failed to adequately account for the
disproportionate number of special needs veterans in the northeastern
States.
For that reason, the House voted last year to request a General
Accounting Office report on the effects of VERA and its implementation.
The committee questioned especially the impact of quality of care for
VISNs 1, 2, 3, 12, and 14. This study was expected to be completed in 4
months, but to date no report has been produced, and we are now told
not to expect a report until September of this year.
Mr. Chairman, significant questions remain. One in particular was the
first year the cut was 2.5 percent. This year's cut is proposed to be 5
percent, a much more significant cut, given the fact that it is all
flat funded.
What the VA Togas Hospital in Maine is looking at with a $40 million
budget is an $8 million cut. What that means, more importantly, to the
veterans in the district I represent, which is the largest physical
district northeast of the Mississippi where we are talking about 22
million acres of land, is having those people go from Augusta, Maine,
to travel down to Boston, Massachusetts, in order to get an MRI
examination, routine X-ray examination, having a van deliver them on a
weekly basis so that they get the proper radiation treatment for their
cancer.
{time} 1615
We are told constantly by hospitals everywhere in major hubs that our
[[Page H6559]]
rural people do not need to be there, that they have the protocols for
cancer treatment, chemotherapy protocols in any hospital in America and
you do not have to leave your family, your home or your community in
order to get that, but we require the veterans of Maine on a weekly
basis to go to Boston, drive to Boston in a van to get that treatment
which should be routine and should be provided.
But because of the fact of the cuts and the flat funding, they are
forced to make these routine examinations and treatments to go to
Boston. We do not want to see any veterans anywhere in this country be
sacrificed for services that they served their country and they are
owed from their country anywhere.
It has been pointed out a veteran in Maine and a veteran in
California and a veteran in Florida and Texas and anywhere else should
be treated with respect and care that really that we as a country owe
them for what they have done for all of us.
Nobody wants to see anyone hurt. I am sure my friends that oppose
this amendment would not want to see veterans and their families have
to go through some of the things that they have to go through. But
there is a problem here. We are asking for not only an increase in
maintenance of a program that has been reducing allocations but they
propose to increase those cuts over last year.
It is just unacceptable to see what veterans and their families are
going through now as the system is set up to ask them to go through
further hardships and pressures. I think it is just totally
unacceptable. I support this amendment. I ask my colleagues to endorse
this amendment.
I ask my colleagues to work together to see if we cannot make the pie
larger for all of our veterans.
Mr. COOKSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, in this debate over VERA funding, we can disagree and
discuss what are the most meaningful statistics and whether VA's
funding formula has achieved true equity. I expect the gentleman to
fight for funding for his area just as all of us fight for funding in
our districts.
But we ought to stick to the facts and avoid the kind of reckless
scare tactics which some proponents of the Hinchey amendment have used.
Some of my colleagues from New York are actually claiming that cuts in
VERA funding have resulted in the, quote, deterioration of veterans
health and even the loss of life in many instances.
For example, in debate last week the proponents of this amendment
claimed that, quote, many veterans lost their lives at two hospitals in
New York as a result of VERA funding reductions.
That is a very serious charge. The gentleman went on to say that this
assertion is substantiated by the report which was done by the
Inspector General of the VA itself.
I have served on the ethics board of the Louisiana Medical Society.
Allegations of patients dying are the most serious that can be made and
should never be made lightly, particularly in light of what the VA
report already says. In fact, the report which the gentleman from New
York cited is a 6-volume, 6-month study by the VA Office of Medical
Inspector. That report did document serious problems at Castle Point
and Montrose, New York VA Medical Centers, including greater than
expected mortality rates during the first half of fiscal year 1997.
My colleague from New York will do well to read the medical
inspector's report. However, because it says clearly that VERA was not
the problem, specifically the medical inspector's report states, there
was no impact of VERA at Castle Point and Montrose concerning mortality
rates. And the medical inspector found that VERA was not linked to any
of the quality care problems at the facilities.
The medical inspector made 158 recommendations to fix the problems he
found at Castle Point and Montrose VA Medical Centers. Not a single one
of those recommendations called for funding adjustments for New York,
let alone the dismantling of the VERA funding system.
None of us wants to minimize quality of care problems when they
surface. But it is one thing to advocate for increased funding for
medical care. It is quite another to make baseless inflammatory
charges. And I am disappointed to see the debate move to this level.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COOKSEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I would draw the gentleman's attention to
the fact that the Inspector General's report from the Veterans
Administration, although it did not specifically in that report say
that VERA was responsible for the decline in the quality of care, for
the decline in the quality of maintenance at those Veterans
Administration hospitals, for the decline in personnel, for the
misallocation of personnel, for the incompetent personnel who were
there at those facilities and for the increase in mortality at those
facilities, it is quite clear that all those things occurred
immediately upon the implementation of VERA and continued to get worse
as VERA was continually implemented.
So while I did not expect the Veterans Administration to say
specifically that VERA was responsible, it does not take an awful lot
of reasoning to conclude from that report that these adverse
circumstances occurred shortly after VERA was put into place, and as
VERA was implemented they continued to get worse.
Mr. COOKSEY. Mr. Chairman, that said, I think that we really need to
look at the management. There is reason to believe there may be some
management problems there. I am a physician. I know about quality of
care. Too often too many decisions made by some industry, some
industries that we deal with, politicians, and unfortunately we are all
politicians, are not always made on what is real quality of care. I
think there is good reason to look at what is going on in the
management of these hospitals.
Let me bring up something that has been brought to my attention by
the gentlewoman from New York. There is one administrator for all these
hospitals. This system that was set up actually pays bonuses to
administrators in terms of added salary for giving money back. I agree,
I have a problem with that. I do not feel that an administrator should
receive a bonus for depriving a veteran of health benefits. I am a
veteran. We all have veterans. Veterans across the country should get
good care. We should look at quality of care and some equity in the
system.
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, when I came to Congress in 1992, from the State Senate,
and watched in Florida the population gain of veterans in our State, it
was probably one of the most compelling issues that would bring any of
us here in making sure there was equitable health care for all
veterans, not only in the State of Florida but across the country.
We have watched in Florida the number of veterans rising and then, on
top of that, you have to add in to that the amount of veterans that
come to the State of Florida during the winter months, which also
pushes up our health care needs.
But I would like to say a couple of things here. I am going to take a
colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) who wrote a
letter to his colleagues that said, when veterans migrated to the west
and the south, funding continued to be concentrated in the northeast.
The VERA system was directly to match work loads with annual
allocations, taking into account numbers of basic and special care
veterans, national price and wage differences and identification and
equipment differences. We know that there are going to be some losers
under that.
He also goes on to say, and I think this is true, that all VA network
administrators agreed that this reform was crucial.
I also want to take an opportunity here to just talk a little bit
about what our Florida Department of Veterans Affairs put out. It says,
The really important outcome is that the VA system seems to be making a
genuine effort to at least begin to concentrate on what is important,
that similarly situated veterans receive similar treatment. VERA is the
step in that direction. That is and should remain our focus.
I think that is what this Congress needs to do, is remain the focus
on why these changes were made. We all know
[[Page H6560]]
the migration in this country. I have to tell my colleagues, I could go
through one allocation of resources in every budget in this Federal
Government, whether it be Medicaid, education, whatever, that we do not
get equitable treatment. For the first time in a long time this was the
first chance and has been the only chance that we have actually seen
these changes made.
Let me give you a fact. In Florida, we now are servicing 36,000 more
veterans because of this allocation. These are not new veterans. These
were not veterans that just all of a sudden showed up. These are
veterans who have been standing in lines, have been waiting for the
service, who have not had the opportunity to be served in the State
that they live in. And these are folks that live in there.
Then on top of that in the wintertime asking them if they can get any
services. It is simple service, it is not extra service. It is not the
special need person. It is the simple, everyday veteran out there that
wants the same opportunity as the one in New York or any place else.
I have to tell my colleagues, there is just a very fair issue here.
I would hope, and this is very difficult because to me all veterans
are equal, they served this country. Many of them died for this
country. They have asked for us to keep our promise. We are having to
fight an issue here that none of us want to have to fight. But on the
other side of it, we have to take into account the migration into the
southern parts of this country, and we have to start looking at how we
are allocating our dollars and making sure that those dollars go to
those veterans because of where they are today.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
As a veteran myself and a Floridian, I rise in very, very strong
opposition to this gentleman's amendment. I want to share something
with all of my colleagues, whether they are from east of the
Mississippi or west of the Mississippi or north of the Mason-Dixon line
or south of the Mason-Dixon line, that veterans that come into my
district, let me say this, the veterans in my district, the vast
majority of them are not born and raised in my district.
I will tell my colleagues where they are from. They are from Maine.
They are from New York. They are from New Jersey. And they come to my
district, and they want to know why they cannot get seen, why they
cannot get the care that they used to get up north or up in the midwest
in Florida.
Now, this amendment is a very, very simple amendment. It is a very,
very common sense amendment. It says, now that we have had 30, 40 years
of millions of veterans moving from the northeast and the midwest into
the sunbelt, that we will finally, for the first time, put the money
where the veterans are and not where the bricks and mortar is.
I would encourage all of my colleagues to remember not their
provincial square on the map but the veterans themselves who fought,
many of them sacrificed lost limbs in defense of liberty, in defense of
freedom, in defense of our country, and put the money, put the dollars
where the veterans are and not where the bricks and mortar are.
I encourage all of my colleagues to vote no on the Hinchey amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
I rise because this is a very painful discussion. It is painful
because I believe that all of us who rise on the floor of the House and
discuss our veterans truly believe that they are equal, as we would
like all of us to be in this Nation. They have fought. They have bled.
They have sacrificed. But it seems that the proponents of this
particular amendment would like to say that our pain is greater than
your pain.
And frankly, I was a supporter of the Coburn amendment. We do need
more money in medical care for veterans. Just the other day I talked to
a World War II veteran of mine who actually participated in the
Japanese death march. He went to a hospital and was turned away, did
not have the proper papers, the proper documentation, could not get
necessary life-saving prescriptions.
{time} 1630
So we have a crisis around this country as it relates to veterans. I
believe we tried to do something credible about it. We instituted VERA,
not because we wanted to take away from someone else's veterans. In
fact, I think we should be discussing taking the surplus moneys that we
seem to have found in this balanced budget and put it in veterans
health and not talk about a tax cut. But VERA is the best we have got
right now. If we need the facts, in 1997, the GAO reported that VERA is
making resource allocation more equitable than previous systems. The
VERA system takes regional differences into account by making
adjustments for labor costs, differences in patient mix and differing
levels of support for research and education.
What does that mean? It means that the overcrowded hospitals in our
areas, people who move from the Rust Belt in the north, not that we are
castigating the losses of population in our sister States, but they are
coming south. What does that mean? Long, long, long lines. This has
helped to bring about an equitable system, Mr. Chairman. Yes, there
have been modest cuts in certain areas of the country. These cuts have
been made in funding for hospitals whose patient populations have
declined 20, 30 percent. This is not a reckless, random system where we
do A-B-C and we pick you without any analysis. If your populations have
fallen, then the moneys are distributed where there is a need.
I spoke to the administrator at my hospital in Houston, Texas, Mr.
Whatley, new to the area. He says we cannot survive without VERA. Texas
has got an increase in funds because of the increase in numbers of
veterans. If I have got a 77-year-old World War II veteran being turned
away from a hospital, we have got a real problem.
I would say to my friends who are supporting this amendment, let us
work together to put more money in hospital care and medical care for
veterans, period, but VERA is the best way we can to handle what we
have got. Just over the last fiscal year, our hospital got 13 million
more dollars to serve those in line at our front doors. In fact, VERA
has helped us open community outreach centers in our rural areas.
Again, this is not to claim that my pain is greater than your pain. But
do not take away from us when we are suffering as well. Why do we not
work together to get more dollars into veterans health care, more than
even the Coburn amendment, deal with some of these surplus moneys and
be fair to everyone. But right now, Mr. Chairman, it is unfair to
distinguish it and eliminate it as something being wrong in the VERA
reallocation process. I ask my colleagues in good faith to defeat this
amendment and recognize the fairness of what we have tried to do.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The
Hinchey amendment turns back the clock to the days when the VA
distributed its health care resources on the basis of where we built
the hospitals after World War II. The current needs of veterans should
determine how the VA allocates medical resources.
The proponents of this amendment say they do not want to start a
regional fight over this, but of course that is exactly what they are
doing. Congress mandated in Public Law 104-204 that VA medical
resources be equitably distributed throughout the country. This was to
ensure that veterans have equal access to care regardless of the region
where they live. In response, the VA has implemented the Veterans
Equitable Resource Allocation system, or VERA. Independent reviews by
the General Accounting Office and by Price Waterhouse have validated
this new system as meeting the intent of Congress. Both studies found
that VERA is equitable to all veterans in the country and is a
significant improvement over past allocation methods.
