[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.

                          ____________________