Mr. Chairman, I have letters from both the American Legion and the
Veterans of Foreign Wars supporting this concept. I will include these
for the Record. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Hinchey
amendment.
The letters referred to are as follows:
[[Page H6561]]
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Washington, DC, July 17, 1998.
Hon. Jerry Lewis,
Chairman, Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Lewis: I am writing this letter to express
the Department's strong opposition to the amendment to H.R.
4194 that would prevent fiscal year 1999 appropriations from
being used by the Department of Veterans Affairs for
implementing the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation
(VERA) system.
The VERA system was developed in response to a
Congressional mandate in Public Law 104-204. Independent
reviews by the General Accounting Office and Price
Waterhouse, LLP have validated the model as meeting the
intent of Congress. Both studies have found that VERA is
equitable and is a significant improvement over past
allocation models. If VERA is stopped, then we will not be
able to more equitably distribute our $17 billion
appropriation for veterans' medical care. In FY 1999 alone,
facilities in the central, southern, southwestern and western
states will lose approximately $164 million in funding.
Enclosed is a fact sheet that in more detail describes why
VERA was implemented, how VERA rectifies problems perpetuated
by previous funding systems, the results of VERA to date, and
external feedback about VERA which has reflected positively
on its progress to date.
Thank you for your continued support of our Nation's
veterans on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Kenneth W. Kizer, M.D., M.P.H.,
Under Secretary for Health.
Enclosure.
FACT SHEET ADDRESSING THE NEED TO CONTINUE USING THE VETERANS EQUITABLE
RESOURCE ALLOCATION (VERA) TO DISTRIBUTE THE FY 1999 MEDICAL CARE
APPROPRIATION
Issue: Amendment to H.R. 4194, which would mandate that
none of the funds made available in the FY 1999 VA/HUD
Appropriations Act may be used by the Department of Veterans
Affairs to implement or administer the Veterans Equitable
Resource Allocations system.
Discussion: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA)
strongly opposes this Amendment. It would have an adverse
effect on the VA's ability to equitably distribute its
medical care resources and will perpetuate current residual
inefficient use of taxpayers' dollars.
VERA was implemented beginning in April 1997 because: VA's
FY 1997 Appropriation Act (Public law 104-204) required VHA
to develop and submit to Congress a plan to allocate funds in
an equitable manner. In February 1996, the General Accounting
Office called for changes in VHA's allocation system. The
effect of those previous systems was that dollars were spent
inefficiently at some facilities, resulting in limited access
and services at other facilities and an inefficient use of
taxpayers' dollars.
VERA rectifies problems perpetuated by previous funding
systems by:
Providing networks with two national workload prices for
two types of patients--those with routine (Basic Care) and
those with complex/chronic healthcare needs (Complex Care).
In FY 1998, Networks receive $2,604 for each Basic Care
patient and $36,960 for each Complex Care patient. This
ensures that VA's special patients are funded appropriately.
For example, the New York City Network (VISN 3) receives more
Complex Care funds than any other VISN because they have the
greatest number of special patients.
No longer basing funding on historical funding patterns but
on validated patient workload and adjustments for variances
in labor costs, research, education, equipment and NRM.
Adjusting network budgets to account for those veterans who
receive care in more than one network.
Providing each network an allocation that recognizes its
individual characteristics.
The results of VERA to-date are as follows:
For FY 1998 (the first full year of VERA), 13 networks
received increases over funding levels for FY 1997. Nine
networks received less funding. Network reductions were
limited to 5%. Six networks saw increases of more than 10%,
with the greatest at 12.3%.
Since July 1997 all collections from third party
reimbursements, co-payments, per diems and certain torts are
retained by the collecting network. A total of $688 million
in receipts is projected to be collected in FY 1998. When
estimated collections are added to VERA totals, the smallest
percentage change from FY 1997 in funds available is +0.10%
in network 3, while network 16 experiences the greatest
percentage change in total funding with +10.38%.
With the 5% cap on losses in place, it is expected all
funding inequities will be corrected by FY 2000, and VERA
will have shifted $500 million across VHA's healthcare system
over four years. (Most will be corrected by FY 1999.)
The graph \1\ reflects that VERA is not simply moving all
networks to an average cost per patient, rather it adjusts
network allocations for variances in patient mix, labor
costs, research and education support, equipment and NRM
activities. Variances from the national average will exist
because VERA allocates funds in a manner that adjusts for
differences in patient mix, labor costs, and research and
education support costs. Thus, even the networks that have
less funding in FY 1998 compared to FY 1997 may still be
provided a higher than average price than networks that
receive more funding. For example, Network 3 which would
receive 12.2 percent less funding under full VERA, has an
average price of $5,659, which is 26.7 percent above the
system average of $4,465. Conversely, Network 18 which would
receive 11.4 percent more funding under full VERA, has an
average price of $3,886 per patient, which is 13 percent
below the system average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Graph not reproduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
External feedback about VERA has reflected positively on
our progress to date:
In the Spring of 1997 Senator ``Kit'' Bond, Chairman of the
VA-HUD Senate Appropriations Subcommittee said: ``. . . VA
has overhauled its allocation methodology, vastly improving
fairness and appropriateness with which resources are
allocated to facilities . . . the new system is a tremendous
step forward.
In late 1997 the GAO reported that VERA is making resource
allocation more equitable than previous allocation systems.
In March 1998 Price Waterhouse LLP issued a report on its
evaluation of VERA. The report concluded that VERA was a well
designed system, is ahead of other global budgeting systems,
and met VHA's goals of simplicity, equity and fairness. It
also found that the conceptual and methodological
underpinnings of VERA were sound.
Conclusion: The Amendment to H.R. 4194 is inappropriate
given the accomplishments of VERA to-date. Additionally, we
are maintaining a $100 million national funding reserve in
the VA headquarters to assist networks in the unlikely event
that the current level of patient care is threatened. The
reserves will be used, if needed, to maintain the quality and
level of services.
____
Veterans of Foreign Wars
of the United States,
Washington, DC, July 28, 1998.
Hon. Bob Stump,
Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This is written to express the strong
opposition of the Veterans of Foreign Wars to an amendment
offered by Congressman Maurice Hinchey to H.R. 4194, which
would prevent VA from further implementing the Veterans
Equitable Resource Allocation system known as VERA.
VERA was developed in accordance with a congressional
mandate and an overwhelmingly clear need to distribute
resources in a more equitable manner within the VA medical
system. While still in its relative infancy, VERA has been
shown to be both equitable and a significant improvement over
past allocation models. If VERA is halted at this juncture,
there will be no better means of distributing scarce health
care resources and veterans will suffer as a consequence.
The VFW has been and will continue to carefully scrutinize
the operation of the VERA system, including the establishment
on September 1, 1997, of a 1-800 hotline in operation 24
hours a day for the purpose of oversight. Thus far we have
recorded no undue problems associated with VERA's operation.
We are convinced that this will be the absolutely wrong time
to halt its operation. We urge you to oppose Mr. Hinchey's
Amendment to H.R. 4194 targeting VERA.
Sincerely,
Dennis M. Cullinan,
National Legislative Service.
____
The American Legion,
Washington, DC, July 28, 1998.
Hon. Bob Stump,
Chairman, House Veterans Affairs Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Stump: The American Legion continues to
support positive changes to the VA health-care system which
are intended to improve its overall operating efficiency and,
thereby, be more responsive to the needs of veterans. Today,
more than three million veterans across the country rely on
VA as their primary source of health care, based on the
current eligibility criteria. We believe millions more would
like to use VA, but limited resources still forces VA to
limit services and access systemwide.
Funding levels in the FY 1999 budget for VA/HUD and
independent agencies, now under consideration, will be
constrained by the limits imposed on VA discretionary
spending under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. This is
requiring the 22 Veterans Integrated Service Networks
(VISNs), rather than 172 individual medical centers, to seek
greater operating efficiencies, cost containment, and
increased medical care cost recoveries, while trying to
provide improved service to more veterans. Even though The
American Legion has a number of concerns regarding problems
with funding to the VISNs under the Veterans Equitable
Resource Allocation (VERA) system, we continue to support
VA's efforts to modify and improve this methodology based on
experience.
It is recognized that the implementation of VERA involves
many difficult financial decisions for VISN officials. Some
of these decisions have resulted in stress and hardship for
veterans and their families, particularly in those VISNs that
incurred real dollar funding reductions. Nonetheless, VERA is
an important management tool which will over
[[Page H6562]]
time help VA meet the needs of veterans in a more efficient,
effective, and responsible manner. However, these changes do
not address VA's need for long-term, guaranteed financial
stability which can only be achieved by combining realistic
federal appropriations, broadened third party reimbursement
authority to include Medicare subvention, and the development
of other new funding sources.
The American Legion believes Congress has a responsibility
to safeguard the fiscal integrity of the VA health care
program. It must also exercise continued oversight of the
changes currently ongoing within the VA medical care program
and the impact of reduced funding to ensure that veterans are
not shortchanged or arbitrarily denied needed care and
treatment.
The American Legion appreciates your continued support of
our nation's veterans and their families.
Sincerely,
Steve A. Robertson,
Director, National
Legislative Commission.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I really raced over here from a markup
because I could not bear the thought that yet again we have to discuss
a regional problem and be turning our backs on the elderly, sickest
veterans in our country. I wanted to be here to strongly, for yet again
the third time, I believe, during a series of debates, support our
American veterans through the Hinchey amendment. We have heard about
robbing Peter to pay Paul. Here this committee is proposing to rob GI
Joe to pay who? I am not quite sure. In the transportation bill, we
were paying for roads and taking it out of the veterans. But this VERA
formula is the most egregious portion of this appropriations. Changing
this formula is robbing GI Joe in States like New Jersey, and
throughout the Northeast, where there are the oldest and the sickest,
the people that are most dependent and most in need of this kind of
care. Do not be deceived by any loose rhetoric that we have heard
around here. There is no inference at all that they are overstaffed or
that they have empty rooms and that we do not need it. That is a
distortion of the real facts. For certain, a number of studies verify,
including one by the Inspector General. There is no question but that
these veterans in terms of the needs of their age group as well as the
intensity of the quality of care that they need are the most needy and
deserving of our veterans, those who were ready to give their lives for
our freedom. Certainly gave their all, for their country in times of
greatest need. I want to strongly endorse this Hinchey amendment. I
cannot believe, that the committee is not open to rectifying this
distortion and this abuse of our veterans and that we cannot in good
faith find the money and correct this egregious abuse through the VERA
formula.
To additionally make the point, Mr. Chairman, the current VERA
formula is unacceptable. New Jersey and the Northeast stand to lose up
to $130 million over the next three years. VERA favor veterans centers
in the South and West over the Northeast. Although there are fewer
veterans in the Northeast, their health problems are more expensive
than the ``healthy'' veterans who retired and live in the South and
West.
New Jersey has one of the oldest and neediest veteran population in
the nation. Most of the veterans in the South and West do not have
extensive health problems associated with age like in the Northeast. In
addition, when many veterans that retired to the South and West become
infirmed they find the health centers caring for veterans inadequate
and return to their former homes in the northeast to receive proper
medical attention. This places another burden on veteran health centers
in the Northeast that was not anticipated by VERA and selfishly pits
veterans against veterans in a regional fight for federal dollars.
Veterans are veterans . . . no matter where they live.
The strain created by the reduction in funding is taking a tragic
toll on the veterans of New Jersey and the northeast. To save money,
the VA has cut back on numerous services for veterans and instituted
various managed care procedures that have the impact of destroying the
quality of care the veterans receive. For instance, the VA has reduced
the amount of treatment offered to those who suffer from Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder (PTSD) and reduced the number of medical personnel at
various health centers. As a result of these cuts, there has been an
erosion of confidence between veterans and the VA. This erosion
threatens to destroy the solemn commitment that this nation made to its
veterans when they were called to duty.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. ROUKEMA. I yield to the gentleman from New York, the author of
the amendment.
Mr. HINCHEY. I very much thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I would
like to take this opportunity to draw the attention of the Members of
the House to the Inspector General report which was discussed here a
few moments ago. At that time, I made the point that it was quite clear
that although the report itself did not stipulate a causal relationship
between VERA and the decline in quality and the increase in mortality,
that it was clear to reason that one followed upon the other.
I want now to say this to my friends and colleagues here. Although
the report did not stipulate that VERA was the causal effect, the
author of the report, the Inspector General, said to me personally that
he believed that VERA was the causal effect of the decline in quality
in our veterans hospitals and that VERA was the causal effect of the
increase in mortality in our veterans hospitals. That is undeniable. We
have that from the mouth of the author of the report himself.
I would just like to say this, also. This amendment is about
fairness. This amendment is not about taking money from one part of the
country and giving it to another. This is not an amendment to hurt
Florida. Yes, I listened carefully to what was said a few minutes ago
by a number of our friends and colleagues from Florida who talked about
the increase in the number of veterans in that State. Undeniably that
is true. I addressed that, in fact, in my opening remarks. We are not
denying that Florida veterans need more help and more funding because
of the increase in population of veterans in that State and some other
States in the South as well. What I am saying is that VERA is not doing
it fairly. VERA is turning its back on the veterans in other parts of
the country, not just the Northeast. I read the list to Members a
couple of times. Veterans headquarters in every part of the country,
from the East through the Midwest, including the South, Durham, North
Carolina for example, out to Long Beach are being adversely affected.
Veterans funds are being cut in every one of those regions. This
amendment is about fairness. It simply says, yes, we have to recognize
that we have to do more for veterans in Florida and more for veterans
in Arizona and other places but let us not do it at the expense of
veterans in other parts of the country.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Exactly.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs.
Roukema) has expired.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentlewoman be given 2 additional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, sometimes it is almost laughable. I am a veteran. I
live here in the Northeast right now. I want fairness for veterans.
There is no one that I take a back seat to on support for veterans
issues or active duty military issues. But I rise in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
Let us look at cause and effect. I am going to speak to my Republican
colleagues, not even the opposition over here. Many of those that live
in the Northeast are the first to support the great social programs.
Look at the National Endowment for the Arts. Why do you not cut it? How
about Davis-Bacon, that we can save 35 percent on all construction, but
will you stop that? We could put every penny of that in veterans. And
the great social programs that you support and the war on the West. So
do not come to me crying that your veterans are not being taken care
of.
Those that support defense, we want live veterans. Three hundred
percent operation deployments above what it was during the Cold War. We
are only maintaining 24 percent of our military.
[[Page H6563]]
That means all of them are going to become veterans. Defense cuts.
And then my colleagues on the other side from the Northeast saying,
well, there were tax breaks for the rich. Now, I want to tell the
gentleman, veterans benefit from tax breaks, just like anybody else.
Veterans benefit from a balanced budget that most of them voted against
for low interest rates, whether it is for scholarships, for homes or
buying a home or just getting a double-egg double-cheese double-
fryburger down at the store. And yet they cry, ``Oh, there is no
money.''
So look at the cause of why we are. We pay nearly $1 billion a day on
the national debt, $360 billion we could use for veterans care. But a
liberal Congress over 40 years spent with big government, high taxes.
And where are we now under a balanced budget? We could survive under a
balanced budget, but if the President refuses to pay for 300 percent
Operation Tempo, where does that money come from out of defense? It
goes against our veterans. We could use the $25 billion that it is
costing us in Bosnia, and we could fund every veterans program there
is.
So do not come to me crying, we need to fund our veterans, or that we
are cutting veterans. I want more money for veterans, but I look at the
cause of why we cannot give it.
I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
Representative Hinchey's amendment to prohibit funding for the
implementation of the Veteran's Equitable Resource Allocation program.
Making sure our veterans receive high quality care is one of my top
priorities. This is an issue of basic fairness--when our country called
on men and women to serve, they answered without hesitation. In return,
we promised to take care of them when they got sick or old. Our country
must honor their part of this agreement.
I often visit the Northport VA facility on Long Island and I am
always impressed by the quality of health care that is available. More
importantly, I am impressed by the praise the facility received from
the patients themselves. As a nurse, I know that the best critic of a
health care facility is its patients.
I am pleased to say that the veterans treated at the Northport
facility are extremely satisfied with their quality of care.
Unfortunately, I am also aware that this high quality health care is in
jeopardy. In the Northeast, the implementation of VERA would result in
decreased funding for our VA facilities. At this point, most of our VA
hospitals in the Northeast have already cut back on spending and
trimmed down. Further cutbacks in funding to our VA hospitals will come
at the expense of patient care. Our VA hospitals will be forced to cut
back on the bare necessities, like nursing and support staff, which we
all know are the backbone of quality care. We must not allow this to
happen.
That is why I rise in support of Representative Hinchey's amendment
to prohibit the implementation of the Veteran's Resource Allocation
Program. This amendment will ensure that valuable resource dollars for
veterans health care remain in the Northeast.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today in strong support
of the Hinchey amendment and in opposition to the Veterans Equitable
Resource Allocation (VERA) system. As you know, VERA provides the
Department of Veterans Affairs medical care funding to regions across
the country, and uses an allocation formula that ties funding for each
of the 22 geographic regions to the number of veterans that they
actually serve, based on per capita veterans usage of facilities. While
this sounds like fair allocation system in theory, it has detrimental
effects on VA medical care in many areas of the country, especially
sparsely populated areas like Nebraska.
From the time the Administration announced this new system, this
Member has opposed VERA and have supported funding levels of the VA
Health Administration above the amount the President recommended. This
new formula has produced a 5 percent decrease in funding for this
fiscal year for my state, which resulted in a $13.5 million decrease in
funding distributed to my state of Nebraska. Already, we have been
threatened by the closure of a major VA medical facility in my
district. VERA has seriously impacted health care for veterans in the
less populated states and generally ignored existing facilities such as
the Lincoln VA Hospital. In fact, last February the Administration
recommended that inpatient care at the Lincoln VA Hospital be
terminated in the near future. While it is true that the number of
veterans served at the Lincoln VA Hospital and other VA facilities in
the state have decreased over the past years, as they have in most
areas of the nation because we now deny most veterans in-patient care
in our VA hospitals. Nevertheless, we still have an obligation to
provide care to these people who served our country during our greatest
times of need. There must be at least a basic level of acceptable
national infrastructure of facilities, and medical personnel is needed
to serve our veterans wherever they live. This Member finds the
decrease in quality and accessibility of medical care for veterans who
live in sparsely populated areas to be completely unacceptable.
Everyone will agree that the VA must provide adequate facilities for
veterans all across the country regardless of whether they live in
sparsely populated areas with resultant low usage numbers for VA
hospitals. This Member strongly supports the Hinchey amendment to
prevent further implementation of the Veterans Equitable Resource
Allocation system. American veterans living in all areas of the country
deserve nothing less. This Member asks his colleagues to support the
Hinchey Amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 501, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey)
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Hilleary
Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 32 offered by Mr. Hilleary:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. . The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by reducing the amount made available for
``DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT--Community
Planning and Development--housing opportunities for persons
with aids, and increasing the amount made available for
``DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS--Departmental
Administration--grants for construction of state extended
care facilities,'' by $21,000,000.
Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today and offer an amendment to
H.R. 4194 that will adjust HUD housing opportunities for persons with
AIDS back to fiscal year 1998 levels and invest more money in the
Department of Veterans Affairs grants for construction of State
extended-care facilities.
Mr. Chairman, I must first acknowledge the hard work of the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lewis) and his counterpart on the other side of
the aisle and the members of the committee and their staff for all the
hard work on this bill. I know they did everything they could to come
up with a balanced budget. I think it is pretty balanced.
But I just have one small amendment I want to make, and it is very
simple. As has been said many times on the floor this afternoon, we
have a severe shortage of veterans care facilities, both health care
and these type of housing facilities. This program is used to provide
matching grants to States to construct State home facilities, to
provide a home or nursing home care to veterans. These grants may also
be used to expand, remodel or alter existing facilities that provide
those needs to veterans or that provide hospital care to veterans in
State homes.
{time} 1645
The need for veterans care facilities continues to increase at a
rapid pace as the veterans population continues to age. The number of
veterans 65 and over is expected to peak in the year 2000 at 9.3
million. H.R. 4194 in its present form appropriates $80 million for
this program, the same as last year, while the number of veterans who
need this program has dramatically risen. To fully fund the extended-
care needs of our veterans in this country for fiscal year 1999 we
would need $152 million.
My amendment does not even meet that level of assistance, but it does
transfer $21 million toward that goal. This additional money would
provide grants to assist States in constructing State home facilities.
My amendment transfers $21 million from the base bill's increase in
housing for persons with AIDS. My amendment does not cut dollars from
housing opportunities for Persons With AIDS program. It simply freezes
that program at fiscal year 1998 levels. While the number of
[[Page H6564]]
aging veterans who require this program continues to increase at a
rapid pace, the most recent data shows that the annual number of new
AIDS cases declined by 6 percent. Once again, the base bill increases
funding for housing opportunities for persons with AIDS by 21 million
over fiscal year 1998 levels while the base bill freezes funding for
veterans housing at fiscal year 1998 levels even though the number of
veterans who need this housing has increased dramatically. My amendment
transfers the increase in funding to veterans housing and leaves
housing for those with AIDS frozen at the fiscal year 1998 level.
I want my colleagues to know that the American Legion fully supports
this effort to increase VA grants for construction of State extended-
care facilities by this $21 million.
I ask my colleagues to consider what is at hand and make the right
choice, and I urge a strong vote on this amendment.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler to the Amendment Offered by Mr.
Hilleary
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler to the amendment offered by
Mr. Hilleary:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted insert the
following:
Sec. XXX. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by reducing the amount made available for National
Aeronautics and Space Administration--Human Space Flight for
and increasing the amount made available for Department of
Veterans Affairs--Departmental Administration--grants for
construction of state extended care facilities', by
$21,000,000.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the intentions and the
intelligence of the gentleman's intention to increase $21 million in
funding to the veterans housing and medical care facilities. I object,
however, to his wanting to take this $21 million away from the housing
opportunities for people with AIDS, or HOPWA program. It is a cut in
the HOPWA program compared to what the bill gives it of almost 10
percent. The HOPWA program is the only Federal housing program that
specifically provides cities and States hardest hit by the AIDS
epidemic with the resources to address the housing crisis facing people
living with AIDS. Sixty percent of all people living with HIV and AIDS
will face a housing crisis at some point during their illness because
of high medical expenses and the loss of wages attendant under the
disease.
Major strides, thank God, have been made in treatment options for
people living with AIDS, and with these advances there is new hope. But
the cost of these treatments often places people in the position to
decide between essential medications and other necessities such as
housing. Further, individuals who have HIV and AIDS must have stable
housing, access to and benefits from complex drug treatments which
often requires special dietary needs.
Medications must often be refrigerated and taken on a rigid time
schedule. Inadequate housing is not only a barrier to treatment, but
also puts people with AIDS at risk of premature death from exposure to
other diseases, poor nutrition, stress and lack of medical care. At any
given time, one-third to one-half of all Americans with AIDS are either
homeless or in imminent danger of losing their homes. HOPWA answers
this need.
Mr. Chairman, increasing numbers of people have AIDS in this country
and increasing numbers of people every year, luckily, because of our
medical advances, are surviving and living longer, and we need more
money for HOPWA. A cut of almost 10 percent makes no sense.
So I would suggest, instead, and what my amendment does is takes $21
million instead away from the space station which is funded this year
at 2.1 billion. So this is 1 one-thousandth, a reduction of 1 one-
thousandth in the space station budget, instead of a reduction of 10
percent in the HOPWA budget.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman I
appreciate where he is coming from. It has been my intention to oppose
the amendment as it is presented. If we go through with this process of
amending amendments, I am not sure the chairman is going to be able to
find himself in that position.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, let me just suggest if the gentleman would
accept the amendment, I would support his amendment. If he does not, I
have to oppose his amendment. I think the space station, regardless of
how colleagues voted on the Roemer amendment, $20 million less, $21
million less out of 2.1 billion, will not materially affect when the
space station is completed; but a 10 percent reduction in HOPWA is a
devastating cut, and I would ask if the gentleman would accept the
amendment.
Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept that amendment simply
because it is not a devastating cut to HOPWA. This is going to freeze
it at its present level.
Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, if the gentleman will not accept the
amendment, I have to say a 10 percent cut is a very heavy cut. We have
a choice, and I will press the amendment. We have a choice. If the
amendment goes as it is, then it is a 10 percent cut to HOPWA. I do not
see how my colleague can rationally say that it will make a material
difference to the space station whether it gets 2.1 billion or 2.098,
or whatever it is, billion dollars.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, the actual numbers of people with AIDS in
our country declined 6 percent this past year. That is a fact produced.
It is because we are doing a good job on triple drug therapy and there
are more people living with HIV that the actual number of people living
with AIDS is down 6 percent in our country, living with AIDS.
Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, my information, and I
do not have the figures in front of me, is that the number of people
who died from AIDS is down, thank God, but the number of people living
with AIDS is up because more people are contracting AIDS every year and
fewer people are dying from it and more people are living with it.
So we need these funds.
Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on that
particular?
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, no, there is no point debating that
specific. The fact is we have great unmet needs for housing for people
with AIDS. The committee made an intelligent decision, and now to cut
the budget by $21 million, by almost 10 percent for veterans needs
which are also there, I do not understand the stubbornness in not
accepting my amendment which I hope people will agree to. A 1 one-
thousandth reduction in the space station is a heck of a lot more
bearable than a 10 percent reduction in housing for people with AIDS.
One doesn't really have an effect, the other has a very substantial
effect, and I just hope people will think about it.
Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman if he has a question to ask me.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. NADLER was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I was simply going to say that I think
the statistic about the 6 percent decrease might not be exactly right.
It is a decrease in the number of new cases, a percentage decrease in
the number. It is a decrease in the increase of the number of new
cases, and I just wanted to clarify that.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the needs in both areas are going up, and I
would again implore the gentleman to accept the amendment because it
will not affect the space station, 21 million, it is so tiny a
percentage of it, but it will really affect HOPWA.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise in opposition to the Nadler amendment
and, in addition to that, enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from
Michigan.
[[Page H6565]]
Mr. Knollenberg, I have read the various ``Dear Colleague'' letters
that have been distributed on the committee bill and listened carefully
to the floor debate on this issue. Is it the committee's intention to
limit EPA programs such as a climate challenge, the program for a new
generation of vehicles, green lights, energy start and other programs
that Congress has funded in the past?
I raise this issue because these programs have increased energy
efficiency over the range of U.S. energy in industrial sectors of our
economy. It would not seem that it was the intent of the legislation to
report language or limit these activities.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to
respond to the gentleman's inquiry about this legislation because there
has been a great deal of misunderstanding and mischaracterizations
regarding the real-world results it might have on EPA.
We need this provision in order to assure that EPA does not undertake
back-door implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. This is a strong setup
of the House based on the debate that we have had. We have seen a trend
where EPA is beginning to interpret existing statutes overly broadly
and to even create new interpretations of current law. These examples
have come out in oversight hearings in both the House and the Senate.
The main purpose of the legislative and report language is to ensure
that existing regulatory authority is not misused to implement or to
serve as a future basis for the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol in
advance of its consideration and approval by the Senate of the United
States. We are not trying to cripple or to cancel existing energy
conservation programs or to curtail research development and
demonstration programs for new, more efficient technologies or to
undermine existing environmental law. We are only trying to keep EPA
honest.
That is our job in Congress, to conduct oversight hearings and to
make sure that the Federal agencies live by the letter of the law and
the Constitution and to ensure taxpayer money is spent wisely.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from
Michigan if the Senate has taken a similar position in their VA
appropriation bill.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I would be pleased to respond to that.
The Senate does indeed have a similar position dealing with this
issue. In fact, Senator Chafee, the chairman of the Senate Environment
Committee, stated in a colloquy with Senator Bond, that was during the
debate on the VA-HUD appropriations, that he agreed. And let me stress
this point: He agreed that the EPA should not use appropriated funds
for the purpose of issuing regulations to implement the Kyoto Protocol
unless and until such treaty is ratified by the U.S. Senate.
Both the House and the Senate strongly concur in that position, so it
is a bit of a red herring for people to say that this legislation will
hamstring EPA or hinder energy conservation and greenhouse gas
reduction programs that are ongoing.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I understand that there is more concern about
the report language in this bill than the legislative language. There
seems to be various interpretations of the report language.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. The report language simply tries to clarify that EPA
has been pushing the envelope with various activities that have been
portrayed as being educational in nature but have, in fact, become
Kyoto Protocol advocacy activities. We wanted to make it clear that EPA
should not be engaged in advocating for implementation of the Kyoto
Protocol, or through its so-called outreach activities that would
actually implement the protocol. It was not our intention to stifle
discussion about potential climate change, scientific give and take,
research or general educational efforts regarding global climate. This
report language was never intended to muzzle EPA. It was, however,
needed because we wanted to clear the EPA and the CEQ, but there is a
fine line between education and advocacy, and that the EPA should not
cross that line.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) made this quite clear during
the debate on this amendment.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, to summarize, I appreciate the
gentleman's clarification. I agree that EPA should not be stopped from
fostering legitimate scientific research and balanced public debate on
this issue because there is still much to be learned in this area.
During our numerous congressional hearings on this issue, the
administration has not been willing to engage in this debate.
For example, we have yet to receive an authoritative analysis of the
economic impact of the Kyoto Protocol reflecting all of the constraints
on possible emissions trading. As chairman of the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Commerce, I look
forward to working to assure that the administration, EPA and CEQ
understands this guidance, and I thank the patience of the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) by chance?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my good friend, the
gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am informed that the chairman of the
subcommittee would probably oppose the Hilleary amendment, in fact, I
think he said that on the floor but I was not listening carefully
enough, if we withdraw this amendment to the amendment.
So, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the secondary
amendment on the understanding that we will have support in opposing
the Hilleary amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Nadler) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Hilleary) is withdrawn.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary). I cannot support reducing the
amount provided for housing opportunities for people with AIDS, as the
Hilleary amendment proposes to do.
{time} 1700
Last year's appropriations bill provided a 70 percent increase for
this program. This year, we simply held the program constant at the
higher amount. It is also true that the committee did recommend an
increase for the Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS Program.
This year's recommended increase is about 15 percent, and it follows
smaller increases or freezes in the preceding years. Why did the
Committee on Appropriations consider it so important to provide a
modest increase for HOPWA? Quite simply because the need for this
program is great and continues to grow each year.
The number of Americans living with AIDS continues to grow. One
reason for this is that the number of new cases remains substantial.
More than 60,000 last year. Another important reason is that advances
in medicine are making it possible for people with HIV infections to
live longer. That is wonderful news, but it does mean that, every year,
there are more people living with AIDS who may be in need of our help.
One measure of the need for this program is the number of State and
local governments that qualify for HOPWA grants. Almost all funding
under the HOPWA program is distributed through a formula based on the
number of AIDS cases.
When the number of cases in a State or metro area crosses a specified
threshold, that State or locality becomes eligible for HOPWA grants.
The number of jurisdictions qualifying has risen from 80 last year to
88 this year and is expected to rise to 96 next year.
In this context, the funding increase provided in the bill seems
quite modest. Between 1977 and 1999, the number
[[Page H6566]]
of States and localities qualifying for HOPWA money will increase by 20
percent while the funding will increase by only 15 percent.
That increase is not enough to fully accommodate the newly qualifying
States and cities, let alone the workload increases in those places
already receiving grants. The Hilleary amendment would cut the 2-year
funding increase to just 4 percent, plainly inadequate in the face of
the rising need.
Some may ask, why do we have a special housing program for people
with AIDS? The answer is that we have a special AIDS-related program
because AIDS creates some very special and particularly urgent housing
needs.
A number of people living with AIDS are already homeless. Many more
face the imminent threat of losing their homes, either because of
discrimination or simply because the combination of declining earnings
and escalating medical expenses makes housing unaffordable without some
help.
At the same time safe, decent, and stable housing is essential to
maintaining health and to undertaking the complex medication and
treatment regimes that offer the best hope of survival.
But we do not just maintain the HOPWA program out of compassion,
although that would be reason enough. The program also makes sense as a
matter of economics. It has been estimated that about 30 percent of the
HIV patients in acute care hospitals in any given time are in the
hospital only because there are no appropriate community-based
residential alternatives.
It is far less costly to help someone live in a residential
environment with access to supportive services than to have them in and
out of emergency rooms and hospitals.
This supportive housing, as funded under the HOPWA program, helps
save health care dollars while helping people live healthier, happier,
and more productive lives.
In short, HOPWA is a program that makes sense. The modest increase
recommended by the committee is more than fully justified by the rising
need. We should not eliminate this increase. I urge defeat of the
amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Hilleary amendment which
would take much-needed funds from the Housing Opportunities for People
With AIDS, the HOPWA program.
I am sympathetic to the gentleman's concerns about the funding for
the veterans program that benefits from this amendment, and that is why
I wish that the 602(b) allocation for this particular appropriations
bill could be larger.
I sympathize with the attempt on the part of the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler) to say we respect the need that the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary) points out, but recognize that this is also a
bad place to take the funds. As the distinguished ranking member has
said, it is a good investment in health. It saves taxpayers' dollars
and, indeed, it saves lives.
I feel very partial to the Housing Opportunities for People With
AIDS legislation because the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott),
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Schumer), and I were the authors of
this legislation on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services or
the Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs years ago. It has
been a successful program that has deserved continuing support of this
House under the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) and
now under the distinguished chairman of the committee, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my
colleague from California yielding to me.
I have before me a ``Dear Colleague'' that is signed by most of those
Members who have spoken today regarding this matter on the floor. There
is a broad bipartisan understanding of the challenge that AIDS provides
for our entire society, and I must say that this particular housing
problem is a very, very difficult one. I want to associate myself with
the remarks of the gentlewoman from San Francisco, California and
appreciate very much her position.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and his opposition to
the Hilleary amendment when he is associating himself with my remarks.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I certainly agree with the gentlewoman's
complimenting the concern of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Hilleary) about deference problems; but, the challenge that we have
relative to funding these problems that HOPWA programs address deserves
our support. Thereby, I oppose the amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for the clarity of his statement,
for his leadership on this issue, and for the hard work that he has put
into this important VA-HUD bill. He sees the whole picture. He knows
the value of this HOPWA program. He has followed it over the years. So
I am very, very pleased with his clear statement and the remarks of the
distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes).
It is clear that, by reducing HOPWA's funding by $21 million, this
Hilleary amendment would deny housing assistance to more than 4,800
people. It would result in the withdrawal of program support for an
estimated 3,800 units of housing, including funds for rental assistance
and homelessness prevention.
If one has HIV, if one is HIV infected, the last thing one's immune
system needs is the additional stress of homelessness or the threat of
homelessness.
We will hear today, Mr. Chairman, that the HOPWA funds may not be
necessary because the annual new number of AIDS cases is declining. The
reality is that the need for this housing continues to grow, as does
the epidemic, as the ranking member pointed out. In the 1997 reporting
period, CDC reported 60,634 new cases, to be precise, in the United
States.
HOPWA funding is primarily allocated on a formula basis. Almost since
its inception, funding for HOPWA has not kept pace with the number of
new communities eligible for HOPWA funds. I would like to name what
those communities are for 1999. FY 1999, it is expected that seven
communities, Birmingham, Alabama; Buffalo, New York; Honolulu;
Wilmington; and the States of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah will become
eligible for HOPWA funds, and five other States: Hawaii, Delaware,
Minnesota, Nevada, and Wisconsin, which would otherwise have lost
funding due to their urban areas qualifying separately under the
formula.
As a result of the good news of the success of powerful drugs
fighting the virus, the number of people living with AIDS is increasing
dramatically. But so are their needs. In 1997, the number of people
living with HIV increased 13 percent. But in order for the drug
therapies to work, people need the stability of having a home.
Some of the people on the AIDS drugs must take as many as 40 pills a
day at regular times. People cannot comply with the rigors of these
drug regimens if they are homeless, moving from shelter to shelter, or
trying to cope with impending homelessness.
The number of people living with AIDS has increased by 13 percent. It
is important to remember who benefits from HOPWA funding. HOPWA funding
is for people with HIV/AIDS and their families. About 25 percent of
recipients of HOPWA funds are family members who reside with persons
with HIV/AIDS. Over 96 percent of the families and individuals who
received HOPWA assistance were households with incomes of less than
$1,000 a month.
I know it is difficult for many of us to vote against something for
the veterans, but I urge my colleagues to understand what this need is.
Many of the people who benefit from the funds are veterans.
Vote ``no'' on the Hilleary amendment.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, as others have indicated, this amendment would strike
funding for programs that are, not only compassionate, but are cost
effective. In short, it is working. I am at a loss to understand why
anyone would want to undercut it.
The sponsor of the amendment says he wants to redirect this money to
veterans' health care programs but who
[[Page H6567]]
does he think these funds are benefiting now? Because it is important
to remember that roughly 30 percent of the homeless in America are
veterans, and many of these are numbered among the 100,000 to 150,000
veterans who are living with HIV.
These are the very people that HOPWA serves. It helps them live
longer and stay healthier. It spares States and localities the far
greater costs of hospital and emergency room care to which they would
otherwise be forced to turn.
If this amendment succeeds, thousands would be forced to choose
between paying their medical bills or paying the rent. Many would end
up in acute care hospitals at a cost 10 to 20 times that of the housing
and services that they would receive in a HOPWA-funded residential
facility.
The rest could find themselves huddled in homeless shelters and
sleeping on grates.
Mr. Chairman, I associate myself and welcome the remarks of the other
speakers and am pleased to hear the distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis), the chair of the subcommittee, will oppose this
particular amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very
much because I quickly want to associate myself with the gentleman's
remarks because I was here previously on the floor of the House
discussing the question about the needs of veterans.
I do want to say that this is a difficult and very wrenching
decision. The gentleman is right, 100,000 to 150,000 of our veterans
are living with HIV. I know that many of our veterans are homeless.
Another point I wanted to raise, many people living with AIDS are
suffering housing discrimination. People do not want them around, and
the idea of HOPWA is to provide clean, secure housing that these people
who have been in the past looked at as being contagious or not wanting
to have people around them and being isolated or rejected from normal
housing situations, to be able to have good clean housing. As you well
know, the increase in minority populations also require this kind of
housing.
I would simply say that we are making a wrenching decision that
really would be more hurtful, hurtful to veterans living with AIDS,
hurtful to new populations and other States that are being
grandfathered in and other States like Utah that are being added in,
and I would hope that we would defeat this amendment, recognizing how
crucial it is to be able to provide for these people living with this
disease and living longer.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment. I
have always supported the highest possible spending levels for veterans
programs, but unfortunately we should not be pitting one important
program against another and that is what this amendment does by cutting
the housing opportunities for people with AIDS, the HOPWA program, by
$21 million.
Mr. Chairman, the HOPWA program has strong bipartisanship support. It
is the only Federal housing program that specifically provides cities
and States, those that are hardest hit by the AIDS epidemic, with the
resources to address the housing crisis faced by people living with
AIDS.
In fact, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and I circulated a
Congressional letter to appropriators urging increased funding for
HOPWA and this letter was co-signed by almost 100 Members of both
parties.
It is true that the number of AIDS-related deaths has begun to
decline thanks to dramatic new treatments and improvements in care.
However, HIV/AIDS remains a major killer of young people. It is the
leading cause of death for African and Hispanic Americans between the
ages of 25 and 44.
The high cost of the new treatments has often forced people to decide
between essential medications and other necessities, such as housing.
Further, stable housing is critical to the success of the drug regime.
The medication often must be refrigerated and taken on a rigid time
schedule.
Without adequate housing, people with HIV/AIDS may not only be unable
to adhere to the strict regimen required but premature death may result
from poor nutrition, exposure to other diseases and the lack of medical
care. At any given time, one-third to one-half of all people with AIDS
are either homeless or on the verge of losing their homes.
HOPWA addresses this need by providing reasonably priced housing for
thousands of individuals and yet the demand far outstrips the supply.
HOPWA gives cities and States the ability to provide community-based
cost effective housing and, in so doing, reduces the number of people
who would otherwise end up on the streets or in acute care facilities.
{time} 1715
At a daily cost of $1,085 per day under Medicaid, acute care
facilities are far more expensive than HOPWA community housing, which
averages $55 to $110 per day. Nationwide, HOPWA saves an estimated
$47,000 per person per year in emergency medical expenses.
Contrary to the assertions that there is a reduced need for HOPWA
funding, HUD has estimated that an additional seven to ten
jurisdictions will qualify for HOPWA funding during fiscal year 1999, a
program that already serves more than 52,000 individuals in 88
jurisdictions, 59 metropolitan areas, and 29 States.
To prevent cuts to qualifying jurisdictions, the bill's level of
funding is needed. It is important to realize that the increase in
HOPWA spending in the bill simply maintains current services for
qualifying jurisdictions. It is important to recognize that between
100,000 and 150,000 veterans currently access some level of HIV-AIDS
services, and many of these veterans are also eligible for housing
assistance under HOPWA.
Mr. Chairman, I will certainly work in conference to ensure that
veterans' housing is increased. However, this funding offset is
unacceptable, and I must reluctantly oppose the amendment. I hope my
colleagues will do likewise.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Hilleary
amendment. While I recognize the urgency of housing for our Nation's
veterans, robbing Peter to pay Paul is not the way to go.
The Hilleary amendment would take away $21 million earmarked for the
Housing Opportunity Act from the 1999 budget. This is a bill that, as
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) said, we started a long
time ago. And I think we ought to acknowledge the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Gonzalez), who really was the man who was in charge of the
committee when we were on it; and when we told him about this idea he
said, it sounds like a good idea.
While supporters of this bill will argue that we are not cutting
HOPWA per se but rather freezing it at the 1998 levels, I would argue
that an increase is what is actually needed to provide adequate housing
for people living with AIDS, many of whom are veterans.
As my colleagues have heard, what the gentleman fails to recognize is
the dramatic increase in the number of veterans with AIDS. There are
100,000 to 150,000 people in this country who are veterans who have
HIV. 17,000 of them are taken care of in the VA system, and roughly 30
percent of the homeless in the United States are veterans.
Now, with the advent of new drug therapies, new hope is offered to
people with HIV. However, these therapies are not available to
everyone, especially the homeless. Strict regimens and a proper diet
are mandatory for these drug therapies to work, and people with
inadequate housing are not good candidates for such therapy.
This was one of the suggestions of the Reagan Commission on AIDS.
There were five suggestions, and one of them was HOPWA. The reason they
suggested it is because when one has AIDS, one has a weakened system,
and if one does not have anyplace to live, one winds up in a shelter.
Now, if one goes into a shelter and one sleeps in a big room with 200
or 300 people and one has no defense system, one picks up every disease
in the world, so one then gets sick and winds up
[[Page H6568]]
back in the hospital. And every big city hospital in this country has
had the experience of getting somebody with AIDS up and stabilized and
ready to go out but knowing if they put them out of the hospital they
will be back in in worse shape. That is what this program is really all
about. We are not talking about people who have not served their
country.
HOPWA really is a link between housing and health care. And if one
looks at the numbers, one would say, well, AIDS is declining in this
country; but, actually, the HIV infection rate in selected groups
continues to rise. Tragically, that epidemic is increasing among the
low-income communities where homelessness is a reality or it is one
paycheck away.
HOPWA helps fund a variety of AIDS services throughout Washington
State, not just in the district where I come from, but from the Sean
Humphrey House in Bellingham in the district of the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Metcalf); Three Cedars in Tacoma; the Tamarak House in
Yakima, which is in the district of the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Hastings); and the Bailey Boushay House in my district. HOPWA is used
by housing authorities in Spokane, Tacoma and Seattle. So it is
distributed across our State; it is not just in the big cities.
Mr. Chairman, I have always been an advocate for the Nation's
veterans, and it is critical that we ensure adequate health care and
housing for them. However, cutting the one is the wrong way to get the
other.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Hilleary
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 501, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary)
will be postponed.
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
I would like to engage the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis),
chairman of the subcommittee, on a matter of importance to my district
in the San Joaquin Valley of California.
The agricultural communities along Interstate 5 in the San Joaquin
Valley face chronically high unemployment rates that are, in part, as a
result of uncertain water supplies. A coordinated water resources
management plan that makes the maximum use of available supplies must
be a central feature of any environmental protection or economic
development initiative in the arid Central Valley.
A partnership of public and private interests in the I-5 corridor has
proposed a Water Resources Assessment Plan that will centralize
information on the region's surface and groundwater supplies. This
information will include assessments of water quality conditions,
wetlands, riparian habitat and domestic industrial water needs.
I look forward to working with the chairman and the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Stokes), the ranking member, and the conferees in trying to
identify funding for this important effort.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOOLEY of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley). I will be glad to work with
him on this very worthy project and plan to talk with him between now
and conference as well.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I take this time in order to engage in a colloquy with
the chairman of the subcommittee and potentially with the ranking
minority member.
Legislation was enacted in 1996 to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act
and to inject more common sense into the process of testing and
treating our Nation's drinking water. This Member is concerned, as a
representative of the State that has the largest use of groundwater for
its public water supplies by far in the Nation, with only 7 out of some
700 or 800 systems using any surface water. I am concerned that the
Environmental Protection Agency's groundwater rule may be ignoring
congressional intent. Specifically, the EPA may attempt to implement a
rule which would result in enormous disinfection costs for small
communities, but with no actual benefits to the citizens of those
communities.
In recognition of the general good quality of our Nation's
groundwater, the excellent existing State water quality protection
programs, and the expense and other complications of unneeded
treatment, not to mention questions about whether or not some of the
treatment agents themselves are threatening the health, the Safe
Drinking Water Act of 1996 provided the EPA with only the authority to
promulgate regulations requiring disinfection as a treatment technique,
as necessary, and I stress the words ``as necessary,'' for all public
water systems using groundwater. Therefore, this Member would request
that the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent
Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations enter into a colloquy on
this matter.
Mr. Chairman, is it the committee's intention that a small community
using groundwater should not be subject to EPA-directed improvements
unless the community's groundwater poses a genuine health risk?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, yes, it is.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Is it also the committee's intention that EPA should work to develop
a groundwater rule which gives the States adequate flexibility in
developing preventive measures?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman I
appreciate his bringing this problem to my attention and the
committee's attention. It is our intention to not only be responsive to
that problem but to have as much flexibility as possible in dealing
with those communities' problems.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I would say to the
distinguished gentleman I appreciate his clarification, and I
appreciate the fact that the subcommittee's report language also
addresses this subject.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's
concern.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Bereuter
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Bereuter:
Page 91, after line 3, insert the following:
Section 425. The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, in consultation with the National Academy
of Sciences, shall expedite a review of scientific literature
concerning the health effects of copper in drinking water.
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
shall assemble a team of technical and policy experts from
the Agency's Region 7 Office and headquarters to work with
Nebraska state officials to help identify and clarify
measures to meet requirements of the Copper Rule where
central treatment of groundwater is not cost effective. The
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall
expedite clinical research studies regarding the health
effects of copper in drinking water. The Environmental
Protection Agency shall use the results of its review of
scientific literature and clinical studies of the health
effects of copper in drinking water to review the National
Primary Drinking Water Standard for copper pursuant to
section 1412(b)(9) of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) reserves a
point of order.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman is
reserving a point of order, and this is straightforward legislating on
an appropriation bill if it were to be accepted. I understand that
fact.
I have two amendments filed, I would say to my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle, that indeed are in order. One simply forbids the
use of funds to implement the copper rule, and the other takes $15
million out of the administrator's office. Both are in order. I would
prefer not to offer them.
[[Page H6569]]
I gave my colleagues some indication of why this is particularly
important to my State. I want to tell my colleagues that the Republican
Attorney General of Nebraska is filing or has filed a lawsuit on this
issue. The Democratic governor is supporting that lawsuit and
requesting relief for more than 60 communities in our State that are
affected by the copper rule, and the entire Nebraska delegation in both
Houses are very much involved in trying to find a solution to this
issue.
In fact, I believe that the amendment offered here might well be
acceptable to the EPA and to the appropriators and authorizers on both
sides of the aisle as report language, but what the administrator wants
to avoid is any kind of statutory direction, and I think that is what
it comes down to on this amendment. But I do think it is better to have
that statutory language than report language which seems sometimes to
have little impact upon the Environmental Protection Agency. And I
think I would say to my colleagues it is better to accept this
amendment than having one of the two other amendments that are in order
and which are not subject to a point of order.
Unfortunately, the EPA is moving forward in implementing a
regulation, despite the lack of any convincing evidence of adverse
health effects which would justify its current course of action. As a
result, the current regulations will result in enormous costs for water
systems across the country, even though it is unlikely to result in any
health benefits.
Obviously, communities do not have unlimited financial resources, and
money spent on compliance with the copper rule is money that cannot be
spent for other necessary community needs. The costs are significant
for all communities, especially the smaller ones. As a result, it is
crucial that this rule be implemented only if it is supported by solid,
objective and scientific research.
The EPA's current standard relies on what seems to be almost
anecdotal evidence rather than scientific studies. For instance, one of
the studies cited by the EPA involved nurses who became ill after
consuming cocktails which were mixed and stored in corroded copper-
lined containers. It is important to emphasize that this so-called
copper problem is generally the result of the corrosion of copper
household plumbing, rather than by copper in the community's water
sources.
In addition, copper concentrations from plumbing result from water
setting in copper pipes for many hours and the level drops dramatically
after the tap has run for several seconds.
{time} 1730
The commonsense solution to any potential problem related to copper
concentrations from plumbing in the house is to have consumers simply
run the faucet for less than a minute for the first time the water is
used in the morning, and that eliminates the problem or reduces the
copper level below the 1.3 or even below the 2.0, 3.0 milligrams per
liter, whatever standard or copper action level you might wish to
choose.
To help compensate for the dearth of scientific research on the issue
of copper in drinking water, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention were commissioned to conduct new and more comprehensive
studies. One was conducted in Nebraska and the other in Delaware. The
studies are expected to be published soon. They have not been peer-
reviewed. That is the problem at this point.
The interim CDC report on the Nebraska study concluded that ``People
were not experiencing G.I.,'' gastrointestinal, ``illness related to
the level of copper in their drinking water, even though in 51 of the
selected homes drinking water levels were greater than 2 times the EPA
action level the year prior to the study.''
A similar study in Delaware which had even higher copper
concentration levels also found that the water was safe for drinking.
Correspondence from the EPA concerning the Delaware study acknowledges
that ``Study results suggested no meaningful differences in the
symptoms typically associated with copper toxicity between the control
group, those not exposed to copper in drinking water, and the group
with high copper levels of 5 milligrams per liter.''
That 5.0 level is much more than what is being proposed here by the
EPA in the way of a copper action level--1.3 milligrams per bites. That
is on the ``first draw sample.''
The EPA rule establishes an action level for copper and drinking
water of 1.3 milligrams per liter. Yet our Canadian friends and the
World Health Organization says it should be at 2.0. They also provided
for a risk margin at that level, as well.
Copper in drinking water is generally caused by household plumbing,
as I said, rather than water source. In addition, copper concentrations
result from water setting in copper pipes for many hours, and the level
drops dramatically after the tap has been run for several seconds.
I could give the Members some statistics about a number of our
communities.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Bereuter was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, in one of our communities, a community of
23,000, the estimated initial cost would be $1 million for water
treatment equipment, $250,000 per year for treatment. Unfortunately, it
would result in no health benefits. That community has wells in 14
different locations. None of them are interconnected. There is no
central point for decontamination, disinfection, or copper treatment.
That is a very typical situation in our State. We are unique in that
respect. We have the largest groundwater supply in the continent.
Although this Member is obviously most familiar with the problems in
our communities, it is important to keep in mind that dozens of States
will be affected by this rule. If Members have not heard from
communities in their districts, they should expect in the near future
to hear from them as the EPA pushes for enforcement.
This Member has had repeated contacts with the EPA on the issue
dating back to 1993. Unfortunately, the EPA has resisted a commonsense
approach, and this Member has come to the conclusion that Congress must
act to correct the situation. This amendment does not go nearly as far
as I would like, but it does require them to move ahead in consultation
with the National Academy of Sciences to find a proper copper action
level.
I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for his
work and the work of his staff with me in trying to find some
accommodation on this issue.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
As the gentleman knows, the original amendment that he is planning to
offer was an amendment that I was prepared to oppose very, very
strongly, because we, the majority and the minority, worked awfully
hard for a long time to come up with the Safe Drinking Water Act, and
now, just a short time afterward, it looked like attempts were made to
change that.
But we have pointed that out to the gentleman, and we had tremendous
cooperation in trying to work this out. Actually, the language we did
work out would not have changed, because there was never any intent on
our part to change, the Safe Drinking Water Act in any way whatsoever.
It was just basically to focus on the fact that there is a problem in
Nebraska in expediting a review, and asking the EPA to use the results
of its review pursuant to the appropriate section of the Safe Drinking
Water Act.
So whereas I suppose technically it is legislating on an
appropriations bill, there is really no intent to do that, or to change
the Safe Drinking Water Act in any way whatsoever.
Again, I appreciate the gentleman's understanding and cooperation. I
would hope that the Environmental Protection Agency would see that we
are focusing on this, even though we certainly do not intend to change
the Act.
Mr. BEREUTER. I am pleased to have the gentleman's comments. I
appreciate his assistance.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
[[Page H6570]]
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I know
the gentleman is trying to deal with a very real problem in the
gentleman's State.
As I understand it, the language that the gentleman has worked out
would be acceptable to the Administrator in the report of this
legislation. But the Administrator is reluctant to have the precedent
of having this language inserted in the statute itself.
The gentleman expressed his concern that perhaps the report language
would not be taken seriously, and statutory language would be necessary
to accomplish the goals. I would point out to the gentleman that if the
Administrator is supporting this language----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Bereuter was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the Administrator is
willing to commit to follow the language that we would seek to have in
the report. The gentleman has more assurance than simply report
language, because the one to whom it is directed is promising to carry
it out.
The subsequent point I want to make is that just last week, as we
discussed this bill, we had a heated debate over whether the report
language that I and others were trying to strike in the appropriations
bill would be taken seriously and we had assurances from the Chairman
of the Appropriations subcommittee that report language is not binding,
but we were concerned that the report language would be intimidating to
the EPA, and that we did not want that report language to go forward.
So my point to the gentleman is that I regret that I am going to have
to make the point of order, but I would have hoped that this could have
been in the report, and that the whole issue might have been avoided.
Mr. BEREUTER. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his
understanding of the concern that we have in our State. It is not our
State alone, but we have a more severe problem with it, there is no
doubt about it, because of our groundwater dependence and the corrosive
impact of copper in the house pipes.
I would say to the gentleman, perhaps he could help this gentleman
understand, since we are legislators, what the difficulty is in us
legislating some advice on the kind of studies that are necessary,
since we are not changing the copper standard, since we are only asking
them to proceed at the same time with studies to be done in
consultation with the National Academy of Sciences?
What is there about the precedent of having some statutory direction
that is so offensive to the administrator?
Mr. WAXMAN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I think the
concern the Administrator has, and I think it is a legitimate one, is
that if we start legislating on specific problems in appropriations
bills----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Bereuter was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the concern is that once we have that
precedent, we will have a never-ending series of small changes that
people will try to make in our laws--whether it is the drinking water
law or some other statutory environmental legislation.
So for that reason, there is this reluctance to accept this proposal
offered as bill language.
Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I think we are
in the business of making judgments as legislators over appropriate
kinds of initiatives by Members trying to take the interest of their
constituents to heart. If statutory direction is a bad idea, if it does
damage in a national sense to priorities, then the gentleman has a
right to object. That is his responsibility. I see no reason why that
would happen in this instance.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if we were in a position of
having this item considered as part of the report language, I could
tell the gentleman that I would work directly with him between now and
the time we go to conference to try to find a way, with our colleagues,
to accommodate the gentleman's problem.
Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman. I know that he is sincere in
this, but perhaps the gentleman himself knows that the entire Nebraska
delegation has met with Ms. Browner and people under her in the last
several weeks.
Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman will yield further, I would
mention to the gentleman that I believe the Senator from the
gentleman's State is a member of the committee, and will be
participating in the conference as well.
Mr. BEREUTER. I wish that was the case, but my senior Senator gave up
his position to go to the Senate Finance Committee.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter)
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Waxman, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Bereuter was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to join with the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis) in making my personal commitment to the
gentleman as well that if we can work on this as report language, we
will do everything that both of us can to make sure that the goals the
gentleman wants are accomplished.
Mr. BEREUTER. Reclaiming my time, if the gentleman persists in his
point of order and I proceed with what I think is necessary, I assume
the gentleman's commitment is still there to work with me.
Mr. WAXMAN. I want to be as helpful as I possibly can.
Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman.
Point of Order
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) insist
upon his point of order?
Mr. WAXMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would insist on it.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) is
recognized on his point of order.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriations bill, and therefore violates clause 2
of rule XXI.
The rule states, in pertinent part, ``No amendment to a general
appropriations bill shall be in order if changing existing law . . .
.'' This amendment gives affirmative direction, and in effect imposes
additional duties, modifies existing powers and duties, and I therefore
ask that the amendment be considered out of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the
point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair finds that the
amendment explicitly places several new duties on the administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency. As such, the amendment proposes to
legislate on an appropriation bill, in violation of clause 2 of rule
XXI. Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, my remarks here directly relate to the point of order
and to other similar situations which have arisen during the course of
this and other appropriation bills.
The rule with regard to legislating on an appropriation bill has been
with us in the rules of the House for quite a long period of time. It
was originally put there in order to distinguish between the role of
the Committee on Appropriations and the rest of us peons who only serve
on authorizing committees, and do not get a chance to do the heavy
lifting that is involved in distributing the money, like the
appropriators do.
[[Page H6571]]
I have frequently had reason to raise points of order about
legislating on appropriation bills as it involved the work of my own
committee. There has been a propensity to insert in appropriation bills
funding for research projects which were not authorized, and a number
of other things of that sort.
I did this to the point where I made myself obnoxious to my friends
on the Committee on Appropriations for a period of several years, and I
have ceased to pursue that as actively as I once did, because I began
to recognize that there were many legitimate reasons why there should
be or could be legislation on an appropriation bill.
The standards for what are the appropriate reasons for having
legislation on an appropriation bill are extremely vague. I can think
of a number of good reasons in my own case, and involving the Committee
on Science, we have a problem getting the Senators to enact
authorization bills, for example. That is because the Senate rules have
allowed Members who serve on the Committee on Appropriations to also
serve as chairmen of authorizing committees, something they cannot do
in the House of Representatives.
These Senators have a very strong interest in doing things
efficiently, so they do it on the appropriation bill and leave the
authorizing bills sort of hanging out to dry over there in the Senate.
This is not the way the system is supposed to work.
In the case of what is going on in most instances here in the House,
authorizing on an appropriation bill constitutes the fastest and most
efficient way to get action accomplished on something that needs to be
accomplished or should be accomplished. I think that is a legitimate
reason to have an exception to the rule, to have a waiver. These
waivers, of course, are frequently granted by the Committee on Rules to
include situations where there seems to be a good reason to have such a
waiver. But there is, again, no standard as to when waivers will be
granted.
Many of the amendments that we have considered here are an effort to
legislate on an appropriation bill by Members of the House who are not
appropriators, but they see an amendment to the appropriation bill as
the fastest way to get action.
{time} 1745
This was the case with the sleepwear amendment as I recall, and it
comes up very often.
Now, there are cases in which waivers are not granted; and, of
course, in that case any Member can raise a point of order against
language in an appropriations bill and we end up with in some cases
half or 75 percent of an appropriation bill being ``stick it'' and we
go to conference with no House position. That is not sound legislation,
it is not efficient, and we need to think this through.
Now, I am not proposing a solution, but I am saying that this matter
has gotten to the point where I think at the beginning of the next
session of Congress there ought to be responsible Members who look at
the problem and come up with reasonable solutions, which might include
having authorizing committees ask the appropriators to include
legislative language on an appropriations bill in order to move
something through the other body that needs to be moved. That would
seem to be reasonable to me. It is completely different from what we do
now, but I have found that the whole system works better when there is
close cooperation between the authorizing committee and the Committee
on Appropriations.
At the present time, that exists in some cases; it does not exist in
other cases, and we need to regularize that. We need to have a regular
order under which we can understand what is appropriate and what is not
appropriate.
Mr. Chairman, I make this brief statement in order to alert my
friends to the fact that if I am so blessed as to return to this great
body I may propose such a change in the rules.
Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Scarborough
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 29 offered by Mr. Scarborough:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceeding the short title) the following new section:
Sec.--. None of the funds made available in this Act may be
used to carry out Executive Order 13083.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, President Clinton signed Executive
Order 13083 on May 14, while out of the country, and we believe it is a
serious affront to the Federalist framework established in the United
States Constitution. It could potentially lead to the abuse of power by
individual agencies as they attempt to interpret this Executive Order.
The order establishes broad, ambiguous, and we believe
unconstitutional tests to justify Washington bureaucratic intervention
in matters that are typically left to State and local communities.
Neither the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, nor the Federalist Papers
even remotely justify Executive Order 13083 or its expansion of Federal
regulatory activity.
Back in 1987, President Ronald Reagan signed an Executive Order which
this Executive Order reverses. In the Reagan Executive Order it stated,
``The constitutional relationship among sovereign governments, State
and national, is formalized in and protected by the tenth amendment to
the Constitution.''
President Reagan also said, ``It is my intention to curb the size and
influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the
distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and
those reserved to the States or upon the People.''
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman and I have had a
chance to discuss this amendment. I discussed it with the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) as well. While we will need to massage this as
we go towards conference, we are inclined at this point to accept the
amendment.
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman from California. And if no one is willing to object to it----
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is also acceptable to us.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Scarborough
amendment to curtail funding for Executive Order 13083, President
Clinton's efforts to grab power from the states in the name of
``federalism.''
Ronald Reagan had it right. In 1987, President Reagan reaffirmed the
principles of federalism--that powers not explicitly given to the
federal government are reserved for the States and individuals.
The specifically enumerated federal powers that are designed to limit
Washington's power is the very cornerstone of our fundamental
liberties. It is at the heart of what the American people expect from
Washington--respect for their rights to know what's best for them--
without Washington interference.
Unless we preserve a healthy balance between the States and the
federal government, we risk the creation of a government that is beyond
control, one insulated from the will of the people. It is for that
reason that our Constitution lays out enumerated powers of the federal
government--powers given to it only by the people in the nation. It was
the genius of the founders--a way to ensure that no leader pandered
away the wealth and resources of the nation.
In fact, a central theme of our 1994 ``Contract with America'' was
the return of power to the States and the revival of federalism. The
nation responded, with overwhelming enthusiasm.
I was astonished to learn that on May 14th, President Clinton issued
a new Executive Order that overturns Ronald Reagan's 1987 federalism
Order and repudiates a principle so deeply held by all Americans.
I was pleased to read in today's Washington Post that OMB has decided
it errored in its federalism executive order based on unanimous
opposition from states, cities, and counties. I commend Chairman David
McIntosh for his hearing that demonstrated this opposition yesterday.
This amendment is still a valuable message to send the White House,
and I commend the leadership of my colleague, Joe Scarborough.
I hope the committee will accept this amendment. I urge the
committee, in the
[[Page H6572]]
strongest possible terms, to retain this amendment as they work with
the Senate and come to a final resolution on this appropriation bill.
Congress must also be clear in rejecting this effort by the
Administration to change longstanding federalism principles.
Is there a more fundamental guarantee of liberty than this check on
federal powers?
President Clinton's pronounced exceptions to federalism swallow up
the principle with nearly one bite.
Paul Begala, one of President Clinton's advisors, in talking about
President Clinton's increased use of Executive orders, was quoted as
saying, ``Stroke of the Pen. Law of the Land. Kinda Cool.''
Kinda Cool, Mr. Begala? With a stroke of the pen, President Clinton
undermined the foundations of federalism. With a stroke of the pen, he
repudiated a time honored, fundamental principle that rules this
nation. By a stroke of the pen he gave a green light to future
unwarranted and unconstitutional national regulatory powers and
actions. With a stroke of the pen, he may have done irreparable harm to
individual rights and liberties.
As President Reagan would say--``Well, there they go again.''
President Clinton is starting to demonstrate a comfort level with an
unprecedented use of executive branch powers--trying to effect policy
without going through the regular, time-consuming legislative process,
where the American people are represented, negotiations occur and laws
are made.
The Wall Street Journal labeled this phenomenon on July 8th in their
lead editorial, as ``King Clinton.'' The editorial says we are
witnessing ``a Presidency that has attempted to build between itself
and the other branches a kind of moat of nonaccountability. . . . If it
receives subpoenas, it rejects them or files lawsuits against them. Raw
background files on hundreds in the political opposition are summoned
from the FBI. . . . If Congress balks, overleap it with whatever
executive order is needed, to satisfy the courtier constituencies.''
The editorial goes on to say, [it is time for the Congress] ``to act as
a check and balance on the assertion of the royal prerogatives.''
Executive Orders, Presidential Memorandums, Presidential Decision
Directives and Proclamations can sometimes have tremendous policy
impact on the nation, yet they do not require the approval of Congress.
They do have the force of law. These legal tools are not mentioned in
the Constitution, but have grown up based on the implied powers
inherent in the grant of ``executive power'' to the President in
Article 2, section 1. President Clinton seems bent on using his powers
until someone says stop.
The federal courts have stopped this President from legislating
through Executive orders before. Who recalls President Clinton's
Executive Order to forbid government contractors from hiring permanent
striker replacements? There, the courts found the President had
overreached.
Who recalls the Federal ``land grab'' in Utah? 1.7 million acres--by
``presidential proclamation.''
What about the stroke of a pen addition of ``sexual orientation'' to
federal anti-discrimination laws? All other ``protected categories''
were put into this Executive Order because Congress had passed a law
for them--race, gender, ethnicity, religion, handicap, and age.
Previous efforts along these lines were based on statute, not political
pressure and pandering. If this is the right thing to do, let's do it
the right way--through the legislative process, where the American
people have a voice.
Then there is the dangerous manipulation or disregard of the
Constitution's wording when it comes to the census, as President
Clinton pursues a politically motivated concept of sampling, rather
than actual counting of people. The Constitution is a restraint on
government power, but not for this team in the White House.
Consider the many legal maneuvers we have seen from this White
House--all in efforts to escape scrutiny. Using taxpayer funded lawyers
oftentimes, this President is undermining executive branch
accountability by invoking novel and frivolous constitutional
privileges--with the ultimate effect of hiding the facts from the
public.
Who can forget the attempt to escape questioning by the Paula Jones
attorneys by the claim that this President was ``on duty,'' in
accordance with the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act? And, how can this
President have such disrespect for the Secret Service that, instead of
asking them to tell the truth, he seeks to establish a new ``protective
function'' privilege, risking the making of bad law to save himself
from potential embarrassment?
Who isn't appalled at the efforts by Clinton allies to intimidate
political opponents or witnesses? Where is the outrage about the fact
that we now know that this White House has an ``enemies list'' and that
research on those enemies is bought and paid for by the President's
lawyers?
In summary, Paul Begala may think this is ``kinda neat,'' but
President Clinton is running roughshod over our Constitution.
As for the Congress, it is time to make a stand. There is an abuse of
power occurring that can no longer be tolerated.
It is time for the Congress to say, ``enough is enough.'' In
representing the American people, you and I are far too familiar with
the fact that compromise and negotiation is difficult and slow--yet, it
is the very hallmark of divided federal government. Lawmaking and the
process of making laws occur here, Mr. President, not with the stroke
of your pen.
A vote against the Scarborough amendment is a vote for another form
of government; it is a vote against the Framers' vision of how we were
to preserve our liberties.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes to affirm the federalism principles
that Ronald Reagan articulated.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, today I ask my colleagues to send
a clear message to the White House that our venerable Constitution is
alive and well, if not at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, at least here in
the People's House. Especially, that the principles of the Tenth
Amendment endure.
On May 14, from Great Britain, President Clinton issued Executive
Order 13083 which completely undercuts the notion of federalism that
forms the basis of our entire system of government. This Executive
Order deeply undermines, if not obliterates, the Tenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution.
Congress must stop the White House by responding aggressively and
quickly. Blocking this unconstitutional Executive Order on federalism
is essential. If we fail to act by August 12, 1998, the Order will go
into effect; no ifs ands or buts; and regardless of what promises or
platitudes are issued by the Administration.
As most of us are aware, in 1987, President Ronald Reagan issued
Executive Order 12612, reaffirming the principles of federalism and the
powers reserved to states and individuals as outlined in the Tenth
Amendment.
Ronald Reagan's Executive Order which is explicitly repealed by
President Clinton, detailed that the federal government was given few,
limited, and enumerated powers. Reagan's Executive Order served as a
limitation on Executive Agencies, not an accelerant on their work, as
proposed in President Clinton's order.
In the Constitution the Framers granted specific federal powers, and
outlined when the government legitimately may exercise its authority.
They did not intend the federal government to exercise authority over
the states, local communities, and the people except in very limited
and clearly delineated circumstances, such as a national currency, or
customs matters.
The Executive Order which will in effect have the force of law if we
don't stop it, lists several, all-encompassing ``exceptions'' under
which the powers of the states and the people could be abrogated by any
federal agency at any time; ignoring and overriding the Tenth
Amendment.
Some individuals, I presume we will hear from today, will argue this
Executive Order constitutes nothing more than the President's opinion
and does not carry the force of law. These individuals are wrong.
Congess must stop the Clinton Administration practice by responding
aggressively and quickly. This amendment today will be the first step
to block this unconstitutional Executive Order on federalism.
This reflects a systematic, very conscious political plan by this
Administration. A recent New York Times article noted that some of
President Clinton's ``closest advisers deeply pessimistic about the
chances of getting major legislation passed during the rest of the
year, Mr. Clinton plans to issue a series of executive orders to
demonstrate that he can still be effective.''
The President's recent actions raise a bright crimson flag signaling
just what he thinks of the office of the President.
I have already heard from hundreds of individuals from around the
country, outraged over this Executive Order.
It is time for this Congress to focus the political issues for the
public. Today we take the first step to bring back the Framers'
principles of checks and balances.
This is not a theoretical debate. The consequences of our failure to
act will be real, immediate, and continuing; from taxes levied by
federal agencies with no congressional authorization, to international
agreements being forced on state and local governments without any
advise and consent by the Senate.
The Clinton Administration believes power should be given to, taken
by, and retained in Washington. They believe in a top-down governing
structure--not the bottom-up structure clearly envisioned by our
Founding Fathers and by many of us in this Chamber. Power comes from
the individual not the Federal Government.
I rise in support of the Gentleman from Florida's amendment and ask
my colleagues to support this important issue.
[[Page H6573]]
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I was outraged by President Clinton's
recent Executive Order (E.O.) 13083 which revoked President Reagan's
historic Executive Order on Federalism issued in 1987. President
Reagan's order provided many protections for and reflected great
deference to State and local governments.
By stark contrast, President Clinton's order, issued without prior
consultation with State and local governments, betrays and repudiates
an 11-year tradition of trust and mutual consultation between the
States and the Federal Government. In its place, President Clinton's
order lays the groundwork for an unprecedented Federal power grab in
virtually every area of policy previously reserved to the States under
the Tenth Amendment.
On June 8, I wrote President Clinton that ``I could not understand
how you, as a former Governor, could willingly abandon the protections
accorded the states since 1987 from unwarranted federal regulatory
burdens.'' Prior to the new order's revocation, there were ``important
constraints on federal regulatory power by requiring a minimum of
federal intrusion and substantial deference to state governance. With
E.O. 13083, you have swept away these limitations on the power of the
federal government.'' I stated my belief that the bottom line is that
the new order would wreak havoc on the balance of power envisioned by
the Constitution between the States and the Federal Government.
On June 10, my subcommittee called the National Governors'
Association (NGA) to ascertain NGA's views of the new executive order.
Shockingly, NGA's Executive Director was totally unaware of the order.
NGA learned about it first from my staff!
Apparently, the Clinton-Gore White House had neither consulted with
any of the seven principal State and local interest groups prior to
issuance of the new order nor notified them about it after its
issuance. The way they went about this executive order belies any claim
that the Clinton Administration intends to consult with State and local
governments.
On July 17, leadership of ``the Big 7''--the governors, the state
legislatures, the cities, the counties, the mayors, the city/county
managers, and council of State governments--wrote the President
requesting that the new order be withdrawn. They wrote ``we feel that
Executive Order 13083 so seriously erodes federalism that we must
request its withdrawal,'' which should occur ``as quickly as
possible.''
Although the President has agreed ``to delay implementation of the
Executive Order . . . and to make changes where appropriate,'' at this
point, frankly, there is no change that will repair the damage to the
President's credibility that has resulted from the stealth issuance of
this order.
It takes a lot of nerve for a president, while out of the country, to
issue an order that completely reverses an 11-year commitment to the
States and gives federal regulators sweeping new justifications for
interfering with State affairs, but giving the States: no advance
notice of the order; no opportunity to comment; and no voice in a
decision that will drastically upset the constitutional balance of
power between the States and the federal government.
In this climate of bad faith, the States are extremely reluctant to
entrust their social, moral, and financial destiny to an Administration
that governs by midnight decrees issued on the fly.
Yesterday, I chaired a hearing to examine (1) the potential impacts
of President Clinton's Executive Order on Federalism on State and local
governments and (2) the need for a possible legislative solution to
address the concerns of State and local governments. This hearing
allowed key State and local elected officials to voice their concerns
and former and current Administration officials to express the
rationales for their Federalism executive orders.
To ensure that the States' constitutional rights and protections are
guaranteed, the only sure path at this stage is to enshrine the
principles of Federalism in law and not leave them to the President's
whim. By repealing the protections afforded in earlier executive orders
issued by President Reagan and reaffirmed by this President, President
Clinton has demonstrated that he cannot be trusted to defend the States
against an ever-expanding federal bureaucracy. Congress must take
responsibility and pass new legislation that will codify federalism
principles.
Vote yes on the Scarborough amendment.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment.
I happen to support the San Francisco policy. I believe that
companies should provide benefits to the domestic partners of their
employees. And I think it is reasonable for a local jurisdiction to
choose to award county contracts to companies whose practices conform
to local civil rights policies.
But it really doesn't matter what I think about this policy, or any
other * * * you think about it. The only opinion that matters is the
opinion of the citizens of San Francisco.
With all due respect to the gentleman from California, where did he
get the idea that Congress has the right to step in and nullify the
contracting decisions made by locally-elected leaders?
This Congress has told local governments what to do about a lot of
things. We have used federal grants to dictate local policies regarding
abortion and contraception, educational standards, and juvenile crime.
The list goes on and on.
Whatever one may think about these federal mandates, most of them can
claim at least some tenuous connection to the national interest.
But what possible national purpose can we have in telling the County
of San Francisco how to award its contracts? Next, we'll be placing
street lights and directing traffic.
I think that if members of Congress want to try their hand at local
government, they should run for mayor. Otherwise, they should content
themselves with governing the country.
We have no authority to tell the people of San Francisco--or any
other locality--whom they should select to perform their public
contracts. I know of no legitimate national interest that can justify
this kind of incursion into state and local prerogatives.
Many groups, including the National Association of Counties, have
expressed alarm over this amendment. It is a feeling we all should
share.
Let's defeat this outrageous amendment, and get back to the business
we were sent here to do.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I did not want to interfere with the progress of the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), but I did want to underline
the significance of this to Members.
As I understand it, we have now adopted an amendment that acts
against the President's Federalism order. That is relevant, because I
have been told, by looking at the work of the Committee on Rules, that
when we do the Commerce, Justice, State appropriation, an amendment
will be offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) which would
cancel an Executive Order involving the civil service and
discrimination and will also include this.
So I do want to make it clear now to Members that having adopted this
amendment today, which cancels the Federalism order, when the vote
comes on the amendment of the gentleman from Colorado which deals with
sexual orientation and the executive branch, it will have a part
dealing with Federalism which will be moot. That is, the Federalism
part of that amendment, of the Hefley amendment, will now not mean
anything. So the Hefley amendment is now back to its original form
before it was transmogrified by the Committee on Rules.
Thus, and I want to stress this again because it did get a little
complicated, it is a little late, people may be getting low blood sugar
and may not be paying attention, we now have adopted an amendment
which, to the extent that we can, cancels the President's Federalism
order. I was not in favor of that. I tried to yell loud, but nobody
heard me.
On the other hand, what it means is that when the Hefley amendment
comes before us, even though it will purport to deal both with the
question of sexual orientation in the Executive Order on the civil
service and with anti-Federalism, it will in fact be solely on sexual
orientation, because the Federalism part will be redundant and it will,
therefore, have no role whatsoever in the debate.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I do this as a courtesy to the House to give plenty of
notice as to what my motion to recommit will be, if we ever get to that
point tonight.
Let me explain briefly what it will be. There are provisions in this
bill which, in essence, prevent the Consumer Product Safety Commission
from enforcing new regulations with respect to fire retardant
furniture. Language was adopted to this bill which will prohibit the
enforcement of provisions that are designed to protect people from
flammable furniture. So I will simply be offering a motion to strike
the sentence beginning on line 7
[[Page H6574]]
on page 55 and strike section 425 of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I will be doing this, frankly, because I think this
proposal in the bill is masquerading under false pretenses. Supporters
of the provision in the bill will be saying, well, what is more
reasonable than simply providing more time for the study of the matter
before the Consumer Product Safety Commission can take up a new rule?
What I think would be more reasonable is that we quit allowing
lawyers to jerk this Congress around and get to the point of actually
protecting the public from a serious safety hazard.
I want to say, Mr. Chairman, this is going on governmentwide, whether
we are talking about consumer products and pajamas for children, or
whether we are talking about flammable furniture, or whether we are
talking about OSHA in its efforts to try to protect workers from
repetitive motion injuries. In each case, we have got smart law firms
in this town who put together a case on behalf of their clients. They
go to a friendly Member of Congress or a friendly committee or a
friendly Chamber of the Congress, and they say, ``Boys and girls, why
don't you help us out? Shield us from regulatory action.''
Well, when we shield them from regulatory action, we really expose
the general public and workers in this country to dangerous products,
dangerous work facilities, and the result is injured workers, the
result is injured children, and in some cases we have the death of
children and the death of consumers.
So, Mr. Chairman, it just seems to me that this Congress is going to
have to make a choice. We are either going to stand with the law firms
that advocate for these special interests or we are going to stand for
the public that we are supposed to represent.
So, I will be offering that motion at the proper time and wanted to
give the House notice of that fact now.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment Number 20 which would stop the
promulgation of the copper rule. I am not going to offer it, because of
my concern of what it would do in some places where the copper rule
needs to be applied.
I have heard the assurances of the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the
gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) of the appropriations
subcommittee, and I take those assurances for cooperation. And next
year, I will be back to cut the $15 million out of the administrator's
office, a very tempting target, if necessary.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, very quickly, the language of this bill on the Kyoto
Protocol was wonderful. I wanted to engage in a quick colloquy with its
author, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), about a couple
of the provisions in that language.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, do those activities include
drafting, preparing, or developing rules, orders or decrees, or work
such as preparing notices or other language or studies that would be
used to justify rules, orders, or decrees that would implement the
Kyoto Protocol?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, the
gentleman is correct.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, would this language also prohibit the
finalization of any rules----
Point of Order
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, we did not hear that exchange. I would like
to have the question repeated.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. If the Committee would be in
order, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and all gentlemen and
gentlewomen deserve the opportunity to be heard.
If the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) would repeat the
question.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, the question was: Do those activities
regarded in the Knollenberg amendment include drafting, preparing, or
developing rules, orders, or decrees, or work such as preparing notices
other language or studies that would be used to justify rules, orders,
or other decrees that would implement the Kyoto Protocol?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Yes, those regulatory activities would be precluded.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, would this language also prohibit the
finalization of any rules, regulations, or orders implementing the
Kyoto Protocol prior to Senate ratification, whether or not authorized
by current law?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, yes; and when and if the protocol were
ratified after full and open discussion by the Senate, these provisions
would be void.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I would ask what this funding restriction
would not do. Does it limit funding for balanced education activities
that are not propaganda advocacy or lobbying?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. No, it does not.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, what about legitimate climate science and
research and development activities?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman that those
activities are still funded and encouraged. In fact, we have increased
funding for the global climate change research account within this bill
by $10 million.
Mr. McINTOSH. What about existing programs and ongoing activities to
carry out the United States voluntary commitments under the 1992
Climate Change Convention?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. The United States will live up to its commitments.
Mr. McINTOSH. So what we are really talking about here is just
stopping action by EPA to implement the protocol prior to ratification,
not legitimate programs or education or research?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman again is correct. And we
have good reason to be concerned about EPA's back-door regulatory
actions. EPA has repeatedly sought to expand its authority to restrict
greenhouse gas emissions where no such authority exists.
Mr. McINTOSH. We cannot allow EPA to circumvent our constitutional
process through such action.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG: I agree. The Kyoto Protocol is a flawed treaty. Our
only safeguard against a flawed treaty is our constitutional process.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, the language of the gentleman from
Michigan is crucial to prevent back-door regulatory implementation. I
thank the gentleman for bringing it.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank my colleagues,
Representatives Obey and McIntosh, for their discussions on the House
floor regarding the fine line between education and advocacy efforts
conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I have ongoing
concerns that some of the EPA's education activities at times crossed
that line and became advocacy efforts.
Mr. Obey offered an apt description of education when he explained to
Mr. McIntosh during the debate over his amendment, and that his
amendment clarifying the DPA's ability to conduct educational outreach
was meant to allow only those activities that were objective in nature
and presented both sides of the issue in a factual manner.
In my view, much of the EPA's past problems have stemmed from its
inability to present information in an objective and balanced manner.
If information is presented without allowing the airing of both sides,
it ceases to be education, and becomes advocacy. There is a fine line
between education and advocacy, and the EPA must recognize this
distinction and refrain from crossing this line.
So, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for helping me to make this
very important point. It is my hope that the Obey amendment will help
clarify what is the necessary role of the Administration, and compel
the EPA to promote balance and objectivity in all its future
activities.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to the colloquy that just took
place and I want to point out that that colloquy may reflect the views
of the two gentlemen who entered into it, but I do not think they
accurately reflect the views of the House.
{time} 1800
Last week the House adopted an amendment to the Knollenberg language
that came out of the Committee on Appropriations, an amendment offered
by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). The Obey amendment made it
quite clear that the EPA would not be precluded from doing studies and
[[Page H6575]]
educational efforts, that the House did not want the Knollenberg
language to be interpreted so narrowly, and so I do not know whether
that colloquy was an attempt to make some legislative history, but I
just want to use this opportunity to point out that I do not think it
reflects the views of the House.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that the only use of any
colloquy, if they have any use at all, is to explain legislative
history. If readers of the Record want to know what the legislative
history is, they need to read more than the comments of two Members of
the Congress who agree with each other, who get up for 2 minutes and
think that they have taken a public opinion poll.
The fact is that the Knollenberg amendment has been modified by the
Obey amendment, and it seems to me that there is no accurate
description of what that amendment means, as amended, unless all
parties to the action actually have a consensus.
Mr. WAXMAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that
the gentleman is absolutely correct. I do not think that the
Knollenberg language, as amended by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) would preclude the EPA from developing any information they need
to permit an adequate ratification debate and to express their views on
such a debate on behalf of the administration.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, let me say it certainly was not my
intention and the intention of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Knollenberg) to modify the legislative intent as expressed by this body
with the Obey amendment. There was much debate during that time about
those activities that would be allowed and the difficulty of defining
the line and when it became advocacy.
I think the debate that we had on the House floor the other night,
the gentleman is correct, accurately reflects the legislative history
regarding that amendment, and that is incorporated into the Knollenberg
amendment.
We were merely exploring other provisions, not intending to rewrite
any of the legislative history regarding the Obey amendment.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his
clarification. I do want to point out that some of the colloquy that I
heard reflected his individual views, and it did not reflect how I
interpret Knollenberg language, as amended by Obey, and should not be
used for any legal interpretation of the Knollenberg amendment as so
modified.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 501, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed
in the following order:
Amendment No. 5 offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer);
amendment No. 22 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey);
amendment No. 32 offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Hilleary).
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Roemer
The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Roemer) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate 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''.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 501, the Chair announces
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 109,
noes 323, not voting 2, as follows:
[Roll No. 345]
AYES--109
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Brown (OH)
Camp
Carson
Chabot
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Danner
DeFazio
Delahunt
Dingell
Doyle
Duncan
Ensign
Evans
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Ganske
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Holden
Inglis
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kildee
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
LaFalce
Largent
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
LoBiondo
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
McHugh
McInnis
Meehan
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Myrick
Nadler
Neumann
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Owens
Pallone
Paul
Paxon
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Ramstad
Rivers
Roemer
Roukema
Sanders
Sanford
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Shays
Shuster
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tierney
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Wamp
Woolsey
Yates
NOES--323
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Castle
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefner
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kilpatrick
Kim
King (NY)
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lofgren
Lucas
Maloney (CT)
Manton
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Olver
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rodriguez
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Shimkus
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Walsh
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
[[Page H6576]]
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--2
Gonzalez
Young (FL)
{time} 1823
Messrs. SAXTON, JACKSON of Illinois, CRAPO, Ms. GRANGER and Mr. NEY
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no''.
Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. STARK and Ms. KAPTUR changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Hinchey
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 146,
noes 285, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 346]
AYES--146
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bereuter
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Camp
Castle
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crane
Davis (IL)
Delahunt
DeLauro
Doyle
Ehlers
Engel
English
Ewing
Fattah
Fawell
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gilman
Goodling
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hastert
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Holden
Houghton
Hulshof
Hyde
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
LaHood
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDade
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McIntosh
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Moakley
Mollohan
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Paxon
Payne
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Porter
Poshard
Quinn
Rangel
Rivers
Roemer
Rothman
Roukema
Rush
Sanders
Saxton
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Solomon
Souder
Stabenow
Stupak
Sununu
Tierney
Towns
Upton
Visclosky
Walsh
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Wise
Yates
NOES--285
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Fowler
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kim
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
LaTourette
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
Lofgren
Lucas
Luther
Martinez
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Pastor
Paul
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickering
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rodriguez
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Scott
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torres
Traficant
Turner
Vento
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--3
Gonzalez
Velazquez
Young (FL)
{time} 1832
Messrs. CLAY, KUCINICH and CHAMBLISS changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Mr. EHLERS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 32 Offered By Mr. Hilleary
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a five-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231,
noes 200, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 347]
AYES--231
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burton
Callahan
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clayton
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Klug
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
[[Page H6577]]
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Pappas
Parker
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOES--200
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Cox
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Dreier
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Granger
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hyde
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E.B.
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Porter
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rangel
Riggs
Rivers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Sununu
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--3
Gonzalez
Velazquez
Young (FL)
{time} 1840
Mrs. CLAYTON changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will rise informally to receive a
message.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) assumed the Chair.
____________________